HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-01-21; Planning Commission; Resolution 7081
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM AND ADDENDUM TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
3,015 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF JEFFERSON STREET,
ADJACENT TO THE INTERSTATE 5 FREEWAY IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE ONE.
CASE NAME: HIRSCHKOFF RESIDENCE
CASE NO.: CDP 14-13
WHEREAS, Joel Hirschkoff, “Developer/Owner,” has filed a verified application with the
City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
Portion of Tract 2 of Laguna Mesa Tracts, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map Thereof No.
1719, lying westerly and northerly of the center line of the 60 foot
road conveyed by W.T. Hart, ET UX, to County of San Diego, by deed
recorded on Feb. 5, 1941 in Book 1135, Page 75 of Official Records, in
the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, said road being
shown on the map of road survey No. 843
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program and Addendum were prepared in conjunction with said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on January 21, 2015, hold a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering
any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission
hereby ADOPTS the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program and Addendum, Exhibit “MND,” according to Exhibits “Notice of
Intent (NOI),” and “Environmental Impact Assessment Form – Initial Study (EIA),” and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 7081
PC RESO NO. 7081 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Addendum, Exhibit “ADDM,” attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the
following findings and subject to the following condition:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a. it has reviewed, analyzed, and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum for HIRSCHKOFF
RESIDENCE – CDP 14-13, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project
and any comments thereon prior to APPROVING the project; and
b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
and Addendum has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection
Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
d. based on the EIA and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project
will have a significant effect on the environment.
Conditions:
1. Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the Hirschkoff Residence Coastal
Development Permit Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Developer shall
comply with the Mitigation Measures outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program and the Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT NAME: Hirschkoff Residence
PROJECT NO: CDP 14-13/CDP 14-14
Ccityof
Carlsbad
PROJECT LOCATION: The north side of Jefferson Street. north of Las Flores Drive (APN: 155-180-2800)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of a new 3,015 square foot single-family residence with an
attached 468 square foot second dwelling unit and an 803 square foot garage.
DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described
project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the Initial
Study identified potentially significant effects on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as
follows:
~ Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on the attached
sheet have been added to the project.
D The proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document
pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based
on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. (Mitigated Negative Declaration applies
only to the effects that remained to be addressed).
D Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been
analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, nothing further is required.
A copy of the Initial Study documenting reasons to support the Mitigated Negative Declaration is on file
in the Planning Division, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008.
ADOPTED: Janaury 21, 2015, pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 7081
ARST:
YJ.m 21eu
DON NEU, City Planner
Community & Economic Development
Planning Division
1635 Faraday Avenue I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-602-4600 I 760-602-8560 fax
EXHIBIT “ADDM”
ADDENDUM TO THE
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR
HIRSCHKOFF RESIDENCE
CDP 14-13/CDP 14-14 – HIRSCHKOFF RESIDENCE
The purpose of the Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration is to describe revisions to the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program associated with the Hirschkoff Residence project, and to
state the determination that this revision does not create any new significant environmental effects, that
none of the conditions contained in Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
have occurred, and that a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration is not required.
The revisions contained in this addendum clarify language contained within Mitigation Measures CUL-01
to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The following clarifications/revisions are to be
added to mitigation measures ARCH-1:
The developer shall enter into a Pre-Excavation Agreement, otherwise known as a Cultural Resources
Treatment and Tribal Monitoring Agreement, with a Luiseno tribe prior to the commencement of any
ground disturbing activities. This agreement will contain provisions to address the proper treatment
of any cultural resources or Luiseno Native American human remains inadvertently uncovered during
the course of the project. The agreement will outline the roles and powers of the Luiseño Native
American monitors and the archaeologist.
Any and all uncovered artifacts of Luiseño Native American cultural importance should be returned
to the tribe, and/or the most likely descendant and not be curated.
Native American monitors and archaeological monitors should have joint authority to temporarily
divert and/or halt construction activities. If cultural resources are discovered during construction, all
earth moving activity within and around the immediate discovery area must be diverted until the
Luiseño Native American monitor and the archaeologist can assess the nature and significance of the
find.
The Luiseño Native American monitor shall be present at the project’s preconstruction meeting to
consult with grading and excavation contractors concerning excavation schedules and safety issues,
as well as consult with the principal archaeologist concerning the proposed archaeologist techniques
and/or strategies for the project.
If a significant cultural resource and/or unique archaeological resource are unearthed during ground
disturbing activities for this project, the tribe shall be notified and consulted with in regards to the
respectful and dignified treatment of those resources. The tribe’s preference will be for avoidance
and that the resource shall be protected and preserved in perpetuity. This preference is shared under
California law through CEQA as codified in California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. If
however, the applicant is able to demonstrate that avoidance of sacred resources is infeasible and a
data recovery plan is authorized by the City of Carlsbad as the lead agency, the tribe shall be consulted
regarding the drafting and finalization of any such recovery.
When cultural resources are discovered during the project, if the archaeologist collects such
resources, a Luiseño Native American monitor must be present during any testing or cataloging of
those resources. If the archaeologist does not collect the cultural resources that are unearthed during
the ground disturbing activities, the Luiseño Native American monitor, may in their discretion, collect
said resources and provide them to the tribe for respectful and dignified treatment in accordance with
the tribe’s cultural and spiritual traditions.
Initial Study
June 2013 -1- Initial Study
1. PROJECT NAME: Hirschkoff Residence
2. PROJECT NO: CDP 14-13/CDP14-14/V 14-02
3. LEAD AGENCY:
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
4. PROJECT APPLICANT:
Joel Hirschkoff
1483 Coral Way
San Marcos, CA 92078
5. LEAD AGENCY CONTACT PERSON: Austin Silva, Assistant Planner, 760-602-4631,
Austin.silva@carlsbadca.gov
6. PROJECT LOCATION: The north side of Jefferson Street, north of Las Flores Drive.
7. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: RMH (Residential Medium-High)
8. ZONING: R-3 (Multiple Family)
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of a new 3,015 square foot single-family residence with an
attached 468 square foot second dwelling unit and an 803 square foot garage.
Project Name: Hirschkoff Residence
Project No: COP 14-13/CDP 14-14/V 14-02
15. DETERMINATION: (to be completed by Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
D I find that the proposed project COUlD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
herein have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
D I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
D I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact(s)" on the
environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in
an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described herein. A Negative Declaration
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
D I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a)
have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, nothing further is required.
16. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The initial study for this project has been reviewed and the
environmental determination, indicated above, is hereby approved.
QL~ lglts;/t'i
DON NEU, City Planner Date
17. APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES: This is to certify that I have reviewed
the mitigation measures in th:;i/dy and concur with the addition of these measures to the
project. c:;;;-~ [ D )J /i;; 4
Signature~ oite 7
J;,e I Dr H l[JC-~~ ('"-r
Print Name
June 2013 -3-Initial Study
Project Name: Hirschkoff
Project No: CDP 14-13/CDP 14-14/V 14-02
June 2013 -4- Initial Study
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported
by the information sources a lead agency cites 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 (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No
Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general
standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative
as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist
answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation,
or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that
an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less
Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how
they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses," as
described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect
has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case,
a brief discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify 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 Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier
document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside
document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is
substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.
Project Name: Hirschkoff
Project No: CDP 14-13/CDP 14-14/V 14-02
June 2013 -5- Initial Study
I. AESTHETICS
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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, which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a,c) Less than Significant Impact. A single-family home and a second dwelling unit is proposed for
construction on a vacant parcel of land with westerly views of the Buena Vista Lagoon and the Pacific
Ocean. These views are currently visible from the Jefferson Street frontage. While the proposed
development will partially block these existing views, the project is not considered to have a substantially
adverse effect on a scenic vista given that the area is not identified in either the Local Coastal Program or
the City of Carlsbad’s General Plan as such. Additionally, the property has a General Plan Land Use
designation of RMH (Residential Medium-High Density) and is zoned R-3 (Multi-Family Residential), which
would allow development at a density of 8 to 15 dwelling units per acre with a maximum building height
of 35 feet. The proposed single-family home is 24’ 5” tall as measured from the front of the house viewed
from Jefferson Street. Surrounding land uses are consistent with the proposed development both in scale
and use. Development of the site will not adversely affect scenic vistas or substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.
b) No impact. The proposed project is not located adjacent to any state scenic highways, nor are there
any rock outcroppings or historic buildings on-site. An existing Jacaranda tree is located on the site that
will remain after construction. Therefore, no scenic resources will be damaged as a result of the proposed
project.
d) No Impact. The proposed use is consistent with the surrounding single-family residential uses and will
be designed similar to surrounding single-family residential uses such that it does not contribute a
significant amount of light or glare. No impact assessed.
Project Name: Hirschkoff Residence
Project No: CDP 14-13/CDP 14-14/V 14-02
June 2013 -6- Initial Study
II. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES *
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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 a Williamson
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 or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
* 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. In determining whether impacts
to forest resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range
Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in
Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.)
a-c) No Impact. There will be no impacts to agricultural resources since the site is not designated, nor has
it been historically or currently used for farmland. The proposed project is consistent with the City of
Carlsbad’s General Plan. The subject site is zoned R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) and is not subject
to a Williamson Act Contract. The project would not result in other changes to the environment that
would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. The General Plan Land Use
designation is Residential Medium-High Density (RMH), which anticipates one-family, two-family and
multiple-family residential development. Given the steep slopes, surrounding residential
development and lack of existing or historical agricultural infrastructure, it is unlikely that agricultural
operations would be viable at this location. Development of the site as proposed would not adversely
affect agricultural resources. No impact assessed.
III. AIR QUALITY*
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under
an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Project Name: Hirschkoff Residence
Project No: CDP 14-13/CDP 14-14/V 14-02
June 2013 -7- Initial Study
III. AIR QUALITY*
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
* 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.
a) No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is currently designated as a
nonattainment area for the state standard for PM10, PM2.5, 1-Hour and 8-Hour ozone, and the Federal 8-
Hour Standard for ozone. The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the
San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothill areas, requires that a plan be developed
outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, this
attainment planning process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly
by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). The
RAQS outlines the APCD’s plans and regulatory control measures designed to attain state air quality
standards for ozone. The RAQS, which was initially adopted in 1991, is updated on a triennial basis with
the most recent update occurring in April 2009.
The APCD has also developed the SDAB’s input into the State Implementation Plan (SIP) which is required
under the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) for pollutants that are designated as being in nonattainment of
national air quality standards for the air basin. The SIP relies on the same information from SANDAG to
develop emission inventories and emission control strategies that are included in the attainment
demonstration for the air basin.
The proposed project relates to the SIP and/or RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that
are incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each
city’s and the County’s general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan,
then the project presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such
consistency would ensure that the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact.
Section 15125(d) of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific
reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable
air quality management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS
and TCM plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality
standards. The California Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project
conforms with the RAQS which include the following:
Project Name: Hirschkoff Residence
Project No: CDP 14-13/CDP 14-14/V 14-02
June 2013 -8- Initial Study
Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area?
Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan?
The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is
being implemented. The project is consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan
and will in no way conflict with or obstruct implementation of the regional plan.
b) Less than Significant Impact. The closest air quality monitoring stations to the project site are at Camp
Pendleton and Escondido (E. Valley Parkway). Data available for these monitoring sites from 2009 through
2011, indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded were as follows: the 1-Hour ozone
concentration did not exceed the state standard any time during the years 2009 through 2011; the 8-Hour
ozone concentration exceeded both the state and federal standard in 2009 and 2010 and the state
standard was exceeded twice in 2011; the daily PM10 concentration exceeded the state standard in 2009,
but not in 2010 or 2011; and the federal standard for PM10 and the federal 24-Hour PM2.5 standard was
not exceeded during the 2009 through 2011 time period. No other violations of any air quality standards
have been recorded during the years 2009 through 2011.
The project would involve minimal short-term emissions associated with grading and construction. Such
emissions would be minimized through standard construction measures and Best Management Practices
(BMPs) that would reduce fugitive dust emissions and other criteria pollutant emissions during
construction. Long-term emissions associated with travel to and from the project will be minimal.
Although air pollutant emissions would be associated with the project, they would neither result in the
violation of any air quality standard (comprising only an incremental contribution to overall air basin
quality readings), nor contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Any impact
is assessed as less than significant.
c) Less than Significant Impact. The air basin is currently in a state non-attainment zone for ozone and
suspended fine particulates. The proposed project would represent a contribution to a cumulatively
considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however,
emissions associated with the proposed project would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially
associated with the proposed project, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the
proposed project is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3), the proposed
project’s incremental contribution to the cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable. Any impact
is assessed as less than significant.
d) No Impact. As noted above, the proposed would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or
concentrations. In addition, there are no sensitive receptors (e.g., schools or hospitals) located in the
vicinity of the project. No impact is assessed.
e) No Impact. The construction of the proposed project could generate fumes from the operation of
construction equipment, which may be considered objectionable by some people. Such exposure would
be short-term or transient. In addition, the number of people exposed to such transient impacts is not
considered substantial.
Project Name: Hirschkoff Residence
Project No: CDP 14-13/CDP 14-14/V 14-02
June 2013 -9- Initial Study
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
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?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
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, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
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?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
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?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
a, b, c, d, e & f) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project is a single-
family home and a second dwelling unit located adjacent to the south shore of the Buena Vista Lagoon,
which is identified in the City of Carlsbad’s Habitat Management Plan (HMP) as an existing hardline
preserve area. The project site is identified in the HMP as being a “development” area. The project site
is not located within an existing or proposed HMP hardline preserve area or a proposed HMP standards
area. The project is designed to be consistent with the HMP. The HMP Zone 1 conservation goals require
conservation of the majority of sensitive habitats in or contiguous with biological core areas, including a
no net loss of wetland habitat, and preservation of coastal sage scrub and maritime succulent scrub
adjacent to the lagoons. The HMP requires additional conservation standards to be applied to properties
in the Coastal Zone. A 100-foot buffer is required for all wetland/riparian habitats between preserved
habitats and development in addition to a 20 foot buffer around sensitive habitat areas (Diegan Coastal
Sage Scrub).
The project site is located within Local Facility Management Zone (LFMZ) 1 and just outside of the Core
Area 1 boundary of the HMP. Core 1 consists of the Buena Vista Lagoon and adjoining wetland and upland
habitats. The Buena Vista Lagoon and its surrounding vegetation provide habitat for critical populations
of the California least tern, western snowy plover, light-footed clapper rail, American peregrine falcon,
California brown pelican, white-faced ibis and the southwestern pond turtle. As a result, the lagoon and
its associated vegetation have been designated as a “Hardline Preserve Area” by the City of Carlsbad and
Project Name: Hirschkoff Residence
Project No: CDP 14-13/CDP 14-14/V 14-02
June 2013 -10- Initial Study
“Conserved Lands” by the CDFW. However, the project site is located outside of, but adjacent to the
“Hardline Preserve Area.”
Pursuant to the Carlsbad HMP, LFMZ 1 is almost entirely developed, containing scattered fragments of
natural vegetation, including major and critical strand of riparian habitat and scattered patches of coastal
sage scrub, non-native grassland, maritime succulent scrub, salt marsh, and freshwater marsh.
Several HMP Conservation Goals for LFMZ 1 are applicable to the project:
a) No net loss of wetland habitat.
b) Preserving coastal sage scrub and maritime succulent scrub adjacent to the Buena Vista Lagoon
c) Retaining and managing natural habitats adjacent to the lagoons to buffer wetland resources from
adverse effects and to provide upland nesting habitat for pond turtles and other HMP species.
The proposed project has taken these goals into consideration and a 100 foot buffer between the
wetlands and the development area has been incorporated into the project design. Furthermore, a 20’
buffer from the on-site Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub is proposed, although the project site is located
adjacent to an existing HMP Hardline Preserve area, it is identified in the biological resources report as
being in a highly disturbed state and located adjacent to developed properties on three sides. As such,
the property is classified as “development area” per the HMP.
A Biological Resources Report was prepared by Brian F. Smith and Associates on June 7, 2013 (Revised
June 11, 2014). This report indicates that the project site contains primarily undeveloped land consisting
of .19 acres of disturbed land and .10 acres of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub. Suitable habitat for nesting birds
protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Wildlife Code is present at proposed
project site. Three species covered by the HMP were determined to have potential to occur on the
proposed project site: Orcutt’s spineflower, orange-throated whiptail lizard, and the coastal California
gnatcatcher. The orange-throated whiptail is adequately conserved by the HMP. Orcutt’s spineflower is
listed as endangered and the California gnatcatcher is listed as threatened. The shoreline of the Buena
Vista Lagoon is approximately 80 feet north of the northern boundary of the property. A 100 foot buffer
from riparian/wetland areas and a 20 foot buffer from Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub is required and has been
provided with the project design. The proposed development will not impact any of the .10 acres of the
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub vegetation. It will however impact .18 acres of disturbed land. The HMP allows
impacts to disturbed land to be mitigated through the payment of an in-lieu mitigation fee. The area
containing Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub will be placed in an open space easement which will prevent any
development, grading, or alterations, including the clearing of vegetation.
Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species
The list of species covered by the provisions of the HMP was assessed to determine if the listed species
might be present on or near the proposed project site. Determinations regarding the probability of a
species occurring on the site are based on recorded occurrences of the species in the immediate vicinity
(two-mile radius) of the property, the presence of suitable habitat for the species, and the quality of
suitable habitat, if present. A species was determined to have high potential for occurrence if there are
recorded occurrence within 2 miles of the project site and suitable habitat of good quality is present on
the site. A species was determined to have moderate potential for occurrence if there are no recorded
occurrences within 2 miles, but suitable habitat of reasonable quality is present. A species was determined
to have low potential for occurrence if there are no recorded occurrences within 2 miles and habitat is
Project Name: Hirschkoff Residence
Project No: CDP 14-13/CDP 14-14/V 14-02
June 2013 -11- Initial Study
fragmented or of low quality. A species was considered to have no potential to occur on the site if there
are no recorded occurrences within 2 miles and suitable habitat is not present. Three sensitive species
were determined to have a high potential to be present on the proposed project site.
Orcutt’s Spineflower: Orcutt’s spineflower is listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The California Native Plant Society lists Orcutt’s
spineflower as seriously endangered in California. This species occurs in coastal chaparral and sage scrub
with a loose sandy substrate (CNPS 2013). Suitable habitat for Orcutt’s spineflower is present in the sage
scrub on the proposed project site which will be preserved in an open space easement. This species was
not found on the property during site visits and is not likely to be present.
Orange-Throated Whiptail: The orange-throated whiptail is a State of California Species of Special
Concern. The orange-throated whiptail has not been listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The
orange-throated whiptail is found in brushy areas with loose soils and rocks, particularly in the coastal
sage scrub on the north end of the project site. There are no recorded occurrences of this species to be
present on the project site. There is low to moderate potential for this species to be on the project site.
The orange-throated whiptail, however, is considered adequately conserved by the provisions of the
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP).
Coastal California Gnatcatcher: The coastal California gnatcatcher is listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and is a state Species of Special Concern. The coastal California gnatcatcher is covered
by provision of the MSHCP. This species is a small, non-migratory songbird that is found almost exclusively
in coastal sage scrub. Suitable habitat for this species is found in the coastal sage scrub community on the
project site. There are numerous recorded occurrences of this species within two miles of the project site.
There is a high potential for this species to be present on the property. Coastal Sage Scrub on the project
site should not be disturbed during the breeding season for this species, from February 15 through August
31, unless a focused protocol survey for the species is conducted by a qualified biologist holding an
Endangered Species Act Section 10(A)1(a) recovery permit. If the coastal California gnatcatcher is present,
no disturbance of suitable habitat shall occur during the breeding season for this species.
Sensitive Vegetation Communities/ Wetland Habitat
Wetlands: The habitat assessment states that the proposed project site does not support wetlands. The
shoreline of the Buena Vista Lagoon is approximately 80 feet north of the northern property line. Routine
wetland delineation was conducted along the shoreline of Buena Vista Lagoon to determine the extent of
wetlands adjacent to the property. The delineation determined that the boundary of the jurisdictional
wetland adjacent to the property is approximately 14 feet AMSL and 80 to 100 feet from the top of the
slope at the north end of the property. The required 100 foot wetland buffer would extend into the west
corner of the parcel.
Vernal Pools: Critical habitat has been designated for vernal pool species. Evidence of vernal pools was
not encountered during the site visit. Vernal pools and vernal pool species are not present on the
proposed project site.
Not-Wetland Jurisdictional Waters: Waters of the state of California and the United States are not present
on the proposed project site.
Project Name: Hirschkoff Residence
Project No: CDP 14-13/CDP 14-14/V 14-02
June 2013 -12- Initial Study
Mitigation Measures:
If the following avoidance, mitigation and minimization recommendations are followed, the proposed
action will not significantly affect sensitive biological resources.
1. Plant Communities: The site contains .19 acres of disturbed land on the site. The HMP allows impacts
to disturbed land to be mitigated through the payment of an in-lieu mitigation fee. The project will be
conditioned to pay the in-lieu mitigation fee for impacts to .18 acres of disturbed land before grading
permits are issued.
2. Buffer areas: The required 100 foot wetland buffer and the entire 20’ wide Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub
buffer as shown on the project plans shall be placed within a dedicated open space easement.
3. Landscaping Restrictions: Non-native invasive species shall not be used in landscaping; this includes
container stock and seed stock. Non-native species will need to be eradicated and re-vegetated with
native species appropriate to the site. Irrigation shall be managed to prevent runoff into preserve
areas. Irrigation runoff will be contained on the project site and diverted to storm drains. There should
be a minimal use of fertilizers and pesticides. Container stock or seed acquired from outside the project
area shall not be used. Cultivars of native vegetation shall not be used for re-vegetation, particularly
those from offshore islands in northern and central California.
4. Nesting Birds: Nesting birds are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act the California Fish and
Game Code. Suitable nesting habitat for ground nesting birds, such as western meadow lark, horned
lark, killdeer, and morning dove, is present on the proposed project site. If clearing, grubbing, and
grading are scheduled to occur during the general bird nesting season, from February 1 through
September 15, these ground nesting bird species may be adversely affected. Avoidance measures may
be required if nesting birds are present on the proposed project site. No more than three days prior to
the disturbance of vegetation on the project site, a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird
survey. If nesting birds are found or suspected, a buffer shall be established around each known or
suspected site. No disturbance shall occur within the buffer until the qualified biologist has determined
that the young birds have fledged or the nest is no longer active.
5. Erosion Control: No new surface drainage shall be allowed to enter preserve areas and irrigation runoff
shall be contained on the project site and directed to storm drains.
6. Fences, Signs, Exotic Species Control and Lighting: Fencing should be used (where appropriate) to direct
human activity and domestic pets away from sensitive areas. If appropriate, signs may be used to
inform or provide direction. Lighting should be directed down and away from preserve areas. Low-
pressure sodium lighting should be used.
7. Sensitive Species: There is potential for coastal California gnatcatchers, a threatened species, to be
present in the sage scrub on the north end of the property. Disturbance of sage scrub is not proposed
and shall not be permitted between February 15 and August 31 unless presence/absence surveys
conducted by a qualified biologist establish that gnatcatchers are not present. Project-related
construction noise may adversely affect nesting gnatcatchers if construction occurs during the
gnatcatcher nesting season. Presence/absence surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist
processing a current Section 10(a), 1(a), Recovery Permit authorizing the permittee to conduct these
Project Name: Hirschkoff Residence
Project No: CDP 14-13/CDP 14-14/V 14-02
June 2013 -13- Initial Study
surveys. If gnatcatchers are detected within 300 feet of the limits of disturbance, work may not proceed
until a noise assessment has been completed and appropriate noise attenuation and monitoring
measures have been prepared. Monitoring shall continue throughout the nesting season.
V. CULTURAL/PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource as defined in §15064.5? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
a, b, c & d) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. A Cultural Resources Constraints Review
was prepared on May 20, 2013 by Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. (BFSA). The review was conducted
to determine the presence of any archaeological or historical cultural resources that could be affected by
the proposed project. Archaeological surveys of parcels near the project site have resulted in the
recordation of prehistoric sites along the lagoon. In particular, Site SDI-628 has been recorded as a very
large, archaic, prehistoric site that covers an area of approximately six acres, beginning at approximately
the area of Interstate 5 and extending along the path of Jefferson Street for a distance of nearly 1,000
feet. Site SDI-628 is one of five major prehistoric sites located along the south shore of the lagoon.
An initial survey of the subject property identified a thin scatter of marine shell on the property. This type
of shell scatter is a common indicator that prehistoric subsistence activities have been associated with the
area. However, no areas associated with long-term occupation on the property were observed. The shell
on the property could either represent archaeological materials associated with the recorded site SDI-
628, or the shell could be present as a result of prior grading of areas along Jefferson Street or Interstate
5.
The review of information and the survey of the property have led archaeologists to believe that
development of the property will not impact any highly significant cultural resources. Since no stone
tools, fire hearths, or other evidence of a prehistoric occupation were observed on the property, it is
concluded that development of the property will not be affected because a significant archaeological site
is present. However, because of the proximity of site SDI-628, it is required that archaeological monitoring
by a qualified archeologist is required during construction in order to identify previously unidentified
subsurface cultural deposits. Monitoring is recommended during initial ground disturbance including soil
testing, soil remediation, and the initial grading. In the event that cultural resources are encountered, all
work should cease in the vicinity of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist has evaluated the resource
to determine significance. Monitoring will not be required for non-native fill soils or after initial grading.
Implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in the cultural resources study will reduce
project associated impacts to a level of less than significant. The mitigation measure shall be listed as
follows:
Project Name: Hirschkoff Residence
Project No: CDP 14-13/CDP 14-14/V 14-02
June 2013 -14- Initial Study
Archeological monitoring by a qualified archeologist is required during construction in order to identify
previously unidentified subsurface cultural deposits. Monitoring is recommended during initial ground
disturbance including soil testing, soil remediation, and the initial grading. In the event that cultural
resources are encountered, all work should cease in the vicinity of the discovery until a qualified
archeologist has evaluated the resource to determine significance. Monitoring will not be required for
non-native fill soils or after initial grading.
A Paleontological Resource Assessment was prepared on March 7, 2014 by Brian F. Smith and Associates.
According to the assessment, the basement rocks in the area are mapped as the middle Eocene Santiago
Formation. The Santiago Formation contains a variety of lithologies, including ones derived from marine,
estuarine, and terrestrial environments. Eocene sediments are mapped as being exposed along the bluffs
on the shore of the lagoon. Much of the coastal area in this part of San Diego County is also overlain by a
thin veneer of Pleistocene marine terrace sediments that are not always mapped as such, but are evident
based on the planar terrace geomorphology. Some areas on the north side of the lagoon that are mapped
as the Eocene Santiago Formation have, for example, produced very rich Pleistocene fossil marine
invertebrate faunas from exposures of 300,000 to 400,000 year old interglacial estuarine sediments.
Nearby areas have been mapped as older Quaternary marine terrace materials. The project site is mapped
on a younger marine terrace, which may date to the last major interglacial period that occurred about
80,000 to 120,000 years ago. Marine terraces of these ages along the San Diego County coast are often
abundantly fossiliferous, although sporadically distributed.
Paleontological collections and records of the Department of Paleontology collections and records of the
Department of Paleontology at the San Diego Natural History Museum in San Diego do not show any
previously recorded fossil sites within the property boundaries. The museum’s records and locality maps
do show, however, a fossil mammoth locality about one-third of a mile to the north, and 10 marine terrace
localities with abundant marine invertebrate fossils on the north side of the Buena Vista Lagoon. Although
there are no locally recorded fossil localities, the Eocene Santiago Formation is often fossilferous, and has
yielded important terrestrial vertebrate faunas, as well as marine invertebrate faunas.
Because of the “high paleontological resource sensitivity” assigned to the middle Eocene Santiago
Formation and the Pleistocene marine terrace sediments, a paleontologist shall attend the pre-
construction meeting, and full-time paleontological monitoring of mass grading and excavation activities,
including utility trenching in areas so mapped should be required to mitigate and adverse impacts (loss or
destruction) to potential nonrenewable paleontological resources (i.e. Pleistocene and/or Eocene fossils).
Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures will reduce the project impacts to a level of
less than significant. Paleontological mitigation measures shall be as follows:
a) A qualified paleontologist should attend the pre-construction meeting to consult with the grading
and excavation contractors concerning excavation schedules, paleontological field techniques,
and safety issues. A qualified paleontologist is defined as an individual with a MS of Ph.D. in
paleontology or geology that is familiar with paleontological procedures and techniques, who is
knowledgeable in the geology and paleontology of San Diego County, and who has worked as a
paleontological mitigation project supervisor in the county for at least one year.
b) A paleontological monitor should be on-site on a full-time basis during the original cutting of
previously undisturbed deposits of high paleontological resource potential to inspect exposures
for contained fossils. Because of the destructive nature of surface weathering processes, only the
deeper (i.e. five feet deep) excavations into the Pleistocene marine terrace deposits should be
Project Name: Hirschkoff Residence
Project No: CDP 14-13/CDP 14-14/V 14-02
June 2013 -15- Initial Study
monitored full-time. A paleontological monitor is defined as an individual who has experience in
the collection and salvage of fossil materials. The paleontological monitor should work under the
direction of a qualified paleontologist.
c) If fossils are discovered, the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) should recover them. In
most cases, this fossil salvage can be completed in a short period of time. However, some fossil
specimens (such as a complete large mammal skeleton) may require an extended salvage period.
In these instances, the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) should be allowed to
temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely manner.
Because of the potential for the recovering of small fossil remains, such as isolated mammal teeth,
it may be necessary to set up a screen-washing operation on site.
d) Fossil remains collected during monitoring and salvage should be cleaned, repaired, sorted, and
cataloged as part of the mitigation program.
e) Prepared fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field noted, photos, and maps should be
deposited (as a donation) in a scientific institution with the permanent paleontological collections
such as the San Diego Natural History Museum. Donation of the fossils should be accompanied by
a financial support for initial specimen storage.
f) A final summary report should be completed that outlines the results of the mitigation program.
This report should include discussions of the methods used, stratigraphic section(s) exposed,
fossils collected, and significance or recovered fossils.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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-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? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv. Landslides? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Project Name: Hirschkoff Residence
Project No: CDP 14-13/CDP 14-14/V 14-02
June 2013 -16- Initial Study
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Section 1802.3.2 of the
California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a.i) No Impact. There are no Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zones within the City of Carlsbad and there is
no other evidence of active or potentially active faults within the city. No impact assessed.
a.ii.-a.iv & c) Less Than Significant Impact. There are no Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zones within the
City of Carlsbad and there is no other evidence of active or potentially active faults within the city.
However, there are several active faults throughout Southern California, and potential earthquakes
resulting from these faults could affect Carlsbad. A geotechnical investigation and report of the site was
prepared by Engineering Design Group on June 19, 2013. The report identified that the site could be
subjected to moderate to severe ground shaking in the event of a major earthquake along any of the faults
in the Southern California region. However, the seismic risk at this site is not significantly greater than that
of the surrounding area. Liquefaction of cohesionless soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion due
to earthquakes. Research and historical data indicate that loose granular soils underlain by a near-surface
ground water table are most susceptible to liquefaction, while the stability of most silty clays is not
adversely affected by vibratory motion. Because of the dense nature of the soil materials underlying the
site the lack of near surface water, the potential for liquefaction or seismically-induced dynamic
settlement at the site is considered low. The effects of seismic shaking can be reduced by adhering to the
most recent edition of the Uniform Building Code and current design parameters of the Structural
Engineers Association. The site is suitable for the proposed project, and will not expose people or
structures to geotechnical related hazards.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. Grading of the site is primarily restricted to the footprint of the home.
Some grading is anticipated around the border of the home to allow for guest parking and landscaping
improvements. The perimeter of the home will be landscaped and storm runoff generated from the roof
of the home and driveway will be treated on-site near the bottom of the building pad and then pumped
to Jefferson Street where it will be discharged into the Jefferson Street gutter. Therefore, impacts to soil
erosion or loss of top soil are considered to be less than significant.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. The geotechnical review and report indicates that fill, topsoil, and
weathered soil profiles consist of slightly silty sands. These profiles consist of reddish brown, dry to slightly
moist, loose to medium dense, silty sands. Topsoil, fill materials are not considered suitable for the
support of structures in their present state. Slightly silty sands classify as SW-SM according to the Unified
Classification System, and based on visual observation, generally possess potentials for expansion in the
low range. Sandstone materials were found to underlie the topsoil and weathered material within boring
excavations. These materials classify as SW-ML according to the Unified Classification System, and possess
potentials for expansion in the low to medium range. Sandstone materials are considered suitable for the
Project Name: Hirschkoff Residence
Project No: CDP 14-13/CDP 14-14/V 14-02
June 2013 -17- Initial Study
support of structures and structural improvements, provided the recommendations of the geotechnical
report are followed. The report indicates that development of the property appears to be feasible from a
geotechnical viewpoint, provided the recommendations presented in the report are properly
incorporated into the design and construction of the project. Standard conditions of approval require
implementation of the recommendations included in the geotechnical update and review. Therefore,
impacts are considered to be less than significant.
e) No Impact. The proposed project does not propose septic tanks and will utilize the public sewer system.
Therefore, there will be no impacts involving soils that support the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems. No impact assessed.
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant impact on the environment? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for
the purposes of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
a & b) Less than Significant Impact. The project is expected to generate GHG emissions in the short-term
as a result of construction emissions and in the long-term as a result of automobile trips and energy
consumption. The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) published a white paper
with a suggested significance screening threshold criteria of 900 metric tons of GHGs. While the proposed
project is expected to generate some short-term and long-term GHG emissions that could contribute
directly and indirectly to the environment, the total GHG emissions generated by the project, combined
with the state and federal reduction measures are not considered significant. Therefore, impacts from
GHG emissions on the environment are considered to be less than significant.
Project Name: Hirschkoff Residence
Project No: CDP 14-13/CDP 14-14/V 14-02
June 2013 -18- Initial Study
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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 environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset 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 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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a-h) No Impact. The project is a single-family home and second dwelling unit, which does not involve the
transport or storage of hazardous materials. The site is not listed as a hazardous materials site. The
proposed home is designed with fire rated construction and sprinklers to reduce the risk of loss, injury or
death resulting from wildland fires. The project, which is approximately 4.5 miles northwest of the
McClellan-Palomar Airport and well outside of the Airport Influence Area, will not expose people to airport
safety hazards. No impact assessed.
Project Name: Hirschkoff Residence
Project No: CDP 14-13/CDP 14-14/V 14-02
June 2013 -19- Initial Study
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
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) 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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) 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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
g) 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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
h) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would
impede or redirect flood flows? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
i) 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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
a) Less than Significant Impact. The subject property is required to comply with all federal, state and
local water quality regulations, including the Clean Water Act (California Administrative Code Title
23). The project will comply with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
requirements. The project will implement specific erosion control measures and Storm Water
Management techniques to protect the downstream water quality of Buena Vista Lagoon. These
include the use of bioretention areas and rip-rap energy dissipators. The storm water management
plan will ensure acceptable water quality standards will be maintained both during the construction
phase as well as post-development.
Project Name: Hirschkoff Residence
Project No: CDP 14-13/CDP 14-14/V 14-02
June 2013 -20- Initial Study
b) No Impact. This project does not propose to directly draw any groundwater. The project will be served
via existing public water distribution lines that are adjacent to the site. No impact assessed.
c-e) Less Than Significant Impact. Grading of the site consists of 100 cubic yards of export dirt from the
.28 acre site. No streams or rivers are present on the site. The project is designed to match the
historical drainage pattern of the site, with the exception of grading for the footprint of the home.
Storm runoff generated from the roof of the home and driveway will be treated on-site near the
bottom of the building pad and then pumped to Jefferson Street where it will be discharged into the
Jefferson Street gutter. Infiltration is not recommended since the proposed residence will sit atop an
existing slope, and could weaken the stability of soils. For this reason, bio-retention basins and flow
through planters will be lined with impermeable membranes to prevent infiltration into the adjacent
soils. Therefore, the project will not violate any water quality standards, deplete groundwater supplies
or quality, substantially alter existing drainage patters, cause substantial erosion or flooding, or
significantly impact the capacity of storm water drainage systems.
f) Less Than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project improvements will comply with
all federal, state and local water quality agency regulations, including the Clean Water Act and
associated NPDES regulations. A grading permit is required for the project prior to commencement of
grading, which requires review and approval of an erosion control plan. The erosion control plan will
employ grading construction BMP’s which will reduce temporary impacts on water quality. In
addition, a storm water management plan (SWMP) was prepared for the project by Sampo
Engineering, Inc., dated July 30, 2014. Through implementation of the recommended site design and
source control BMP’s, post construction impacts to water quality will be mitigated. Therefore, the
project will not result in permanent or long term degradation of water quality and impacts are
considered to be less than significant.
g-i) No Impact. The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according to the Flood
Insurance Rate Map, Map No. 06073C0761G, May 16, 2013. Therefore, the proposed project will not
result in the placement of housing or structures within a 100-year flood hazard area. According to the
City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992, the project site
is not located within any dam failure inundation area. No impact assessed.
j) Less Than Significant Impact. According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and
Mapping Study, November 1992, and based on historical events, and the generally accepted and
favorable geologic and seismic conditions along the San Diego County Coastline, the potential for
damage to the project site caused by tsunamis or seiches is considered to be low.
Project Name: Hirschkoff Residence
Project No: CDP 14-13/CDP 14-14/V 14-02
June 2013 -21- Initial Study
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
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, local coastal program, or
zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a-c) No Impact. The project is a single-family residence and second dwelling unit consistent with the
surrounding land use. The site does not physically divide an established community. The proposed project
does not conflict with any existing or proposed land use plans or policies of the City of Carlsbad. The
project is consistent with both the City of Carlsbad General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use
designations. The General Plan Land Use designation is RMH (Residential Medium High Density). RMH
anticipates two-family and multiple –family dwellings at 8 to 15 dwelling units per acre, but allows single-
family dwellings that fall below the minimum density range when a single, one-family dwelling is
constructed on a legal lot that existed as of October 28, 2004. The subject lot was created prior to October
28, 2004 and, therefore is consistent with the General Plan. The Local Coastal Land Use designation is RLM
(Residential Low-Medium Density). RLM anticipates single-family residences at 0 to 4 dwelling units per
acre. The project proposes one single-family residence and a second dwelling unit, and therefore is
consistent with the RLM land use designation. The project is consistent with the City of Carlsbad Habitat
Management Plan and does not conflict with any applicable plans or policies. No impact assessed.
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a-b) No Impact. Carlsbad is devoid of non-renewable energy resources. Mineral resources within the City
are no longer being utilized and extracted as exploitable natural resources. Therefore, no mineral
resource impacts will occur as a result of any project. (MEIR 93-01, page 5.13-1)
Project Name: Hirschkoff Residence
Project No: CDP 14-13/CDP 14-14/V 14-02
June 2013 -22- Initial Study
XII. NOISE
Would the project result in: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne
vibration or groundbourne noise levels? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above 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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a & c) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project consists of a single-family dwelling
and a second dwelling unit which is consistent in use and intensity as the surrounding residential
development. The project is located adjacent to the Interstate 5 freeway and is impacted by traffic noise.
Per the City of Carlsbad’s Noise Guidelines Manual, interior noise levels for residential units shall be
mitigated to 45 dB(A) CNEL when openings to the exterior of the residence are closed. If openings are
required to be closed to meet the interior noise standard, then mechanical ventilation shall be required.
Mitigation Measure: Prior to the issuance of building permits, an interior noise assessment shall be
conducted to determine whether interior noise standards exceed 45 dB(A) CNEL. If so, mechanical
ventilation shall be required to be incorporated into the project.
b & d) No Impact. The anticipated grading operation associated with the proposed single-family residence
will result in temporary and a minor increase in ground borne vibration and ambient noise levels.
Following the end of the grading, the ambient noise level and vibrations are expected to return to pre-
existing levels.
e & f) No Impact. The project is not located within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of a public
airport of public use airport where a plan has not been adopted. Additionally, the project is not within
the vicinity of a private airstrip. No impact assessed.
Project Name: Hirschkoff Residence
Project No: CDP 14-13/CDP 14-14/V 14-02
June 2013 -23- Initial Study
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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 of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a-c) No Impact. Because the existing site is undeveloped, the project will not displace any housing or
number of people. The project is one single-family dwelling unit and second dwelling unit, which is
consistent with the surrounding land uses. The area surrounding the proposed development is designated
for residential development and was analyzed in the city’s Growth Management Plan accordingly. The
project does not induce substantial growth directly or indirectly, as two dwelling units are proposed on a
vacant lot that is served by existing infrastructure. The density of the proposed development is consistent
with the City of Carlsbad’s General Plan. No impact assessed.
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a) No Impact. The project’s size of one single-family dwelling unit and a second dwelling unit is
consistent with the General Plan and surrounding land uses, and therefore will not affect the provision
and availability of public facilities (fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, libraries, etc.). The
proposed project shall be subject to the conditions and facility service level requirements within the
Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1. Therefore, no significant public service impacts will occur
as a result of this project. No impact assessed.
Project Name: Hirschkoff Residence
Project No: CDP 14-13/CDP 14-14/V 14-02
June 2013 -24- Initial Study
XV. RECREATION Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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 require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might
have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a-b) No Impact. The project’s size of one single-family dwelling unit and a second dwelling unitwill not
result in the deterioration of existing neighborhood or regional parks or cause such parks to be
expanded. Therefore, no adverse physical effect on the environment will occur as a result of this
project.
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation
system, taking into account all modes of transportation including
mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components
of the circulation system, including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and
bicycle paths, and mass transit?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel
demand measures, or other standards established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Project Name: Hirschkoff Residence
Project No: CDP 14-13/CDP 14-14/V 14-02
June 2013 -25- Initial Study
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public
transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the
performance or safety of such facilities?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a) Less than Significant Impact. The project will generate 20 Average Daily Trips (ADT) and 4 peak hour
trips which is not substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. While
the increase in traffic from the proposed project may be slightly noticeable, the street system has been
designed and sized to accommodate traffic from the project and cumulative development in the City of
Carlsbad. The proposed project will not cause and increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. Project associated impacts are therefore considered
less than significant.
b) No Impact. In 2009 the congestion management agency (SANDAG) employed an “opt out” option
defined in Assembly Bill (AB) 2419. The congestion management program is no longer relevant to
development in the City of Carlsbad.
c) No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components. It would not, therefore,
result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No impact assessed.
d) No Impact. All project circulation improvements will be designed and constructed to City standards;
and, therefore, would not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the City’s
general plan and zoning. Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use or design
feature. No impact assessed.
e) No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the
Fire and Police Departments. No impact assessed.
f) No Impact. The project is located along the west side of Jefferson Street and is served by the North
County Transit District (NCTD) bus route 322. The proposed single-family dwelling unit and second
dwelling unit will not conflict with any adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation. No impact assessed.
Project Name: Hirschkoff Residence
Project No: CDP 14-13/CDP 14-14/V 14-02
June 2013 -26- Initial Study
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a-g) No Impact. The proposed residential development and second dwelling unit will be required to
comply with all Regional Water Quality Control Board Requirements. In addition, the Zone 1 LFMP
anticipated that the project site would be developed with a residential use and wastewater treatment
facilities were planned and designed to accommodate future residential uses on the site. All public
facilities, including water facilities, wastewater treatment facilities and drainage facilities have been
planned and designed to accommodate the growth projections for the city at build out. The proposed
development on the site will increase the demand for these facilities. However, the proposed density
is less than originally anticipated for this site and will not result in an overall increase in the city’s
growth projection in the NW quadrant. Therefore, the project does not create development that will
result in a significant need to expand or construct new water facilities/supplies, wastewater treatment
or storm water drainage facilities. No impact assessed.
Project Name: Hirschkoff Residence
Project No: CDP 14-13/CDP 14-14/V 14-02
June 2013 -27- Initial Study
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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 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?)
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project’s mitigation, as
outlined in the Biological Resources section of this study, will preclude and possible degrading of the
environment or substantial reductions of habitat and wildlife species. Because the site is identified as
a developed area in the HMP and proposed mitigation measures will ensure consistency with the city’s
HMP, there will be biological impacts. The mitigation for these impacts include the payment of
mitigation fees to take .18 acres of disturbed land and placing the 100’ wetland buffer and 20’ Diegan
Coastal Sage Scrub buffer in an open space easement. With these mitigation measures, the project is
consistent with the MCHP guidelines and the HMP regional planning efforts in the City of Carlsbad.
Therefore, there will be no impacts to sensitive uplands, and plant and wildlife species. Furthermore,
the project’s required mitigation as outlined in the Cultural Resourced section of this report will
preclude any elimination of important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory,
thus reducing impacts to less than significant.
b) Less Than Significant. The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projects regional growth
for the greater San Diego area, and local General Plan land use policies are incorporated into SANDAG
projections. Based upon those projections, region-wide standards, including storm water quality
control, air quality standards, habitat conservation, congestion management standards, etc. are
established to reduce the cumulative impacts of development in the region. All of the city’s
development standards and regulations are consistent with the region wide standards. The city’s
standards and regulations, including grading standards, water quality and drainage standards, traffic
standards, habitat and cultural resource protection regulations, and public facility standards, ensure
that development within the city will not result in a significantly cumulatively considerable impact.
Project Name: Hirschkoff Residence
Project No: CDP 14-13/CDP 14-14/V 14-02
June 2013 -28- Initial Study
There are two regional issues that development within the City of Carlsbad has the potential to have a
cumulatively considerable impact on. Those issues are air quality and regional circulation. As described
above, air quality would essentially be the same whether or not the development is constructed.
With regard to any other potential impacts associated with the project, city standards and regulations
will ensure that development of the site will not result in any significant cumulatively considerable
impacts.
c) No Impact. Based upon the residential nature of the project and that future development of the site
will comply with city standards, the project will not result in any direct or indirect substantial adverse
environmental effects on human beings. No impact assessed.
Project Name: Hirschkoff Residence
Project No: CDP 14-13/CDP 14-14/V 14-02
June 2013 -29- Initial Study
XIX. LIST OF MITIGATION MEASURES (if applicable)
1. Paleontological mitigation measures shall be implemented as follows:
a) A qualified paleontologist should attend the pre-construction meeting to consult with the
grading and excavation contractors concerning excavation schedules, paleontological field
techniques, and safety issues. (A qualified paleontologist is defined as an individual with a MS
or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology that is familiar with paleontological procedures and
techniques, who is knowledgeable in the geology and paleontology of San Diego County, and
who has worked as a paleontological mitigation project supervisor in the county for at least
one year.)
b) A paleontological monitor should be on-site on a full-time basis during the original cutting of
previously undisturbed deposits of high paleontological resource potential to inspect
exposures for contained fossils. Because of the destructive nature of surface weathering
processes, only the deeper (i.e. > five feet deep) excavations into the Pleistocene marine
terrace deposits should be monitored full-time. In contrast, any excavations extending below
elevation 46 feet and impacting the Sespe Formation should be monitored full-time (A
paleontological monitor is defined as an individual who has experience in the collection and
salvage of fossil materials. The paleontological monitor should work under the direction of a
qualified paleontologist.)
c) When fossils are discovered, the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) should recover
them. In most cases, this fossil salvage can be completed in a short period of time. However,
some fossil specimens (such as a complete large mammal skeleton) may require an extended
salvage period. In these instances, the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) should be
allowed to temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil remains in a
timely manner. Because of the potential for the recovering of small fossil remains, such as
isolated mammal teeth, it may be necessary to set up a screen-washing operation on the site.
d) Fossil remains collected during monitoring and salvage should be cleaned, repaired, sorted,
and cataloged as part of the mitigation program.
e) Prepared fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos, and maps, should be
deposited (as a donation) in a scientific institution with permanent paleontological collections
such as the San Diego Natural History Museum. Donation of the fossils should be
accompanied by financial support for initial specimen storage.
f) A final summery report should be completed that outlines the results of the mitigation
program. This report should include discussions of the methods used, stratigraphic section(s)
exposed, fossils collected, and significance or recovered fossils.
2. Archeological mitigation measures shall be implemented as follows:
a) Archeological monitoring by a qualified archeologist is required during construction in order
to identify previously unidentified subsurface cultural deposits. Monitoring is recommended
during initial ground disturbance including soil testing, soil remediation, and the initial
grading. In the event that cultural resources are encountered, all work should cease in the
Project Name: Hirschkoff Residence
Project No: CDP 14-13/CDP 14-14/V 14-02
June 2013 -30- Initial Study
vicinity of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist has evaluated the resource to
determine significance. Monitoring will not be required for non-native fill soils or after initial
grading.
3. The following biological resource mitigation measures shall be implemented:
a) Prior to issuance of a grading permit, mitigation for impacts to .18 acres of disturbed lands
shall be mitigated by payment of an in-lieu mitigation fee.
b) Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the required 100 foot wetland buffer and the entire 20’
wide Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub buffer as shown on the project plans shall be placed within a
dedicated open space easement.
c) Buffer areas that do not contain native habitat shall be landscaped with native plants. Non-
native species will need to be eradicated and re-vegetated with native species appropriate to
the site. Container stock or seed acquired from outside the project areas shall not be used
(i.e. San Diego Coastal Zone). Cultivars of native vegetation shall not be used for vegetation,
particularly those from offshore islands in northern and central California. Species listed in
Table 12 of the City of Carlsbad HMP should not be used in landscape palettes. Signage and
barriers shall be provided to minimize edge effects.
d) No development, grading, or alterations, including clearing of vegetation, shall occur in the
buffer area with two exceptions: no fuel modification shall take place within 50 feet of the
riparian areas or wetlands, and recreation trails and public pathways may occur within 50 feet
of riparian areas or wetlands, and recreation trails and public pathways may occur within the
15 feet closest to the development provided it is consistent with the preservation goals of the
preserved habitat and appropriate measures are taken for physical separation from sensitive
areas.
e) No new surface drainage shall be allowed to enter preserve areas and irrigation runoff shall
be contained on the project site and directed to storm drains.
f) Fencing should be used to direct human activity and domestic pets away from sensitive areas.
If appropriate, signs may be used to inform or provide direction. Lighting shall be directed
down and away from preserve areas. Low-pressure sodium lighting shall be used.
g) If clearing, grubbing and grading are scheduled to occur during the bird nesting season from
February 1 through September 15, no more than three days prior to the disturbance of
vegetation on the project site, a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey. If
nesting birds are found or suspected, a buffer shall be established around each known or
suspected site. No disturbance shall occur within the buffer until the qualified biologist has
determined that the young birds have fledged or the nest is no longer active.
h) Disturbance of sage scrub is not proposed and shall not be permitted between February 15
and August 31 unless presence/absence surveys conducted by a qualified biologist establish
that gnatcatchers are not present. Project-related construction noise may adversely affect
nesting gnatcatchers if construction occurs during the gnatcatcher nesting season.
Presence/absence surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist processing a current
Project Name: Hirschkoff Residence
Project No: CDP 14-13/CDP 14-14/V 14-02
June 2013 -31- Initial Study
Section 10(a), 1(a), Recovery Permit authorizing the permittee to conduct these surveys. If
gnatcatchers are detected within 300 feet of the limits of disturbance, work may not proceed
until a noise assessment has been completed and appropriate noise attenuation and
monitoring measures have been prepared. Monitoring shall continue throughout the nesting
season.
8. The following noise mitigation measure shall be implemented:
a) Prior to the issuance of building permits, an interior noise assessment shall be conducted to
determine whether interior noise standards exceed 45 dB(A) CNEL. If so, mechanical
ventilation shall be required to be incorporated into the project.
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 the earlier document
and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
Project Name: Hirschkoff Residence
Project No: CDP 14-13/CDP 14-14/V 14-02
June 2013 -32- Initial Study
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 of Carlsbad
Planning Division 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 Division, March 1994.
2. Carlsbad General Plan, City of Carlsbad Planning Division, dated March 1994, as updated.
3. City of Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC), Title 21 Zoning, City of Carlsbad Planning Division, as updated.
4. Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad (HMP), City of Carlsbad
Planning Division, final approval dated November 2004.
5. San Diego Regional Airport Authority/San Diego County Airport Land Use Commission. McClellan-
Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). Amended December 1, 2011.
6. City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992.
7. Flood Insurance Rate Map, No. 06073C0761G, May 16, 2013.
8. Habitat Assessment for the Hirschkoff Property Project, Brian F. Smith and Associates, June 7, 2013;
Revised June 11, 2014.
9. Cultural Resources Constraints Review, Brian F. Smith and Associates, May 20, 2013.
10. Paleontological Resource and Monitoring Assessment, Brian F. Smith and Associates, March 7, 2014;
Revised March 10, 2014.
11. Preliminary Drainage Study for Hirschkoff Residence, Sampo Engineering, Inc., July 30, 2014.
12. Limited Geotechnical Investigation and Evaluation, Engineering Design Group, June 19, 2013.
Explanation of Headings
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure.
Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated.
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated.
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information.
Legend
PLN Planning Division
ENG Land Development Engineering Division
BLDG Building Division
Page 1 of 7
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
PROJECT NAME: Hirschkoff Residence
PROJECT NO: CDP 14-13/CDP 14-14/V 14-02
APPROVAL DATE/RESOULTION NUMBER(S):
The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate identified
environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure
has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City’s monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code
Section 21081.6).
MITIGATION MEASURE Monitoring Type Monitoring Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks
PALEO-1
1. Paleontological mitigation measures shall be implemented as
follows:
a) A qualified paleontologist should attend the pre-construction
meeting to consult with the grading and excavation contractors
concerning excavation schedules, paleontological field
techniques, and safety issues. (A qualified paleontologist is
defined as an individual with a MS or Ph.D. in paleontology or
geology that is familiar with paleontological procedures and
techniques, who is knowledgeable in the geology and
paleontology of San Diego County, and who has worked as a
paleontological mitigation project supervisor in the county for at
least one year.)
Project Planning/Eng
PROJECT NAME: Hirschkoff Residence
PROJECT NUMBER: CDP 14-13/CDP 14-14/V 14-02
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 2 of 7
MITIGATION MEASURE Monitoring Type Monitoring Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks b) A paleontological monitor should be on-site on a full-time basis
during the original cutting of previously undisturbed deposits of
high paleontological resource potential to inspect exposures for
contained fossils. Because of the destructive nature of surface
weathering processes, only the deeper (i.e. > five feet deep)
excavations into the Pleistocene marine terrace deposits should
be monitored full-time. In contrast, any excavations extending
below elevation 46 feet and impacting the Sespe Formation
should be monitored full-time (A paleontological monitor is
defined as an individual who has experience in the collection and
salvage of fossil materials. The paleontological monitor should
work under the direction of a qualified paleontologist.)
c) When fossils are discovered, the paleontologist (or
paleontological monitor) should recover them. In most cases,
this fossil salvage can be completed in a short period of time.
However, some fossil specimens (such as a complete large
mammal skeleton) may require an extended salvage period. In
these instances, the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor)
should be allowed to temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading to
allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely manner. Because of
the potential for the recovering of small fossil remains, such as
isolated mammal teeth, it may be necessary to set up a screen-
washing operation on the site.
d) Fossil remains collected during monitoring and salvage should be
cleaned, repaired, sorted, and cataloged as part of the mitigation
program.
PROJECT NAME: Hirschkoff Residence
PROJECT NUMBER: CDP 14-13/CDP 14-14/V 14-02
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 3 of 7
MITIGATION MEASURE Monitoring Type Monitoring Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks e) Prepared fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field notes,
photos, and maps, should be deposited (as a donation) in a
scientific institution with permanent paleontological collections
such as the San Diego Natural History Museum. Donation of the
fossils should be accompanied by financial support for initial
specimen storage.
f) A final summery report should be completed that outlines the
results of the mitigation program. This report should include
discussions of the methods used, stratigraphic section(s)
exposed, fossils collected, and significance or recovered fossils.
ARCH-1 1. Archeological mitigation measures shall be implemented as follows:
a) Archeological monitoring by a qualified archeologist is required
during construction in order to identify previously unidentified
subsurface cultural deposits. Monitoring is recommended during
initial ground disturbance including soil testing, soil remediation,
and the initial grading. In the event that cultural resources are
encountered, all work should cease in the vicinity of the
discovery until a qualified archaeologist has evaluated the
resource to determine significance. Monitoring will not be
required for non-native fill soils or after initial grading.
b) The developer shall enter into a Pre-Excavation Agreement,
otherwise known as a Cultural Resources Treatment and Tribal
Monitoring Agreement, with a Luiseno tribe prior to the
commencement of any ground disturbing activities. This
agreement will contain provisions to address the proper
treatment of any cultural resources or Luiseno Native American
human remains inadvertently uncovered during the course of
the project. The agreement will outline the roles and powers of
the Luiseño Native American monitors and the archaeologist.
Project Planning/Eng
PROJECT NAME: Hirschkoff Residence
PROJECT NUMBER: CDP 14-13/CDP 14-14/V 14-02
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 4 of 7
MITIGATION MEASURE Monitoring Type Monitoring Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks c) Any and all uncovered artifacts of Luiseño Native American
cultural importance should be returned to the tribe, and/or the
most likely descendant and not be curated.
d) Native American monitors and archaeological monitors should
have joint authority to temporarily divert and/or halt
construction activities. If cultural resources are discovered
during construction, all earth moving activity within and around
the immediate discovery area must be diverted until the Luiseño
Native American monitor and the archaeologist can assess the
nature and significance of the find.
e) The Luiseño Native American monitor shall be present at the
project’s preconstruction meeting to consult with grading and
excavation contractors concerning excavation schedules and
safety issues, as well as consult with the principal archaeologist
concerning the proposed archaeologist techniques and/or
strategies for the project.
f) If a significant cultural resource and/or unique archaeological
resource are unearthed during ground disturbing activities for
this project, the tribe shall be notified and consulted with in
regards to the respectful and dignified treatment of those
resources. The tribe’s preference will be for avoidance and that
the resource shall be protected and preserved in perpetuity. This
preference is shared under California law through CEQA as
codified in California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. If
however, the applicant is able to demonstrate that avoidance of
sacred resources is infeasible and a data recovery plan is
authorized by the City of Carlsbad as the lead agency, the tribe
shall be consulted regarding the drafting and finalization of any
such recovery.
PROJECT NAME: Hirschkoff Residence
PROJECT NUMBER: CDP 14-13/CDP 14-14/V 14-02
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 5 of 7
MITIGATION MEASURE Monitoring Type Monitoring Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks g) When cultural resources are discovered during the project, if the
archaeologist collects such resources, a Luiseño Native American
monitor must be present during any testing or cataloging of
those resources. If the archaeologist does not collect the cultural
resources that are unearthed during the ground disturbing
activities, the Luiseño Native American monitor, may in their
discretion, collect said resources and provide them to the tribe
for respectful and dignified treatment in accordance with the
tribe’s cultural and spiritual traditions.
h) If suspected Native American remains are discovered, the Native
American remains shall be kept in situ, or in a secure location in
close proximity to where they were found, and that the analysis
of the remains occur only on-site in the presence of a Luiseño
Native American monitor.
i) In the event that fill is imported into the project area, the fill shall
be clean of cultural resources and documented as such. If fill
material is to be utilized and/or soil is exported from areas within
the project site, then that soil will need to be analyzed and
confirmed by an archeologist and Luiseno Native American
monitor that such soil material does not contain cultural
resources.
BIO-1 1. The following biological resource mitigation measures shall be
implemented:
a) Prior to issuance of a grading permit, mitigation for impacts to
.18 acres of disturbed lands shall be mitigated by payment of an
in-lieu mitigation fee.
b) Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the 100 foot wetland buffer
and the entire 20’ wide Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub buffer as
shown on the project plans shall be placed within a dedicated
open space easement.
Project Planning/Eng
PROJECT NAME: Hirschkoff Residence
PROJECT NUMBER: CDP 14-13/CDP 14-14/V 14-02
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 6 of 7
MITIGATION MEASURE Monitoring Type Monitoring Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks c) Buffer areas that do not contain native habitat shall be
landscaped with native plants. Non-native species will need to
be eradicated and re-vegetated with native species appropriate
to the site. Container stock or seed acquired from outside the
project areas shall not be used (i.e. San Diego Coastal Zone).
Cultivars of native vegetation shall not be used for vegetation,
particularly those from offshore islands in northern and central
California. Species listed in Table 12 of the City of Carlsbad HMP
should not be used in landscape palettes. Signage and barriers
shall be provided to minimize edge effects.
d) No development, grading, or alterations, including clearing of
vegetation, shall occur in the buffer area with two exceptions:
no fuel modification shall take place within 50 feet of the riparian
areas or wetlands, and recreation trails and public pathways may
occur within 50 feet of riparian areas or wetlands, and recreation
trails and public pathways may occur within the 15 feet closest
to the development provided it is consistent with the
preservation goals of the preserved habitat and appropriate
measures are taken for physical separation from sensitive areas.
e) No new surface drainage shall be allowed to enter preserve
areas and irrigation runoff shall be contained on the project site
and directed to storm drains.
f) Fencing should be used to direct human activity and domestic
pets away from sensitive areas. If appropriate, signs may be used
to inform or provide direction. Lighting shall be directed down
and away from preserve areas. Low-pressure sodium lighting
shall be used.
PROJECT NAME: Hirschkoff Residence
PROJECT NUMBER: CDP 14-13/CDP 14-14/V 14-02
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 7 of 7
MITIGATION MEASURE Monitoring Type Monitoring Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks g) If clearing, grubbing and grading are scheduled to occur during
the bird nesting season from February 1 through September 15,
no more than three days prior to the disturbance of vegetation
on the project site, a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting
bird survey. If nesting birds are found or suspected, a buffer shall
be established around each known or suspected site. No
disturbance shall occur within the buffer until the qualified
biologist has determined that the young birds have fledged or
the nest is no longer active.
h) Disturbance of sage scrub is not proposed and shall not be
permitted between February 15 and August 31 unless
presence/absence surveys conducted by a qualified biologist
establish that gnatcatchers are not present. Project-related
construction noise may adversely affect nesting gnatcatchers if
construction occurs during the gnatcatcher nesting season.
Presence/absence surveys shall be conducted by a qualified
biologist processing a current Section 10(a), 1(a), Recovery
Permit authorizing the permittee to conduct these surveys. If
gnatcatchers are detected within 300 feet of the limits of
disturbance, work may not proceed until a noise assessment has
been completed and appropriate noise attenuation and
monitoring measures have been prepared. Monitoring shall
continue throughout the nesting season.
NOISE-1 a) Prior to the issuance of building permits, an interior noise
assessment shall be conducted to determine whether interior
noise standards exceed 45 dB(A) CNEL. If so, mechanical
ventilation shall be required to be incorporated into the project.
Project Planning