Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPUD 05-19; ADAMS STREET SUBDIVISION; Planned Unit Development - Residential (PUD)„...,,.. fp *4.a."S .,'.--'T=-,C r-.4.9,. 11 ,'CITY OF CARLSBAD LAND USE REVIEW APPLICATION 1)APPLICATIONS APPLIED FOR:(CHECK BOXES) (FOR (FOR DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT USE ONLY)_USE ONLY) O Administrative Permit 0 Planned Industrial Permit O Administrative Variance 0 Planning Commission Determination O Coastal Development Permit 0 Precise Development Plan O Conditional Use Permit 0 Redevelopment Permit O Condominium Permit 0 Site Development Plan uji\JAAdaviAEiEnvironmental Impact Assessment I Special Use Permit —Sae on-LT O General Plan Amendment 0 Specific Plan o Hillside Development Permit HOP (n--LaLl Tentative-Paw:al-Map Obtain from Engineering Department O Local Coastal Program Amendment 0 Tentative Tract Map O Master Plan 0 Variance ElNon-Residential Planned Development 0 Zone Change oPlanned Development Permit pa)05_19 o List other applications not specified 2)ASSESSOR PARCEL NO(S).:206-200-01 3)PROJECT NAME:Adams Street 2 Unit Subdivision 4)BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:3 lot subdivision of 1.08 acre parcel:2 single family home lots and 1 open space lot 5)OWNER NAME (Print or Type)6)APPLICANT NAME (Print or Type) Benjamin &Eunice Medina, David Graham Planning Systems MAILING ADDRESS MAILING ADDRESS PO Box 1766 1530 Faraday Ave #100 CITY AND STATE ZIP TELEPHONE CITY AND STATE ZIP TELEPHONE Bonita, CA 91908 Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 931-0780 kiootri-h EMAIL ADDRESS:EMAIL ADDRESS:31Yilas@planningsystems.net I CERTIFY THAT I AM THE LEGAL OWNER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE I CERTIFY THAT I AM THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE INFORMATION IS TRU AND CORRECT TO E BST ,.OF MY 0 R AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND KNO .-II GE.A Ich--•ECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.' •i U a)A/0.1`)Vv\y„itiqt(-a ._.._.{Put.ASIGNATURE DATE SIGNATURE DAT 7)BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION Southeasterly 127'of Lot 5 &that portion of Lot 6 in Block D ofBella Vista, in City ofCarlsbad, County ofSan Diego, State of California, Map No. 2152, Filed March 7,1929 NOTE:A PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRING MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS BE FILED, MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO 3:30 P.M. A PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRING ONLY ONE APPLICATION BE FILED, MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO 4:00 P.M. Form 14 Rev.12/04 0 e vo51D---PAGE 1 OF 5 *I) 8)LOCATION OF PROJECT:Adams Street STREET ADDRESS ON THE South SIDE OF Adams Street (NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, WEST)(NAME OF STREET) BETWEEN Highland Drive AND Park Drive (NAME OF STREET)(NAME OF STREET) 9)LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1 10)PROPOSED NUMBER OF LOTS 3 11)NUMBER OF EXISTING 0 12)PROPOSED NUMBER 2RESIDENTIAL UNITS OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS 13)TYPE OF SUBDIVISION MS 14)PROPOSED IND OFFICE/0 15)PROPOSED COMM 0SQUARE FOOTAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE 16)PERCENTAGE OF PROPOSED 17)PROPOSED INCREASE 20 18)PROPOSED SEWER 2PROJECTIN OPEN SPACE IN ADT USAGE IN EDU 19)GROSS SITE ACREAGE 1.08 20)EXISTING GENERAL RLM 21)PROPOSED GENERAL RLMPLANPLAN DESIGNATION 22)EXISTING ZONING R-1 '23)PROPOSED ZONING R-1 24)HABITAT IMPACTS Y /NIF YES, ASSIGN HMP # 25)IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING THIS APPLICATION IT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR MEMBERS OF CITY STAFF,PLANNING COMMISSIONERS,DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS OR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO INSPECT AND ENTER THE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION.I/WE CONSENT TO EN OSE SIGNATURE SEA— FOR CITY USE ONLY 411tk As.le-ck tt -Lec.S- FEE COMPUTATION RECEIVED APPLICATION TYPE FEE REQUIRED SD CITY OF CARLSBAD PLAN N ;NC;DEPT DATE STAMP APPLICATION RECEIVED RECEIVED BY: TOTAL FEE REQUIRED 5410(-4-0 Form 14 Rev.12/04 PAGE 2 OF 5 Don Neu -Adams Street Subdivision Page 1 From:"Paul Klukas-Carlsbad" <pklukas@planningsystems.net> To:"Don Neu" <dneu@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date:11/29/2005 6:49:17 AM Subject:Adams Street Subdivision Don:I am agent for the Adams St. PUD subdivision owned by Drs. Medina and Graham.This email is to confirm our recent telephone conversation in which we agreed that the time clock for City review of the completeness of the application would not begin until the date that Planning Systems submits a revised set of plans. The original application set was submitted on Nov.16.However it was brought to our attention that a couple of engineering standards were not met by the plan, and thus we proceeded with an immediate redesign of these areas. Please proceed with City Staff review of the project on the date that we submit the revised set of plans. Thanks for your patience on this matter. Paul J. Klukas PLANNING SYSTEMS 1530 Faraday Ave. #100 Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 931 -0780 ph (760) 931-5744 fax pklukas@planningsystems.net tem. %ore PROJECT DESCRIPTION/EXPLANATION PROJECT NAME:Adams Street 2 Unit Subdivision APPLICANT NAME:Planning Systems Please describe fully the proposed project by application type.Include any details necessary to adequately explain the scope and/or operation of the proposed project. You may also include any background information and supporting statements regarding the reasons for,or appropriateness of,the application.Use an addendum sheet if necessary. Description/Explanation: The proposed project involves a Tentative Parcel Map, Special Use Permit, Hillside Development Permit,and Planned Development Permit to allow for the subdivision of a single 1.08 acre parcel (206-200-01) located on Adams Street.The parcel will be subdivided into three (3) separate lots.Lot 1 will house a two-story 4,923 square foot custom home.Lot 2 will house a two-story 3,933 square foot custom home and Lot 3 will remain in open space.The parcel is currently zoned as One-Family Residential (R- 1 -15,000).The current General Plan designation is Low-Medium Density (RLM).No change is proposed to either the zoning or general plan designation. The parcel is currently undeveloped and contains both Coastal Sage Scrub and Non- native Grassland.The site is located within Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) Zone 1 in the northwest quadrant ofthe City of Carlsbad. Surrounding properties include single family development to the north and east, Agua Hedionda Lagoon to the south and a vacant property to the west. • • • Project Description 10/96 Page 1 of 1 • Now EXPANDED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM -PART I CASE NO: DATE: BACKGROUND 1.CASE NAME: Adams Street 2 Unit Subdivision 2.LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 3.CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Planning Department Staff (760) 602-4600 4.PROJECT LOCATION: The project is located at the north side of Adams Street between Highland Drive and Park Drive in the northwest quadrant of the City of Carlsbad. 5.PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: Planning Systems 1530 Faraday Ave Suite 100 Carlsbad, CA 92008 6.GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Low Medium (RLM) 7.ZONING: One —Family Residential (R-1) 8.OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): None known C 9.PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: The proposed project involves a Tentative Parcel Map, Special Use Permit, Hillside Development Permit, and Planned Development Permit to allow for the subdivision of a single 1.08 acre parcel (206-200-01) located on Adams Street.The parcel will be subdivided into three (3) separate lots. Lot 1 will house a two-story approximately 4,923 square foot custom home.Lot 2 will house a two-story approximately 3,933 square foot custom home and Lot 3 will remain in open space. The parcel is currently zoned as One-Family Residential (R-1 -15,000).The current General Plan designation is Low-Medium Density (RLM).No change is proposed to either the zoning or General Plan designation. The parcel is currently undeveloped and contains both Coastal Sage Scrub and Annual Grassland vegetation communities.The site is located within Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) Zone 1 in the northwest quadrant of the City of Carlsbad. Surrounding properties include single family development to the north and east,Agua Hedionda Lagoon to the south and a vacant property (Zoned R-1) to the west. 2 Rev. 07/26/02 Sow'vori. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated"as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [7 Aesthetics n Geology/Soils nNoise TiAgricultural Resources 7 Hazards/Hazardous Materials 7 Population and Housing M Air Quality Fl Hydrology/Water Quality 7 Public Services MBiological Resources Land Use and Planning 7 Recreation 7 Cultural Resources n Mineral Resources Transportation/Circulation Mandatory Findings of Significance 7 Utilities &Service Systems ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3,Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment.The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist.This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. •A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question.A "No Impact"answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved.A "No Impact"answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. •"Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. •"Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated"applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. •"Potentially Significant Impact"is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly adverse. 3 Rev. 07/26/02 '44'41 tome •Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but all potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project,then no additional environmental document is required. •When "Potentially Significant Impact"is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIRifthesignificant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations"has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. •A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment. •If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant,and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review.In this case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. •An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact"is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances:(1)the potentially significant adverse effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the adverse impact to less than significant;(2)a "Statement of Overriding Considerations"for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR;(3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION.Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant. 4 Rev. 07/03/02 Ce .wise Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).Potentially (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.)Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact I.AESTHETICS -Would the project: a)Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b)Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to,trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? c)Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d)Create a new source of substantial light and glare,0which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II.AGRICULTRAL RESOURCES -(In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model-1997 prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.)Would the project: a)Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? b)Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or 111aWilliamson Act contract? c)Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? III.AIR QUALITY -(Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.)Would the project: a)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b)Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 5 Rev. 07/03/02 1%re Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).Potentially! (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.)Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c)Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of 1 - 1 0 1 - 1any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d)Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 1 - 1concentrations? e)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial 1 - 1numberofpeople? IV.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a)Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or 1 - 1throughhabitatmodifications,on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b)Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies,or regulations or by California Department ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c)Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool,coastal,etc.)through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? d)Interfere substantially with the movement of any 1 - 1 1 - 1native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e)Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f)Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? 6 Rev. 07/03/02 Sw.e.e Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).Potentially (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.)Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact g)Impact tributary areas that are environmentally 7 7 7sensitive? V.CULTURAL RESOURCES —Would the project: a)Cause a substantial adverse change in the F - 1 7significanceofahistoricalresourceasdefinedin §15064.5? b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi-7 Z 7canceofanarcheologicalresourcepursuantto §15064.5? c)Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi-7cal resource or site or unique geologic feature? d)Disturb any human remains, including those interred 7 Floutsideofformal cemeteries? VI.GEOLOGY AND SOILS -Would the project: a)Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including the risk of loss,injury or death involving: i.Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as 7 7 Z 1 - 1delineatedonthemostrecentAlquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii.Strong seismic ground shaking?FT iii.Seismic-related ground failure, including 7 0 Z riliquefaction? iv.Landslides?0 7 7 b)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of 0 0 Z 7topsoil? c)Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,n 11 Z 0orthatwouldbecomeunstableasaresultofthe project,and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? 7 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).Potentially (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.)Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact d)Be located on expansive soils,as defined in Table 18 [El-1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? e)Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the [2] use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? VII.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous materials? b)Create a significant hazard to the public or 1 - 1environmentthroughreasonablyforeseeableupset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c)Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d)Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment? e)For a project within an airport land use plan,or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g)Impair implementation of or physically interfere with 1 - 1anadoptedemergencyresponseplanoremergency evacuation plan? 8 Rev. 07/03/02 Near Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).Potentially (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.)Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact h)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -Would the project: a)Violate any water quality standards or waste 1 - 1discharge requirements? b)Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c)Impacts to groundwater quality? d)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern ofthe 1 - 1siteorarea,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off- site? e)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern ofthe site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume)of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on-or off- site? 0 Create or contribute runoff water,which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources ofpolluted runoff? g)Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? h)Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? 9 Rev. 07/03/02 ,.....,....."., %my'NIS Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).Potentially (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.)Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact i)Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures,ri 0 C Elwhich would impede or redirect flood flows? j)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of [1 n 0 Elossinjuryordeathinvolvingflooding,including flooding as a result of the failure ofa levee or dam? k)Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?n n F E 1)Increased erosion (sediment)into receiving surface 1 - 1 Z ri riwaters. m)Increased pollutant discharges (e.g.,heavy metals, 1-1 _Z 17pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients,oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g.,temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? n)Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or pi Z I - 1wetland waters) during or following construction? o)Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired 7 Z 7water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? p)The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater 7 7receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? IX.LANDUSE AND PLANNING -Would the project: a)Physically divide an established community?ri Z 7 b)Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or 7 17 1 -7regulationofanagencywith jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,local coastal program,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c)Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation 0plan or natural community conservation plan? _ X.MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a)Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral 0 0 0 Zresource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? 10 Rev. 07/03/02 tie*--.,...., Ihimir N.'S Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).Potentially (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.)Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b)Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan,or other land use plan? XI.NOISE -Would the project result in: a)Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels 7 Zin excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? b)Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive 7 7groundbournevibrationorgroundbournenoise levels? c)A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise Zlevelsintheprojectvicinityabovelevelsexisting without the project? d)A substantial temporary or periodic increase in Z 7ambientnoiselevelsintheprojectvicinityabove levels existing without the project? e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, _ would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XI!.POPULATION AND HOUSING -Would the project: a)Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example,by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly (for example,through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b)Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c)Displace substantial numbers ofpeople, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 11 Rev. 07/03/02 _- %toe Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).Potentially (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.)Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XIII.PUBLIC SERVICES a)Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities,a need for new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i)Fire protection? ii)Police protection? iii)Schools? iv)Parks? v)Other public facilities? XIV.RECREATION a)Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b)Does the project include recreational facilities or 1 - 1 n n [ZIrequire the construction or expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV.TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -Would the project: a)Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at intersections)? b)Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 12 Rev. 07/03/02 CNord Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).Potentially (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.)Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c)Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including 7 Z 0eitheranincreaseintrafficlevelsorachangein _ location that results in substantial safety risks? d)Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature LI 7 1 -7(e.g.,sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e)Result in inadequate emergency access?7 7 f)Result in insufficient parking capacity?7 7 Fl g)Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or programs 7 7supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn- outs, bicycle racks)? XVI.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS -Would the project: a)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the 7 Z 0applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?____ b)Require or result in the construction of new water or 7wastewatertreatmentfacilitiesorexpansionof existing facilities,the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? c)Require or result in the construction of new storm 7 7 7waterdrainagefacilitiesorexpansionofexisting facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d)Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the 7 TI Z 7projectfrom existing entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e)Result in a determination by the wastewater C Fl 7treatmentprovider,which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f)Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted 1 -7 n Flcapacitytoaccommodatetheproject's solid waste disposal needs? g)Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and 7 0 Flregulations related to solid waste? 13 Rev. 07/03/02 %se '.bare Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).Potentially (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.)Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a)Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b)Does the project have impacts that are individually F1limited,but cumulatively considerable?("Cumula- tively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future projects?) c)Does the project have environmental effects,which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 14 Rev. 07/03/02 opp.. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The following is a technical explanation for each answer provided in the checklist provided on the previous pages.After each question is posed,a summary of the existing conditions is presented, followed by an analysis of potential project impacts, the finding and appropriate factual justification.In cases where the finding is "Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated", the finding is followed by a description ofthe mitigation measures that would reduce the impact to below a level of significance. Information sources are cited for each discussion. I.AESTHETICS -Would the project: a)Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Existing Condition:The subject is located within the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone.A view to the site exists from across Agua Hedionda Lagoon.Additionally,site lines from the north cross the site on their way to the lagoon. Environmental Evaluation:The subject project will be visible primarily from motorists on Adams Street and from persons viewing the site from the south across Agua Hedionda Lagoon.Views from the north will be protected by limiting building heights on the subdivision.No height shall be greater than the grade ofthe surface ofAdams Street.This height is consistent with the height of other buildings in the area. Finding:Less than significant impact —The proposed project will not significantly impact the viewshed from either the surrounding housing, from Adams Street or from across Agua Hedionda Lagoon.Temporary impacts associated with construction of the project will not be significant.The project will conform to the City of Carlsbad Scenic Preservation Overlay Corridor Guidelines for construction and setbacks.Therefore, the project will not have a substantially adverse impact on any scenic vista. b)Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? Existing condition:No trees or rock outcroppings will be impacted by the proposed project.No buildings, including historic buildings,are located in or adjacent to the site.The area of proposed impact is not located within the viewshed of a State scenic highway or any State highway that is designated by CalTrans as eligible for listing as a scenic highway. Environmental Evaluation:Since no trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings, and no State scenic highways are in the vicinity of the proposed project, no significant impact to such resources is anticipated. Finding:No impact -The site is not within the viewshed ofa state scenic highway or any state highway that is designated by CalTrans as eligible for listing.Please also refer to the preceding response. c)Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 15 Rev. 07/03/02 444.0 Existing condition:The existing visual character of the site is that of an undeveloped parcel, surrounded by additional undeveloped parcels and single family homes.Annual non-native grassland and coastal sage scrub vegetation habitats occur onsite. Environmental Evaluation:Permanent visual impacts ofthe proposed project will involve the construction of two houses.Temporary impacts associated with construction will be short-term and not significant.Nearly half of the proposed project site will remain in open space.Therefore, it is concluded that the project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Finding:Less than significant impact —Please also refer to response I(a), above. d)Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Existing condition:The subject area contains no lights and produces no glare at the present time. Environmental Evaluation:The proposed project will change the appearance ofthe subject site from an undeveloped parcel to a developed site with two custom homes.Light and glare from the proposed project is anticipated to be not significantly greater than that projected from other uses in the surrounding area.The proposed development modifications will involve an increase in urban appearance, but not dissimilar from the existing uses along Adams Street.This increase should not however, result in significant new sources of light and/or glare, and will not significantly impact overall views to and from the site. The project will submit a lighting plan to the Planning Department for review for consistency with City policies as part ofthe approval process. Finding:Less than significant impact —It is concluded that the proposed project will not result in a new source ofsubstantial light and glare and will not significantly affect day or nighttime views in the area. II.AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a)Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Existing condition:The subject site is not designated as "Farmland of Local Importance" on the "California Department ofConservation —San Diego County Important Farmland" exhibit dated September, 2002.The site is currently undeveloped and no agriculture is (or has ever been) practiced on the subject site. Environmental Evaluation:The area which would be impacted by the proposed project is not designated as "Farmland of Local Importance" on the "California Department of Conservation —San Diego County Important Farmland" exhibit dated September, 2002.The property is not encumbered by a Williamson Act contract. Finding:No impact —The proposed project will not convert prime farmland to non-agricultural uses. The site is currently undeveloped and no farming takes place on the subject site. b)Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a Williamson Act contract? 16 Rev. 07/03/02 %le Existing condition:The subject project is located on property that is zoned One —Family Residential (R-1).No change is proposed.No agricultural operations are presently conducted in the area ofthe proposed project improvements.The subject property is not encumbered by a Williamson Act contract. Environmental Evaluation:The property is not zoned for agricultural uses, and is not encumbered by a Williamson Act contract. Finding:No impact —Please refer to the preceding response. The site is on property not established for agricultural uses.No effect on agricultural uses will result from implementation of the project.The property is not zoned for agricultural uses, and no Williamson Act contract encumbers the property. c)Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? Existing condition:The subject site is currently undeveloped and no farmland presently exists in the area for which the proposed projects urban improvements are proposed. Environmental Evaluation:The subject property does not contain prime farmland, unique farmland or farmland of statewide importance.Farming operations in the City of Carlsbad or State of California would not be affected through implementation ofthe proposed plan amendments. Finding:No impact -The proposed project will not affect any existing or identified farmland, nor will it cause changes to any factors, such as water supply, access, or drainage that would affect any active agricultural use.As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated with respect to agricultural resources. III.AIR QUALITY -Would the project: a)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Existing condition:The existing use of the site is an undeveloped parcel. The site produces no significant air pollution at this time. The project area has a warm-summer Mediterranean climate characterized by warm, dry summers and mild, wet winters.The dominant meteorological feature affecting the region is the Pacific High Pressure Zone, which produces prevailing winds from the west to northwest.These winds tend to blow pollutants away from the coast toward the inland areas.Consequently, air quality near the coast is generally better than that which occurs at the base ofthe coastal mountain range. Fluctuations in the strength and pattern of winds from the Pacific High Pressure Zone interacting with the daily local cycle produce periodic temperature inversions that influence the dispersal or containment of air pollutants in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA)was enacted in 1970 and amended in 1977 and 1990 for the purposes of protecting and enhancing the quality of the nation's air resources to benefit the public's health, welfare and productivity.In 1971, in order to achieve the purposes of the CAA, the EPA developed primary and secondary national ambient air quality standards.Six pollutants ofprimary concern were designated; ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead and suspended particulates.A proposed project's air quality impacts must be addressed relative to compliance with the standards adopted pursuant to these pollutants. 17 Rev. 07/03/02 406.% *iture The proposed project is located in the northwestern portion of the SDAB and will be required to comply with all San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD) Rules and Regulations.Air emissions will be produced during construction, however this construction period will be temporary in nature. The SDAB is a federal and state non-attainment area for ozone (03). and a state non-attainment area for respirable particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM10). The applicable attainment plan for these criteria pollutants is the Regional Air Quality Strategy, which is prepared and administered by the San Diego APCD. Environmental Evaluation:Short-term air quality impacts during construction of the 1.08 acre project would occur from heavy equipment exhaust emissions, construction-related trips by workers, delivery trucks, and material hauling trucks, and from associated fugitive dust generation. Heavy construction equipment is usually diesel-powered. In general, emissions from diesel-powered equipment contain more nitrogen oxide compounds (NOx), sulfur oxide compounds (SOx), and PM10. and less carbon monoxide (CO) and reactive organic compounds (ROCs), than emissions from gasoline-powered engines.NOx compounds and ROCs are precursors to ozone formation. Approximately 1,656 cubic yards of finish grading will result from the proposed project.466 cubic yardsof fill will be exported from the site.Nonetheless, construction is anticipated to involve equipment such as tractors, scrapers, backhoes, cranes, graders, dump and concrete trucks, and miscellaneous tractor-trailer delivery trucks.The type of equipment that may be found at any one time at the site during the construction period will vary.The construction operation is anticipated to extend 6 to 10 months in duration, although heavy machinery will not be in operation during this entire period.Short term sourcesofconstruction-related air emissions include (a) fugitive dust from grading activities, (b) construction exhaust, and (c) construction related by worker commute, delivery trucks, and material-hauling trucks. The APCD does not have specific significance thresholds for air pollutants generated during construction. However, the APCD does specify Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) Trigger Levels for review of new stationary sources. Although these trigger levels are specified for stationary sources, they are used here to assess the potential impacts due to air emissions during project construction. The AQIA construction Trigger Levels are defined as: NOx 250 pounds per day SOx 250 pounds per day CO 550 pounds per day PM10 100 pounds per day No AQIA Trigger Levels specified for ROCs have been adopted.If anticipated project emissions exceed any of these Trigger Levels,a more detailed Air Quality Impact Analysis may be required by the APCD. For this evaluation, project construction air emissions were estimated using the California Air Resources Board Urbemis7G version 3.2 air emission estimation program. The Urbemis7G program does not include emission factors for SOx compounds. The equipment emission factors used in Urbemis7G are the same as those found in the South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook, and the Handbook does include emission factors for SOx compounds.A comparison of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook NOx and SOx compound emission factors reveals that the SOx emission factors are consistently less than the corresponding NOx emission factors for the same types of equipment. Therefore, it can be concluded that the total SOx emissions from a project will be less than the total NOx emissions from that project. 18 Rev. 07/03/02 itrie The San Diego APCD Trigger Levels for NOx and SOx compounds are the same (250 pounds per day). Consequently, for this assessment it can be concluded that if the total NOx emissions projected by Urbemis7G are less than the AQIA Trigger Levels, then the total SOx emissions will also be below the Trigger Levels. As indicated, the amount and types of equipment on-site at any one time during the construction periodwillvary.This assessment conservatively assumes that all of the projected equipment could be working on-site simultaneously. Under this assumption, the maximum projected daily air emissions during construction would be: NOx 158 pounds per day SOx <158 pounds per day CO 92 pounds per day PM10 26 pounds per day Regarding vehicular emissions from the proposed development, the air quality analyses identify motor vehicles as the primary source of emissions associated with development projects such as the proposed project.The long-term vehicular trips to and from the project may contribute significant amounts of air pollutant emissions. At buildout, the proposed project will consist of 2 single family homes, with projected traffic generation as follows: Land Use ADT 2 single family homes 20 ADT Finding:Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated —The project is located within a basin that has a nonattainment status and the project would contribute pollutants, thereby having a cumulatively significant air quality impact unless mitigation measures are adopted.Controls for construction equipment and procedures such as dust control during construction are regulated by the Air Pollution Control District (ACPD).The project is required to comply with all APCD Rules and Regulations.All project construction is required to incorporate best management practices to reduce dust and air pollution impacts.Compliance with these mitigation measures will result in less than significant impacts to the applicable air quality plan. b)Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Existing condition:The property is in a non-attainment status area, and the proposed project would contribute additional pollution emissions.The site is currently undeveloped and produces no significant pollution at this time. Environmental Evaluation:Please refer to the preceding technical evaluation in Section III(a). Finding:Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated -Emission controls for construction equipment and procedures such as dust control during construction are regulated by the Air Pollution Control District (ACPD).The project is required to comply with all APCD Rules and Regulations.Any air emissions produced during construction would be temporary.Compliance with these mitigation measures will result in less than significant impacts to the air quality standards. 19 Rev. 07/03/02 00". c)Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air qualitystandard? Existing condition:The property is in a non-attainment status area, and the proposed project would contribute additional pollution emissions.The site is currently undeveloped and produces no significant pollution at this time. Environmental Evaluation:Please refer to the technical evaluation in Section III(a).The project would contribute to pollution emissions however it is consistent with the City of Carlsbad General Plan,the City of Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance, and the City of Carlsbad Master Environmental Impact Report(MEIR 93-01). Finding:Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated -Emission controls for construction equipment and procedures such as dust control during construction are regulated by the Air Pollution Control District (ACPD).The project is required to comply with all APCD Rules and Regulations.Any air emissions produced during construction would be temporary.Compliance with these mitigation measures will result in less than significant impacts to the air quality standards. d)Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Existing condition:No sensitive air quality receptors are located near the subject site. Environmental Evaluation:Please refer to evaluation at III(a).The project would not alter wind patterns, moisture levels or temperatures in the area. Finding:No impact —No sensitive receptors are located in the area and thus, no exposure to substantial pollution concentrations will result from implementation ofthe proposed project. e)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Existing condition:The site is currently undeveloped and does not contain objectionable odors under the existing condition. Environmental Evaluation:Urban development ofa two single family homes has not been shown to result in the creation of objectionable odors.There is no evidence that the proposed project will be any different than those previously analyzed. Finding:No Impact —No significant odors are anticipated from the proposed project. IV.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a)Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Existing condition:The subject site is located wholly within an area that has never been developed although regular vegetation thinning for fire break has taken place.The site contains annual non-native grassland and coastal sage scrub. 20 Rev. 07/03/02 '4klioi ....0 Environmental Evaluation:The project site is an undeveloped parcel.A biological assessment of the site has been prepared by Planning Systems, dated 11/14/05.Biological resources on the site consist of annual non-native grassland and coastal sage scrub.Impacts to biological resources resulting from implementation ofthe project are as follows: Plant Community Total impacted Preserved HMP Required Acres Acres Acres Mitigation Mitigation Ratio Acres Coastal sage scrub 0.84 0.27 0.56 2:1 0.54 Non-native grassland 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.5:1 0.14 (Fee) Disturbed 0.02 0.02 Fee Fee Fee Open Water/Beach 0.01 0.00 0.01 --0.00 TOTAL 1.15 0.57 0.57 0.68 Finding:Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated -Direct impacts to sensitive vegetation as defined in the City ofCarlsbad Habitat Management Plan will occur through implementation ofthe subject project as identified above.Mitigation for such impacts is indicated as follows: Plant Community Impacted I-IMP Mitigation Required On-site Acres Ratio Mitigation Mitigation Coastal sage scrub 0.27 2:1 0.54 0.56 Non-native grassland 0.28 0.5:1 0.14 (Fee)0.00 Disturbed 0.02 Fee Fee 0.00 Open Water/Beach 0.00 --0.00 0.01 Developed --Fee Fee 0.55 TOTAL 0.57 0.68 1.12 b)Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Existing condition:Please refer to explanation of existing condition Section IV(a).No impacts to riparian, aquatic or wetland habitats exist onsite or will result from implementation of the proposed project. Environmental Evaluation:No impacts to wetlands vegetation would result from implementation of the project. Finding:No Impact -No direct impacts to sensitive wetland, riparian or aquatic vegetation will occur through implementation of the subject project.HMP compliance with regard to CSS impacts and mitigation is required pursuant to City of Carlsbad regulations. c)Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? Existing condition:No direct filling, hydrological interruption or other impacts to "waters of the U.S."are anticipated through implementation of the subject project. 21 Rev. 07/03/02 %awe Nom" Environmental Evaluation:No impact to wetlands or "waters" is anticipated from the project. Finding:No impact -The project will be developed in an area that does not contain any federally protected wetlands or "waters"as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. d)Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Existing condition:The subject site is currently an undeveloped parcel.A biological assessment of the site has been prepared by Planning Systems, dated 11/14/05. Environmental Evaluation:Construction ofthe proposed project is not expected to significantly impede local wildlife movement or migratory fish or wildlife movement because the subject area has not been identified as a connectivity link or Core Area to be preserved in the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan. The site is not identified as a Hardline Conservation Area in the HMP (Figs. D-5, D-6).The site situated within LFMP Zone 1. Finding:Less than significant impact -The subject property is not expected to impact any native resident, migratory fish, or wildlife species. e)Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Existing condition:The City of Carlsbad has no adopted tree preservation policy or ordinance which would affect the subject project. Environmental Evaluation:The subject project will not impact trees or other biological resources protected by policy or ordinance except as otherwise described in response IV(a) and IV(c) above.No trees exist on the subject site. Finding:No impact —No tree preservation impacts will result from implementation of the project. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Existing condition:The City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad identifies open space Core # 4 to the south of the subject property, and identifies the proposed project site as containing no native vegetation worthy of permanent conservation.The HMP designates a natural preserve system and provides a regulatory framework for determining impacts and assigning mitigation.No other local, regional or state habitat conservation plans specific to this site encumber the property. Environmental Evaluation:Table 11 (P. D-113)ofthe HMP identifies mitigation ratios for impacts to HMP habitats.With regard to habitats on the subject property, these mitigation ratios are identified in the HMP as follows: Plant HMP Note Community Mitigation 22 Rev. 07/03/02 Aim Noe''NO/ Ratio Coastal sage 2:1 Group C.Maximum avoidance and onsite conservation of Group C scrub habitat is encouraged. Annual 0.5:1 Group E.Offsite mitigation for habitat in this group which is not grassland conserved or mitigated onsite shall pay a per acre in-lieu mitigation fee to be determined by the City council. Disturbed Fee Group F.Offsite mitigation for habitat in this group which is not conserved or mitigated onsite shall pay a per acre in-lieu mitigation fee to be determined by the City Council. Plant Mitigation Compliance Onsite Offsite Community Mitigation Mitigation Required Coastal sage The project will impact 0.27 acre (32%)ofthe 0.56 acre CSS None scrub .84 acres of CSS onsite (0.25 acre permanent (preserved) impacts, and 0.02 acre temporary impacts). Impacts are a result of street, pad, yard, and path creation.Approximately 0.56 acre (69%)ofthe CSS onsite will be preserved. This project exceeds the 2:1 I-IMP mitigation ratio, providing an additional 0.02 acre of mitigation,a ratio of 1.04:1. Non-native 100% (0.28 acres)of the 0.28 acres of NNG None 0.14 acres grassland onsite will be impacted through mitigated through implementation of the proposed project (0.27 payment of in- acre are permanent and 0.01 acre temporary lieu fee. impacts). In-lieu payment for mitigation of these impacts is required. Disturbed 0.02 acres of impacts proposed.In-lieu None 0.02 acres payment for mitigation ofthese impacts is mitigated through required.payment of in- lieu fee. Finding:Potentially significant impact unless mitigation incorporated -The proposed project can be found to be consistent with the I-IMP if mitigation measures are incorporated to address the above required mitigation. g)Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? Existing condition:Please refer to evaluation in response to Section IV(a). Environmental Evaluation:Please refer to evaluation in response to Section IV(a). Finding:No impact -Please refer to response IV(a) and IV(b) above. V.CULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance ofa historical resource as defined in §1 5064.5? 23 Rev. 07/03/02 Nwier s.twor Existing condition:The subject project will be developed on an undeveloped parcel.No historical resources are known to exist on the subject site. Environmental Evaluation:No impacts to historical resources are expected to result from implementation of the proposed project.The site is not identified as having known archeologically sensitive areas according to MEIR 93-01, map 5.8-2. Finding:No impact —No historical resources have been identified on the site or within the vicinityofthe project; and therefore no impacts to historical resources will result from construction of the project. b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Existing condition:The property involved in the proposed project is an undeveloped parcel.The site is not identified as having known archeologically sensitive areas according to MEIR 93-01, map 5.8-2. Environmental Evaluation:A review of existing cultural resources in the area ofthe subject project indicates that no impact to cultural resources will result from implementation of the subject project.No impacts to significant archaeological resources will result from implementation ofthe proposed project. Finding:Less than significant impact —The project will not cause substantial adverse changes in the significance of archaeological resources pursuant to §15064.5. c)Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Existing condition:The subject site is an undeveloped parcel located in an area geologically characterized by one soil type as occurring on the property.Marina loamy coarse sand comprises the soilofthe site.The surface layer is coarse sand about 10 inches thick, the subsoil is loamy coarse sand about 47 inches thick, and the substratum is coarse sand. Environmental Evaluation:The finish grading associated with development ofthe project will impact a relatively small amount of upper level soil, which is unlikely to contain fossil finds. Finding:Less than significant impact —The relatively minor amount ofexcavation required for the project results in the conclusion that the potential for paleontological resource impacts are less than significant. d)Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Existing condition:No record exists which would indicate the likelihood that human remains are interred or would be expected to be encountered during construction ofthe proposed project. Environmental Evaluation:The proposed project is not anticipated to impact any known human remains. Finding:No impact -No human burials or remains are known to exist in the location of the subject project. VI.GEOLOGY AND SOILS -Would the project: 24 Rev. 07/03/02 a)Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,injury or death involving: i.Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Friolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Existing condition:The project area is situated in the western portion of the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province of southern California.This geomorphic province encompasses an area that extends 125 miles from the Transverse Ranges and the Los Angeles Basin, south to the Mexican border, and beyond another 775 miles to the southern tip of Baja California.The westernmost portion of the province in San Diego County, in which the site is located, generally consists of Upper Cretaceous, Tertiary and Quaternary age sedimentary rocks. The most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the north San Diego County area, indicates that the project is considered to be in a seismically active area, as is most of southern California.This map however, indicates that the subject site is not underlain by known active faults, nor is there evidence of ground displacement in the area during the last 11,000 years. The Rose Canyon fault zone is the closest known fault, which is the onshore portion of an extensive fault zone that includes the Offshore Zone ofDeformation and the Newport-Inglewood fault to the north ofthe subject site.This fault zone, located approximately 6.2 miles westerly ofthe subject site, is made of predominately right-lateral strike-slip faults that extend south-southeast through the San Diego metropolitan area.The zone extends offshore at La Jolla, and continues north-northwest generally parallel to the coastline.Portions ofthe Rose Canyon fault zone in the San Diego area have been recognized by the State Geologist to be considered active. Additionally,the Julian and Temecula segments ofthe Elsinore fault zone, about 24 miles to the northeast of the subject site are also referenced in the Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Environmental Evaluation:The closest fault is located approximately seven miles westerly ofthe site.The Elsinore fault zone is located approximately 24 miles east ofthe site, and the Coronado Bank fault is located approximately 22 miles west of the site.The potential for rupture resulting from earthquake is considered to be low.The subject site is not within a fault-rupture hazard zone as indexed in the Division ofMines and Geology Special Publication 42. Because of the lack of known active faults on the site, the potential for surface rupture at the site is considered low.The seismic hazard most likely to impact the site is ground shaking resulting from an earthquake on one ofthe active regional faults discussed above. Finding:Less than significant impact -The project site is not within a fault-rupture hazard zone as determined in the geotechnical report, and as indexed in the Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42; therefore the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects. ii.Strong seismic ground shaking? Existing condition:Southern California is recognized as a seismically-active area.As indicated in the response to Item VI(a)(i), the Rose Canyon fault zone is the closest known fault, located 25 Rev. 07/03/02 14.4e approximately 6.2 miles westerly ofthe subject site.This fault is made of predominately right-lateral strike-slip faults that extend south-southeast through the San Diego metropolitan area.The second-closest active area of potential ground motion is the Julian and Temecula segments of the Elsinore fault zone.No other known active faults are located within the vicinity ofthe project. The most significant seismic event likely to affect the proposed facilities would be a maximum moment magnitude 7.2 earthquake along the Rose Canyon fault zone, in which the horizontal peak ground acceleration has a 10%probability of exceedance in 50 years is 0.40g (40%of the acceleration of gravity). Environmental Evaluation:The project site will likely be subject to ground shaking in response toeitheralocal moderate or more distant large-magnitude earthquake. Seismic risk at the site is comparable to the risk for the San Diego area in general.The closest source to the site for ground motion, and the source that would produce the greatest ground acceleration at the site, is the Del Mar segment of the Rose Canyon/Newport-Inglewood fault zone, about 6.2 miles west, and potentially the Julian and Temecula segments ofthe Elsinore fault zone, about 24 miles to the northeast of the project site.Project design will meet or exceed existing earthquake design standards. Finding:Less than significant impact —Earthquake faults exist within southern California, including three fault zones within 24 miles ofthe site.Historical records have indicated however, that theriskofstrong seismic ground shaking of the project site is minimal,and thus is considered a less than significant impact. iii.Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Existing condition:Liquefaction of soils with minimal cohesion can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes.Research indicates that loose granular soils and silts that are saturated by a relatively shallow groundwater table are most susceptible to liquefaction.The subject site is an undeveloped parcel located in an area geologically characterized by one soil type as occurring on the property.Marina loamy coarse sand comprises the soil of the site.The surface layer is coarse sand about 10 inches thick, the subsoil is loamy coarse sand about 47 inches thick, and the substratum is coarse sand. Environmental Evaluation:Liquefaction is a not concern on the subject site.Based on the result of subsurface exploration, the site is underlain by Santiago Formation, which is characterized by very stiff to hard siltstone,stiff to hard claystone, and very dense silty very fine sand. Due to the lack of near-surface groundwater table and the underlying very dense formational soils, the potential for liquefaction is considered to be low.The compacted fill is considered suitable for receiving additional fill or structures following partial removal and recompaction. Finding:Less than significant impact —The potential for liquefaction or seismically induced settlement in the vicinity of the proposed improvements is considered to be very low due to the nature of the underlying soil formation and the lack of groundwater near the surface. iv.Landslides? Existing condition:No landslides have been identified as having the potential to damage or affect the proposed project facilities.No evidence of landsliding was observed at the site during site reconnaissance or during the review of historic aerial photos of the site. Environmental Evaluation:No landslides are anticipated to affect the proposed project development improvements. 26 Rev. 07/03/02 Finding:No impact —No landslides are anticipated to affect the proposed project. b)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Existing condition:The subject property is an undeveloped parcel. Environmental Evaluation:During the finish grading, the exposure of soils would lead to an increased chance for the erosion of soils from the site. Such grading will follow best management practices for the control of erosion, such as straw bale or sandbag barriers, silt fences, slope roughening, and outlet protection in exposed areas.Finished grades will be promptly hydroseeded or otherwise protected as required per the adopted City Grading Ordinance.If necessary, temporary slope cover such as jute matting or mulch will be applied to newly graded slopes to reduce the impact to soil erosion or the loss oftopsoil to a level of less than significant. Finding:Less than significant impact —It is concluded that impacts to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil will be less than significant, because the project is required to comply with the erosion control requirements ofthe City of Carlsbad grading ordinance. c)Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Existing condition:Please refer to existing condition VI(a)(i, ii,and iii). Environmental Evaluation:Please refer to evaluation VI(a)(i, ii, and iii). Finding:Less than significant impact —Please refer to response VI(a)(i, ii,and iii). d)Be located on expansive soils,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? Existing condition:The subject site is an undeveloped parcel located in an area geologically characterized by one soil type as occurring on the property.Marina loamy coarse sand comprises the soilofthe site.The surface layer is coarse sand about 10 inches thick, the subsoil is loamy coarse sand about 47 inches thick, and the substratum is coarse sand. Environmental Evaluation:Table 18-1 -B ofthe Uniform Building Code identifies the Marina loamy coarse sand as having "medium" expansion potential. The soil should be prepared and compacted as directed in a geotechnical investigation, and footings /slabs for all buildings should be constructed as directed inthis report. Finding:Less than significant impact —As a result of proper grading, compaction and foundation work, the project will not be subject to adverse soil expansion tendencies. e)Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Existing condition:Sewers are available for the proposed project. 27 Rev. 07/03/02 Environmental Evaluation:The proposed project will utilize access to the sewage trunk line which runs along the southern edge of the property.As a result, no septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal system facilities are proposed. Finding:No impact —No septic tanks or alternative sewage disposal systems are included in the project description. VII.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -Would the project: a)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use,or disposal of hazardous materials? Existing condition:During construction of the proposed project, construction materials such as petroleum projects, paint, oils and solvents will be transported and used on the site.Upon completion of construction ofthe project, some use of hazardous cleaning products on the site may occur.Other than during this construction phase, the project will not routinely utilize hazardous substances or materials. Environmental Evaluation:There is no evidence of chemical surface staining, or hazardous materials/waste and/or petroleum contamination on the site. Construction of the proposed project will involve operation of heavy machinery, which utilize petroleum products, and paint, oils and solvents.No permanent use of such hazardous materials is anticipated except for some cleaning products use associated with normal business operations.All transport, handling, use, and disposal of any cleaning substances will comply with all federal,state, and local laws regulating the management and use of such materials. Finding:Less than significant impact —It is concluded that the routine amount of hazardous materials utilized during the construction period is not significant, and therefore the impact to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials is less that significant. b)Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Existing condition:Please refer to the preceding existing condition response. Environmental Evaluation:No significant hazard involving the release of hazardous material into the environment would be anticipated since only regularly used cleaning materials will be utilized, only in normal instances. Finding:Less than significant impact —Please refer the response to Section VII(b).No extraordinary risk of accidental explosion or the release ofhazardous substances is anticipated with construction, development, and implementation or operation ofthe proposed project. c)Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Existing condition:The subject project site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. 28 Rev. 07/03/02 'we Environmental Evaluation:The proposed project is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.The nearest school is located 1 mile easterly of the site. Finding:No impact —As a result of the fact that the proposed project site is not located within one- quarter mile ofan existing or proposed school, no significant impact is anticipated. d)Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment? Existing condition:The subject site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites (Federal database) compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 56962.5. Environmental Evaluation:The subject site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites (Federal database) compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 56962.5.In addition, it is not on the EPA database of current and potential Superfund sites currently or previously under investigation.Also, to the best of EPA's knowledge,it has been determined that no steps will be taken to list this site on the National Priorities List (NPL).It is not on any list of registered hazardous waste generators, or on a database of sites which treat, store, dispose of, or incinerate hazardous waste. Finding:No impact —The subject property is not included on any list of hazardous materials, and has no known previous use history that would involve the use or storage of hazardous materials. e)For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Existing condition:The subject site is located approximately 2 miles northwest ofthe McClellan- Palomar Airport runway.However, the site is not within the airport land use plan. Environmental Evaluation:The site is located outside the McClellan-Palomar Airport Area of Influence.Therefore, the site will not cause a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. Finding:No impact —The project poses no impact as a potential safety hazard. For a project within the vicinity ofa private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Existing condition:No private airstrip exists in the vicinity of the subject project. Environmental Evaluation:The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Finding:No impact -The project is not within the vicinity ofa private airstrip. g)Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Existing condition:The proposed project involves development of an undeveloped parcel.The project is located directly adjacent to Adams Street. 29 Rev. 07/03/02 '14kie ‘..sed Environmental Evaluation:Neither construction nor operation of the proposed project facilities will significantly affect, block, or interfere with traffic on public streets,including any streets that would be used for an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.No emergency response or evacuation plan directs evacuees through the project. Finding:No impact —No improvements are proposed by the project in any area which would physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. h)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Existing condition:The proposed project site currently consists of an undeveloped parcel with urban development to the north and east.Adjacent to the site on the west is an area of coastal sage scrub that may be susceptible to fire. Environmental Evaluation:An alternative Fire Suppression Plan for the project site has been submitted with the conceptual architectural plans.As a result, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in any significant additional exposure to wildfire risk. Finding:Less than significant impact —In accordance with Section II.0 ofthe Carlsbad Landscape Manual,an alternative Fire Suppression Plan has been prepared for the project site.This plan consists of a written plan detailing alternative architectural and building methods to act in place of a typical 60 foot fire suppression zone.In conjunction with this Plan, it is anticipated that wildland fire risk is less than significant. VIII.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -Would the project: a)Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Existing condition:The subject project is required by law to comply with all federal, state and local water quality regulations, including the Clean Water Act, California Administrative Code Title 23, and specific basin plan objectives identified in the "Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin. The subject property is an undeveloped parcel with single family development to the north and east, an undeveloped parcel to the west and Agua Hedionda Lagoon to the south.The Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin identifies specific objectives for the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit.These objectives include the requirement to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Best Management Practices (BMP's).The project must also obtain a NPDES permit prior to construction.The permit will require that the project develop and implement specific erosion control and storm water pollution prevention plans to protect downstream water quality ofAgua Hedionda Lagoon.There is currently no development on the subject parcel. Environmental Evaluation:After development, there will be an increase in runoff from the study area.A portion ofthe increase in runoff will be due to the use of imported water into the study area for landscaping, etc.The remaining water increase will be due to the increased impervious area within the project site.Application, certification and compliance with an NPDES permit for implementation of the subject project will ensure that water quality exiting the subject site and eventually entering downstream areas will be maintained to a level of acceptability. 30 Rev. 07/03/02 4.60 u.#600 Finding:Less than significant impact -The proposed project could result in temporary degradationofwater quality if it does not demonstrate compliance with all federal, state, and local regulations for water quality.The project proponent shall adhere to applicable RWQCB regulations for control of sedimentation and erosion, including the installation oftemporary detention basins or other means of stabilization or impoundment required by the State Water Resources Control Board.All exposed graded areas shall be treated with erosion control pursuant to City of Carlsbad erosion control standards, including hydroseed, berms, desiltation basins, jute matting, sandbags, bladed ditches, or other appropriate methods.Other Best Management Practices (BMPs)will be utilized. b)Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Existing condition:The proposed project will not involve depletion of groundwater supplies or interference with ground water recharge. Environmental Evaluation:The proposed project will not involve depletion of groundwater supplies or interference with ground water recharge. Finding:No impact —The proposed project is not expected to deplete groundwater supplies, or interfere with ground water recharge. c)Impacts to groundwater quality? Existing condition:Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item VIII(a). Environmental Evaluation:Please see the preceding description of environmental evaluation Item VIII(a). Finding:Less than significant impact —Inasmuch as the proposed project must comply with federal, state and local water quality requirements, it is concluded that the potential impacts to groundwater quality will be both temporary and less than significant. d)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? Existing condition:Drainage flows from the subject site into Agua Hedionda Lagoon .The average yearly rainfall within this drainage area is 13 inches. Nearly all of the surface runoff within the Agua Hedionda drainage area occurs between December and late March. Environmental Evaluation:The proposed improvements will not significantly alter the existing constructed drainage of the site, nor will they result in a net increase of downstream sedimentation in Agua Hedionda Lagoon.Urban runoff from the proposed development will be channeled through pervious pavement and into areas of rip rap before entering Agua Hedionda Lagoon as indicated in the project's Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan, by O'Day Consultants, dated October 1,2005.The greatest potential for short-term water quality impacts to the drainage basin would be expected during and immediately following the grading and construction phases of the project, when cleared and graded areas are exposed to rain and storm water runoff. 31 Rev. 07/03/02 eft fig\ Stripe .Nis0 To mitigate potential storm water pollution (mostly sediment) during construction, Best Management Practices (BMP's) for grading contractor activities and BMP's for erosion and sedimentation are proposed. Construction BMP's include vegetative stabilization such as hydroseeding, physical stabilization such as dust control, diversion of runoff using temporary swales and drains, velocity reduction using check dams and slope roughening, and sediment trapping using silt fencing, gravel barriers and inlets protection. Contractor BMP's include managing dewatering and paving operations, structure construction and painting, management of material delivery use and storage, spill prevention, water management, vehicle cleaning and maintenance, and contractor, employee and subcontractor training. Finding:Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated —The proposed project will not substantially alter the existing pattern of runoff from and through the project, however the project has the potential to result in hydrological impacts including downstream sedimentation.Grading and construction BMP's are proposed as part of the project, which if followed,will mitigate the potential for significant impacts. e)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on-or off- site? Existing condition:Please refer to the preceding existing condition.No significant modification to the drainage pattern of the site is proposed. Environmental Evaluation:The proposed improvements will not significantly alter the existing drainage pattern ofthe site.As a result of the installation NPDES required improvements, the urban improvements proposed will not result in a net increase of downstream sedimentation into Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The flow rate or volume of runoff through the site and into Agua Hedionda Lagoon will not significantly increase.The project will also result in a slight, but not significant increase in runoff due to the increase in imported water to the site. Finding:Less than significant impact -The project will also result in a slight, but not significant increase in runoff due to the increase in imported water to the site. f)Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Existing condition:The project site is currently an undeveloped parcel.Runoff from the site drains into Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Environmental Evaluation:Proposed storm water drainage systems on the project site have been designed to accommodate the runoff projected from the proposed project.No impact to existing storm drain systems and no additional sources of polluted runoff will result from implementation of the project. Finding:Less than significant impact —No additional pollution of surface waters is anticipated to result from the project. g)Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 32 Rev. 07/03/02 00".• 1/46••'.goo Existing condition:The proposed project site presently drains into Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and ultimately to the Pacific Ocean.These drainage facilities serve to maintain a decent water quality. Environmental Evaluation:Construction of the proposed project improvements is required by law to comply with all federal,state and local water quality regulations, including the Clean Water Act and associated NPDES regulations.As mentioned above, the project description includes a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.Therefore temporary impacts associated with the construction operation will be mitigated.The project will not result in permanent or long term degradation of water quality as a result of the proposed pollution control program. Finding:Less than significant impact —Please refer to the preceding responses. h)Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? Existing condition:The proposed project improvements do not involve the placement of housing. The property is not within the 100-year flood zone. Environmental Evaluation:No placement of housing is proposed within the flood hazard area. Finding:No impact —No housing is proposed as part of the project. i)Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? Existing condition:The subject project does not propose any structures within the 100-year flood hazard area. Environmental Evaluation:The project will not place any structures within the limits of the identified 100-year flood hazard areas.Thus no impediment to flood flows will result from implementation of the project. Finding:No impact —It is concluded that the proposed project will not impeded or redirect downstream flood flows. j)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Existing condition:Please refer to existing condition description VIII(i)above. Environmental Evaluation:Please refer to environmental evaluation discussion VIII(i)above.No levee or dam exists onsite or downstream of the project. Finding:No impact —It is concluded that the proposed project will not result in increased exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding including flooding as a result ofthe failure of a levee or dam. k)Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Existing condition:The proposed project site is located in an area prone to seiche, tsunami or mudflow conditions as identified in the City's MEIR, Map 5.10.1-2. 33 Rev. 07/03/02 *aktir %Rae' Environmental Evaluation:Conditions for seiche, tsunami or mudflow do exist at the project site. However, past occurrences of seiches and tsunamis in the area have shown to cause little or no damage to life and property. Finding:Less than significant impact —The potential for damage to the project from seiche, tsunami or mudflow are very low. l)Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. Existing condition:Construction of the proposed project will temporarily create (during finish grading) exposed (unvegetated) soil on the subject site.The project applicant must however, obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit prior to construction. The permit will require that the project develop and implement specific erosion control and storm water pollution prevention plans to protect downstream water quality of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Environmental Evaluation:The construction phase of the project could result in increased erosion into Agua Hedionda Lagoon.As a result of the NPDES permit requirements associated with the proposed project, no significant increase in erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters will result from the project.Urban runoff from the proposed development will be channeled into the appropriate storm water receptors as indicated in the project's Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan, by O'Day Consultants, dated October 1,2005.The greatest potential for short-term water quality impacts to the drainage basin would be expected during and immediately following the grading and construction phases of the project, when cleared and graded areas are exposed to rain and storm water runoff. As mentioned above, to mitigate potential storm water pollution (mostly sediment) during construction, BMP's for erosion and sediment transport are proposed.Construction BMP's include vegetative stabilization such as hydroseeding, physical stabilization such as dust control, diversion of runoff using temporary swales and drains, velocity reduction using check dams and slope roughening, and sediment trapping using silt fencing, gravel barriers and inlets protection. Finding:Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated —The project will be required to demonstrate compliance with NPDES sediment control requirements during the construction phase. Compliance with the grading construction BMP's for the project will reduce potential impacts to a level of insignificance. m)Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? Existing condition:The project design does not propose to create or allow any pollutant discharges into receiving surface waters or other waters upstream or downstream of the subject project. Environmental Evaluation:The project proposes no increase in pollutant discharges.The project will be required to process and receive an NPDES permit.No significant levels ofheavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances, or uncontrolled trash will be produced by the project. Finding:Less than significant impact —No significant increase in pollutant discharges will result from implementation of the proposed project. 34 Rev. 07/03/02 n)Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? Existing condition:Please refer to existing condition Item VIII(a) above. Environmental Evaluation:Please refer to environmental evaluation Item VIII(a) above. Finding:Less than significant impact -No receiving water quality will be adversely affected through implementation of the proposed project. o)Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? Existing condition:Agua Hedionda Lagoon is listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d)as an "impaired" water body associated with the direct stormwater discharge from this project.Agua Hedionda Lagoon has low priority impairment for bacteria indicators and sedimentation/siltation. Environmental Evaluation:As proposed, subject to compliance with the proposed BMP's, the projectwillnot result in the increase of pollutants into downstream waters, including Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Finding:Less than significant impact —No significant level ofpollutants are anticipated to be released from the subject site. p)The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? Existing condition:Please refer to the preceding responses. Environmental Evaluation:Please refer to the preceding responses. Finding:No impact —Please refer to the preceding responses. IX.LAND USE PLANNING -Would the project: a)Physically divide an established community? Existing condition:The project is situated on 1.08 acres located in the northwest quadrant of the cityofCarlsbad.The site is relatively square shaped.It is surrounded on the north and east by single family development, to the west by vacant property, and to the south by Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Environmental Evaluation:The parcel is zoned for residential development.Additionally,scenic corridor standards and the Local Coastal Program require the project to remain below the level ofAdams Street to the north.Therefore, the project will not affect views from this area. Finding:Less than significant —The project would not significantly separate any contiguous community areas. b)Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, 35 Rev. 07/03/02 NIS local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Existing condition:The City of Carlsbad General Plan identifies the subject site as Residential Low Medium (RLM) land uses.Existing Zoning is designated One —Family Residential (R-1).No changes are proposed to either the General Plan or Zoning. Environmental Evaluation:The proposed project will be consistent with all applicable land use policies.No incompatibility exists between the proposed project and the land use regulations on the property. Finding:No impact -The proposed project will not be in conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of any agency with jurisdiction over the project. c)Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Existing condition:The City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities (HMP) is intended to lead to citywide permits and authorization for the incidental take ofsensitive plant and animal species in conjunction with private developments, public projects and other activities which are consistent with the Plan.The open space preserve system and program established by the HMP is intended to replace that contained within the Open Space Element ofthe General Plan. As part ofthe planning process for the HMP,a citywide interconnected open space preserve system was identified.Areas were identified as biological habitat Core and Linkage Areas. Environmental Evaluation:The project does not propose any development impacts into designated HMP areas.The proposed development will occur wholly on the undeveloped parcel located on the south side of Adams Street between Highland Drive and Park Drive.Figure 17 of the 1-IMP, Hub and SDG&E Property, shows the project site as containing no hardline vegetation.Therefore the proposed project is not in conflict with the HMP. Finding:No impact —The subject project site is consistent with the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad.No other habitat conservation plans specific to this site effect the property X.MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a)Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? Existing condition:The proposed project site is currently an undeveloped parcel.No known or expected mineral deposits of future value to the region and the residents ofthe state are located in the immediate vicinity ofthe subject project. Environmental Evaluation:No known mineral resources have been identified on the site, and such minerals are typically not found in soils typical of this site.As a result of the finish grading excavation and disruption ofthe surface of the land that will result from the proposed project, no significant impact to the potential for valuable mineral deposits is anticipated from the project. 36 Rev. 07/03/02 likk 11*NO Finding:No impact -No known mineral resource ofregional or statewide value are known that would be affected through implementation ofthe project.Additionally, the project would affect a relatively small area of earth disruption, and any substantial mineral resource recovery under these minimal circumstances would not be expected. The site is not located in an area of mineral resources as identified in MEIR 93-01, map 5.13 -1. b)Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Existing condition:The subject site is not designated on the City of Carlsbad General Plan or the Zoning Ordinance as a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Environmental Evaluation:As a result of the fact that the City has not designated the subject property as an important mineral resource recovery site in any regulatory land use document, it is determined that implementation ofthe proposed project will not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Finding:No impact —No adopted regulatory land use documents, including the City of Carlsbad General Plan or the Zoning Ordinance designate the subject site as any mineral resource recovery location. XI.NOISE -Would the project result in: a)Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? Existing condition:The subject area is adjacent to Adams Street in the northwest quadrant of the CityofCarlsbad.The project will involve the development of 2 single family homes, which do not generate significant noise, and do not act as constitute sensitive noise receptors. Environmental Evaluation:In terms ofnoise generation, the construction of the proposed project is anticipated to create the greatest amount of noise the project will generate, inasmuch as the permanent use will not create significant noise.The City of Carlsbad Municipal Code (Chapter 8.48) prohibits construction activity that would create disturbing, excessive, or offensive noise after sunset of any day, and before 7 A.M. Monday through Friday, and before 8 A.M.on Saturday, and all day Sunday and specified holidays.The Noise Ordinance does not set a defined noise level standard for construction activities, but simply limits the hours ofconstruction. The significance of construction noise produced during project construction is typically assessed in accordance with the County of San Diego Noise Ordinance.San Diego County Noise Ordinance Section 36.410 stipulates that construction noise shall not exceed 75 dB for more than 8 hours during any 24-hour period. Finding:Less than significant impact —Both construction noise levels and permanent noise levels generated by the project are anticipated to comply with City of Carlsbad Noise Policy standards. The subject as a noise receptor has the potential for significant impact, but is mitigated and conditionally acceptable if the mitigation measures outlined in MEIR 93-01 are followed. b)Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? 37 Rev. 07/03/02 Existing condition:The proposed project is a single family development project, and will not generate ground vibrations. Environmental Evaluation:Although some ground vibration may occur during construction ofthe project, the project is not anticipated to expose persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or noise levels. Finding:No impact -The project will not produce any significant groundbourne vibration. c)A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Existing condition:Please refer to response XI(a). Environmental Evaluation:Please refer to response XI(a). Finding:No impact —The proposed project is a single family development project.This project is not anticipated to result in an increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. d)A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Existing condition:Please refer to response XI(a). Environmental Evaluation:Please refer to response XI(a). Finding:Less than significant impact -During construction,a temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity is anticipated. Construction will be scheduled to conform to the noise level limitations specified in the Carlsbad Municipal Code,so the increase is not considered substantial or significant. e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Existing condition:The subject site is located approximately 2 miles northwest of the McClellan- Palomar Airport.However,it does not lie within the Airport Influence Area identified by the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellan-Palomar Airport (CLUP), adopted April,1994, prepared by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). Environmental Evaluation:The property is not located within an airport land use plan.Therefore, people working in the project area will not be significantly exposed to excessive noise levels. Finding:No impact —The proposed project will not expose people to excessive noise levels. 0 For a project within the vicinity ofa private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Existing condition:No private airstrip exists in the vicinity of the subject project. Environmental Evaluation:The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip 38 Rev. 07/03/02 4..••• Finding:No impact -The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. XII.POPULATION AND HOUSING -Would the project: a)Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Existing condition:The subject project is an undeveloped parcel.Implementation ofthe project would result in a minor increase in the intensity of usage of the site and in population. Environmental Evaluation:The proposed project involves the development of a currently undeveloped parcel.The development of 2 single family homes will result in a population increase of approximately 4.64 persons.No inducement for substantial growth above the 4.64 persons, either directly or indirectly will occur through implementation of the subject project. Finding:No impact -The project will not induce substantial growth, nor will it induce further population growth by providing infrastructure to support unplanned growth. b)Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Existing condition:The subject parcel is currently undeveloped. Environmental Evaluation:The proposed project will not displace any existing housing because no housing exists in the area of the subject project. Finding:No impact -No housing will be displaced by the project. c)Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Existing condition:The project site is currently undeveloped and unoccupied. Environmental Evaluation:The proposed project will not displace any people because no people, residences or other development presently exists on the site. Finding:No impact -No people or houses will be displaced by implementation of the project. XIII.PUBLIC SERVICES a)Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities,a need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i.Fire protection? 39 Rev. 07/03/02 `ftio. Existing condition:The Adams Street 2 Unit Subdivision project is located within the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP)area.City of Carlsbad Fire Station No.1(1275 Carlsbad Village Drive)serves the subject site. Environmental Evaluation:The subject site is considered by the Carlsbad Fire Department to be within an effective fire response time of Fire Station No.1 The subject project will not measurably affect this anticipated current fire response times throughout the city. Finding:No impact -The proposed project is within an area anticipated by the Fire Department for urban development, and planned within their standard response time.The project will comply with the standards identified in the Zone 1 LFMP, and therefore will not have any measurable affect on the fire service demands or needs ofthe area. ii.Police protection? Existing condition:The Carlsbad Police Department (CPD), located on 2560 Orion Way, services the entire city of Carlsbad.Although the City has not established an official service standard for the department, CPD does maintain a general in-house guideline that is followed in order to assure adequate police service to the community.This guideline suggests a six-minute maximum response time anywhere within the city limits.In order to achieve this level of emergency service and to sufficiently patrol the city, the CPD currently operates seven beats, each patrolled at any given time by one or two officers. Environmental Evaluation:The proposed project would represent a slight increase in demand on CPD resources due to the slight increase in retail establishments requiring police protection services. However this increased demand is anticipated to be minimal, and the department is sufficiently staffed to absorb such demand and continue to meet their own general service guideline ofmaintaining a six-minute emergency response time. Finding:Less than significant impact —The minimal increase in demand on police protection resources represented by the proposed project will not significantly impact this service, inasmuch as their department's service guideline will continue to be met. iii.Schools Existing condition:The proposed project involves the construction of2 single family homes.The project will cause a slight increase in demand for schools. Environmental Evaluation:The proposed project is residential and will have a slight impact on school student generation.The project could be expected to generate approximately .938 students.The project will pay all required Carlsbad Unified School District imposed fees as part ofthe permit process. Finding:Less than significant -The project will generate approximately .938 students and, therefore,will have a minimal impact on schools serving the area. The project will be conditioned to pay all required Carlsbad Unified School District imposed fees as part of the permit process. iv.Parks? Existing condition:The proposed project involves the construction of 2 single family homes.The project will cause a slight increase in demand for parks. 40 Rev. 07/03/02 %me Environmental Evaluation:The proposed project is residential and will create an increase in demand for parks.The project will demand approximately 0.014 acres of community park.The existing parkswithin Zone 1 can accommodate this amount of demand. Finding:Less than significant impact —The proposed project is residential and will create a less than significant increase in demand for parks. v.Other public facilities? Existing condition:Sewer:The Carlsbad Municipal Water District provides sewer service to the subject site.Sewage from the site is processed at the Encina Wastewater Treatment Facility, via a sewer line located along the southern boundary of the subject site.The Zone 1 LFMP stipulates that sewer trunk line capacity must meet demand as determined by appropriate sewer districts must be provided concurrent with development. Water:The Carlsbad Municipal Water District provides water service to the subject site.Water is provided via an existing water line located in Adams Street.The Zone 1 LFMP stipulates that water line capacity must meet demand as determined by appropriate water district must be provided concurrent with development.Also, that a minimum ten day average storage capacity must be provided prior to any development. Environmental Evaluation:Sewer:The subject project is not anticipated to exceed sewer demand planned by the Carlsbad Municipal Water District for the subject site. Water:The subject project is not anticipated to exceed water demand. Finding:Less than significant impact -The proposed project will generate sewer and water usage that the City of Carlsbad has the infrastructure to handle.No unanticipated demands will occur as a resultofthe project. XIV.RECREATION a)Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Existing condition:The proposed project involves the construction of 2 single family homes.The project will cause a slight increase in demand for parks. Environmental Evaluation:The proposed project is residential and will create an increase in demandforparks.The project will demand approximately 0.014 acres of community park.The existing parkswithin Zone 1 can accommodate this amount of demand. Finding:Less than significant impact —The proposed project is residential and will create a less than significant increase in demand for parks. b)Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Existing condition:The proposed project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion ofrecreational facilities. 41 Rev. 07/03/02 • '•4110.1 Nhtlie Environmental Evaluation:The proposed project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion ofrecreational facilities. Finding:No impact -No additional recreational facilities, and no construction or expansion of recreational facilities will result from implementation ofthe proposed project. XV.TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -Would the project: a)Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? Existing condition:The subject project is located in the northwest quadrant ofthe city of Carlsbad, on Adams Street between Highland Drive and Park Drive.No traffic is presently generated by the site. Environmental Evaluation:The proposed single family development is projected to generate 20 ADT. Finding:Less than significant impact —The proposed project is projected to generate 20 ADT. This increase is not considered an increase so substantial that it will impact the existing roadway systemin the vicinity ofthe site. b)Exceed, either individually or cumulatively,a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Existing condition:All street segments and intersections in the immediate vicinity of the subject project presently operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS "D" or better during the AM and PM peak hour periods).Some intersections and roadway segments within the city operate at unacceptable levels of service, including freeway links and the Palomar Airport Road/E1 Camino Real intersection.The additional traffic generated by the project will cumulatively add to this traffic congestion.The proposed project will generate approximately 20 ADT. Environmental Evaluation:The increase of 20 ADT onto the adjacent street system will cumulatively contribute to impacted road segments or intersections exceeding the level of service standard established by SANDAG or by the City of Carlsbad.The proposed project will not significantly impact traffic flow in the area ofthe project. Finding:Potentially significant impact —The proposed project will add cumulatively to existing significant impacted traffic levels of service within the city. c)Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result in substantial safety risks? Existing condition:The proposed project will have no impact on air traffic demand or air traffic patterns. Environmental Evaluation:The proposed project is not located within the Area ofInfluence for theMcClellan-Palomar Airport.The project itself will not have an impact on air traffic demand or patterns. Finding:Less than significant impact -The project will not generate or require air traffic and will not physically interfere with air traffic patterns. 42 Rev. 07/03/02 .wri d)Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses? Existing condition:The project will be designed in accordance with City standards for single family development. Environmental Evaluation:The project will be designed in accordance with City standards for single family development This includes adequate fire access and vehicular circulation, and roadway widths, parking configuration, and length and widths of driveways.These standards have been adopted and have been demonstrated through long-term use to decrease hazards or incompatible uses. Finding:No impact -The project will not substantially increase hazards due to design features or incompatible uses. e)Result in inadequate emergency access? Existing condition:The Carlsbad Fire Department is responsible for review of emergency access plans for development projects.The project site plan will be assessed for emergency access by the Fire Department prior to approval. Environmental Evaluation:The City will review the details of the proposed design ofthe Adams Street 2 Unit Subdivision to ensure compliance with emergency access plans. Finding:No impact —The proposed project will be required to comply with emergency access plans, and the project will not affect any public or private access to other property. f)Result in inadequate parking capacity? Existing condition:The proposed project is required to comply with Chapter 21.44 (Parking)of the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance. Environmental Evaluation:The City of Carlsbad will review the final site plan to ensure its compliance with the Parking Ordinance, and will not be approved if sufficient parking is not being provided.Therefore it can be concluded that adequate parking capacity will be provided for the project. Finding:No impact -Sufficient spaces will be provided onsite. g)Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)? Existing condition:The subject site is not identified on any regional or community plans relative to alternative transportation. Environmental Evaluation:The project is located on a site that is not considered integral to any alternative transportation policies.Thus the project will not conflict with any such policies. Finding:No impact —As a result ofthe fact that regional and local policies do not include any specific reference to the site in terms ofalternative transportation programs, facilities, it is concluded that the project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. 43 Rev. 07/03/02 "Pt Nog XVI.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS -Would the project: a)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Existing condition:The proposed project will create a small increase in wastewater generated by the currently undeveloped site. Environmental Evaluation:The proposed project is consistent with the planned and anticipated wastewater projections for the subject site,as indicated in MEIR 93-01. Finding:Less than significant impact -The project would have a less than significant impact on wastewater treatment. b)Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? Existing condition:Please refer to the previous response.The project will not result in a significant increase in quantity ofwastewater generation already handled by the Encina Wastewater Treatment Plant. Environmental Evaluation:The project will not result in a significant increase in quantity of wastewater generation already handled by the Encina Wastewater Treatment Plant. Finding:No impact —No additional water or wastewater treatment facilities will be required due to the construction of the proposed project. c)Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Existing condition:The site is currently an undeveloped parcel. Environmental Evaluation:The subject project is adequate in size and scope to adequately provide for the project purpose.No additional new or expanded drainage facilities will be necessitated by implementation of the proposed project.Both upstream and downstream facilities contain adequate capacity and functionality to accept the storm water demands resulting when the project is complete. Finding:No impact -No significant new storm water drainage facilities are proposed or would be required from development ofthe proposed project. d)Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Existing condition:The existing site is an undeveloped parcel.There is no current demand for water. Environmental Evaluation:Water service will be supplied by the Carlsbad Municipal Water District. Proposed water usage on the site will be for landscape irrigation and the regular water usage associated with 2 single family homes. The project will have no significant impact on water supplies. Finding:Less than significant impact -The project will not result in a significant impact to water supplies. 44 Rev. 07/03/02 _. e)Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Existing condition:Please refer to response XVI(a). Environmental Evaluation:Please refer to response XI(a). Finding:No impact —No significant increase in wastewater treatment will result from the project. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Existing condition:The site is currently an undeveloped parcel and does not generate solid waste. Environmental Evaluation:The waste provider will be Waste Management Services, and the City's engineering staff will have Waste Management Services review the site plan for service adequacy as part of the approval process. Finding:No impact -No measurable significant increase in impact on solid waste creation is expected to result from the subject project. g)Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Existing condition:See previous response.The subject project is not anticipated to create any significant increase in the amount of solid waste.The project is required to comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Environmental Evaluation:The project will create no significant impact on solid waste collection and disposal, and will comply with federal,state and local statutes Finding:No impact —The project will create no significant impact on solid waste collection and disposal, and will comply with federal,state and local statutes. XVII.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a)Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Existing condition:The subject site is an undeveloped parcel located in proximity to Agua Hedionda Lagoon.The project must also obtain a NPDES permit prior to construction.The permit will require that the project develop and implement specific erosion control and storm water pollution prevention plans to protect downstream water quality ofAgua Hedionda Lagoon. There is currently no significant development on the site. Environmental Evaluation:After development, there will be an increase in runoff from the study area.A portion of the increase in runoff will be due to the use of imported water into the study area for 45 Rev. 07/03/02 ,4•10 landscaping, etc.The remaining water increase will be due to the increased impervious area within the project site.The drainage pattern dictates that this drainage water will flow into 2 separate areas of riprap onsite. Application, certification and compliance with an NPDES permit for implementation ofthe subject project will ensure that water quality entering Agua Hedionda Lagoon will be maintained to a level of acceptability. Finding:Less than significant impact —Please refer to the responses to Sections IV and V. b)Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) Existing condition:The project site is currently an undeveloped parcel.The site produces no significant air pollution or traffic at this time. Environmental Evaluation:The proposed project will contribute incrementally to air pollution and traffic congestion in the vicinity. Finding:Less than significant impact —It is concluded that the cumulative impacts to air quality and traffic will be less than significant. c)Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Existing condition:The site has no impact on human beings at this time. Environmental Evaluation:The project does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Finding:No impact -Potential adverse effects on the human population have been evaluated in preceding sections of this checklist.No unmitigable adverse environmental effects attributable to the project have been identified. XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.Section 15063(c)(3)(D).In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a)Earlier analyses used.Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b)Impacts adequately addressed.Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c)Mitigation measures.For effects that are "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from 46 Rev. 07/03/02 "MA qkftae .4M01 the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City ofCarlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008. 1.Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update(MEIR 93-01), City of Carlsbad Planning Department (March 1994). 2.Current Rules and Regulations, County of San Diego Air Pollution Control District (November, 2002). 3.San Diego County Important Farmland, California Department of Conservation (September, 2002). 4.Uniform Building Code— Volume 1 (1997); Table 18-1 -B. 5.Special Publication 42, California Geological Survey; State Geologist Division ofMines and Geology (May 1996). 6.Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan, City of Carlsbad Planning Department, (July 1987). 7.Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan for Adams Street, O'Day Consultants, (October 1,2005). 8.Carlsbad Municipal Code Title 21; Zoning Ordinance, City of Carlsbad 9.Grading Ordinance, City ofCarlsbad 10.General Plan Land Use Element, City of Carlsbad 11.Preliminary Drainage Study for Adams Street, O'Day Consultants Inc., October 1,2005 12.Preliminary Biological Assessment, APN 206-200-01, Planning Systems, November 14, 2005 47 Rev. 07/03/02 111100#%VS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DISCUSSION: AIR QUALITY The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxidesofnitrogenandsulfur,and suspended particulates.These aerosols are the major contributors to airpollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin.Since the San Diego Air Basin is a "non- attainment basin",any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant:therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout,a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR.These include:1)provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management;3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted.The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a "non-attainment basin",therefore,the "Initial Study"checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact".This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01,by City Council Resolution No.94-246,included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations"for air quality impacts.This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. BIOLOGY Implementation of the proposed project will have the potential to result in significant impacts to biological resources.The City of Carlsbad,in conjunction with the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has recently approved the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP) which sets forth a program for impact assessment and mitigation of sensitive biological resources, in accordance with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).The impacts associated with the project have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of this HMP.Mitigation measures are necessary in order to mitigate for the potentially significant impacts identified.These measures are included in this environmental impact assessment. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes.Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however,12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control.These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard.Even with the implementation of roadway improvements,a number of intersections are projected to fail the City's 48 Rev. 07/03/02 Nor' adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout,numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR.These include measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted.The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control.The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact".This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts.This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Master EIR,including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. A MEIR may not be used to review projects if it was certified more than five years prior to the filing ofan application for a later project.The City is currently reviewing the 1994 MEIR to determine whether it is still adequate to review subsequent projects.Although the MEIR was certified more than five years ago, the City's preliminary review of its adequacy finds that no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MEIR was certified.The only potential changed circumstance, the intersection failure at Palomar Airport Rd. and El Camino Real has been mitigated to below a level of significance with new roadway improvements.Additionally,there is no new available information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the MEIR was certified.Therefore, the MEIR remains adequate to review later projects. HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY After development, there will be an increase in runoff from the subject property.A portion of the increase in runoff will be due to the use of imported water into the study area for landscaping, etc.The remaining water increase will be due to the increased impervious area within the project site. Application, certification and compliance with an NPDES permit for implementation of the subject project will ensure that water quality exiting the subject site and eventually entering Agua Hedionda Lagoon will be maintained to a level of acceptability. The proposed project could result in temporary degradation ofwater quality if it does not demonstrate compliance with all federal, state, and local regulations for water quality.The project proponent shall adhere to applicable RWQCB regulations for control of sedimentation and erosion, including the installation of temporary detention basins or other means of stabilization or impoundment required by the State Water Resources Control Board.All exposed graded areas shall be treated with erosion control pursuant to City of Carlsbad erosion control standards, including hydroseed, berms, desiltation basins, jute matting, sandbags, bladed ditches, or other appropriate methods.Other Best Management Practices (BMPs)will be utilized. LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES 49 Rev. 07/03/02 'ter To mitigate potentially significant project impacts, the following mitigation measures shall be applied to the development of the proposed project: BIOLOGY: 1.The project applicant shall avoid impacts to and provide a conservation easement over a minimum of .59 acres of CSS and revegetated CSS onsite. 2.The project applicant shall pay in-lieu mitigation fees for 0.14 acres of NNG and 0.02 acres of DIST areas in an amount as determined by the Carlsbad City Council. 3.The project applicant shall avoid clearing and grubbing of vegetation during the avian nesting season (Feb.15 through Aug. 31) unless a qualified biologist confirms, through a documented survey immediately prior to clearing activities, that no nesting gnatcatchers or other sensitive birds will be impacted. 4.No fire buffer impacts or vegetation thinning shall occur within the preserved open spaces. HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY: 1.Prior to commencement ofthe project, and pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, the project proponent shall notify the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)ofthe activities proposed, and shall receive water quality certification for the construction operation,if required by the RWQCB. 2.The project proponent shall comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit regulations as promulgated by the California RWQCB for the San Diego region.This shall include control of all non-storm discharges during construction, and development and implementation of a monitoring and reporting program to assess the storm water pollution prevention plan. 3.The project proponent shall comply with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (December 2003) and adhere to applicable RWQCB regulations for control of sedimentation and erosion, including Best Management Practices, such as installation of temporary detention basins or other means of stabilization or impoundment required by the State Water Resources Control Board.The following guidelines shall be utilized during design and implemented during construction to reduce runoff and minimize erosion: a.Comply with current drainage design policies set forth in the City of Carlsbad procedures. b.Create desiltation basins where necessary to minimize erosion and prevent sediment transport until the storm drain system is in place. c.Landscape all exposed, manufactured slopes per City ofCarlsbad erosion control standards. d.Phase grading operations and slope landscaping to reduce the susceptibility of slopes to erosion. e.Control sediment production from graded building pads with low perimeter berms, desiltation basins,jute matting,sandbags, bladed ditches, or other appropriate methods. 50 Rev. 07/03/02 •i _- '- 10/5/05 Adams St 2 Unit Subdivision —Looking South 10/5/05 Adams St 2 Unit Subdivision —Looking North e ., it ... ,,„ ...-.-,.... 10/5/05 Adams St 2 Unit Subdivision —Looking East West 10/5/05Adams St 2 Unit Subdivision —Looking