HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-05-19; Planning Commission; ; DUNN PROPERTY STORM DRAIN REPLACEMENT1
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5624
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO ALLOW
INSTALLATION OF A STORM DRAIN REPLACEMENT
LOCATED AT THE NORTHERN TERMINUS OF HIGHLAND
DRIVE AND EXTENDING INTO HOSP GROVE IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASENAME: DUNN PROPERTY STORM DRAIN
REPLACEMENT
CASE NO.: CDP 03-41
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad, “Developer,” has filed a verified application
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by James Dunn and the City of Carlsbad,
“Owners,” described as
That portion of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter
of Section 31, Township 11 south, Range 4 west, San Diego
meridian, in the County of San Diego, State of California,
according to the United States Government Survey, approved
April 5,1881, together with a portion of Lots 4 and 5 of Cedar
Hill addition to the town of Carlsbad, according to Map
thereof No. 532, filed in the office of the County Recorder of
San Diego County, April 25, 1888, all being in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California and
described as per Grant Deed recorded September 25, 1962 as
File No. 164830 of official records filed in the office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, State of California,
described herein as Deed 1, along with that portion described
per Corporation Grant Deed recorded April 9,1963 as File No.
60557 of official records, filed in the office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, State of California, described
herein as Deed 2, and as shown on Record of Survey 13744,
recorded May 7, 1992 as File No. 92-27634 filed in the office of
the County Recorder of San Diego County, State of California,
Tract No. 1, Parcel 2, Document 36394 recorded 1972 in Lot
19, and in Lot 20
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with
said project; and
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
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 19th day of May 2004, 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.
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, Exhibit “ND,” dated May 19,
2004, according to Exhibits “NOI” dated March 15, 2004, and “PII” dated
March 5, 2004, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following
findings:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments
thereon prior to APPROVING the project; and
b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration 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 Part II 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 Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program.
PC RES0 NO. 5624 -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
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 19th day of May 2004, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson White, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman,
and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Montgomery and Segall
ABSTAIN: None
MELISSA WHITE, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLWILLEP
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5624 -3-
-
City of Carlsbad
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME:
CASE NO: CDP 03-41
PROJECT LOCATION:
Dunn Property Storm Drain Replacement
Northern terminus of Highland Drive/APN 156-05 1-24
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of replacement of a deteriorated and failed storm drain
pipeline on private property. The original pipeline was part of storm drain improvements constructed in
approximately 1965. The system was designed to collect storm drain runoff from the northern end of
Highland Drive and direct it via a 24 inch underground pipeline down a steep slope to undeveloped portions
of the Hosp Grove property. The upper portion of the slope has been affected by undocumented fill and
subsequent erosion. Over time erosion has exposed portions of the galvanized steel pipeline. The exposed
portions rusted, and pieces have broken off, resulting in accelerated erosion of the lower part of the slope.
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
(EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as
follows:
IXI
0
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 an attached sheet have
been added to the project.
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).
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 (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on file
in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008.
ADOPTED: Mav 19.2004, Dursuant to PlanninP Commission Resolution No. 5624
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HO=ILL&
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
_-
- City of Carlsbad
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME:
PROJECT LOCATION:
Dunn Property Storm Drain Replacement
Northern terminus of Highland Drive/APN 156-051-24
CASE NO: CDP 03-41
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of replacement of a deteriorated and failed
storm drain pipeline on private property. The original pipeline was part of storm drain
improvements constructed in approximately 1965. The system was designed to collect storm
drain runoff from the northern end of Highland Drive and direct it via a 24 inch underground
pipeline down a steep slope to undeveloped portions of the Hosp Grove property. The upper
portion of the slope has been affected by undocumented fill and subsequent erosion. Over time
erosion has exposed portions of the galvanized steel pipeline. The exposed portions rusted, and
pieces have broken off, resulting in accelerated erosion of the lower part of the slope.
PROPOSED 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 (EIA Part 2) identified potentially
significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made
by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are
released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly
no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in
light of the whole record before the City that the project “as revised” may have a significant
effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative’ Declaration will be recommended
for adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission.
A copy of the initial study (EM Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration are on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad,
California 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to
the Planning Department within 30 days of the date of this notice.
The proposed project and Mitigated Negative Declaration are subject to review and
approval/adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission. Additional public notices will
be issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Anne
Hysong in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4622.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD MARCH 15,2004 to APRIL 15,2004
PUBLISH DATE MARCH 15,2004
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www. !iiflGW§k4o§a.lJS @
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CDP 03-41
DATE: March 5.2004
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
CASE NAME: Dunn Property Storm Drain Redacement
LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Don Rideout/Anne Hysong. Planning; Dept.,
(760) 602-4602
PROJECT LOCATION: APN 156-05 1-24
PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: Citv of Carlsbad. 1635 Faraday Avenue,
Carlsbad, CA 92008
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RLM/OS
ZONING: R-1
OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing
approval or participation agreements):
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of replacement of a deteriorated and failed
storm drain pipeline on private property. The original pipeline was part of storm drain
improvements constructed in approximately 1965. The system was designed to collect storm
drain runoff from the northern end of Highland Drive and direct it via a 24 inch underground
pipeline down a steep slope to undeveloped portions of the Hosp Grove property. The upper
portion of the slope has been affected by undocumented fill and subsequent erosion. Over time
erosion has exposed portions of the galvanized steel pipeline. The exposed portions rusted, and
pieces have broken off, resulting in accelerated erosion of the lower part of the slope. In the past
three years erosion has been severe. Although the situation has not reached the level of an
emergency, replacement of the pipeline is an urgent matter to prevent further damage to the
slope. Construction will involve removal of the exposed and broken pipeline, removal or
abandonment-in-place of the remaining buried pipeline, trenching down the slope , installation of
a new 36 inch pipeline with appropriate soil cover, and repair of the most severely damaged
lower slope area. The storm drain replacement will be realigned and all work will be done within
a 20’ wide drainage easement to be dedicated to the City by the property owner. The existing
drainage easement held by the City will be abandoned. The work will be coordinated with
remedial grading of the developable residential pad at the top of the slope. A new energy
dissipater will be installed at the outlet of the pipeline on the property line. The existing inlet
structure on Highland Drive will be modified.
1 Rev. 07/03/02
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The project location is a north-facing bluff composed of
relatively fragile sandstone overlain by undocumented, unconsolidated fill. Geologically, the site
is underlain by Formational rock units that range from Pleistocene age terrace deposits at the
near surface to Eocene age sandstone units at depth. Site topography ranges from nearly level in
the upper southwesterly reaches of the site to steeply sloping, and locally vertical, canyon terrain
within the northwestern margin of the property, with more than 50 ft. of vertical relief. The lower
slope failure has not yet affected the upper graded slope. However, future local impacts within
the storm drain alignment are considered likely, particularly in an event of heavy rainfall. The
upper, more level part of the site is less stable due to the unconsolidated fill. A single family
home is proposed for this part of the site (Coastal Development Permit CDP 02-42). Remedial
grading is proposed to stabilize the building pad area. Some retaining walls will be constructed to
further stabilize the slope. The face of the slope supports sparse vegetation consisting of a mix
of native and non-native plant species. There are no permanent streams on the site, but an open
channel has formed due to the combination of natural and accelerated runoff fiom above. The
open channel carries water during storm events but contains no wetland or riparian vegetation.
No cultural features or remains are known or expected to occur on the site.
SURROUNDING LAND USES: The project site is located on the edge of an older residential
area that borders the undeveloped Hosp Grove. To the west, south and east of the project site,
uses are entirely residential, with General Plan designation of Residential Low Medium (RLM)
and Zoning of R-1. Lots range in size fiom approximately 8,000 sq. ft. to over 2 acres. To the
north of the site is the City-owned Hosp Grove which has a General Plan Designation and Zoning
of Open Space. All existing residential uses are located on a flat mesa and are geologically
stable.
2 Rev. 07/03/02
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics @ Geology/Soils Noise
u Population and Housing 0 Agricultural Resources 0 HazardsMazardous Materials
0 Air Quality HydrologyNater Quality 0 Public Services
[XI Biological Resources 0 Land Use and Planning 0 Recreation
Cultural Resources 17 Mineral Resources 0 TransportatiodCircuIation
0 Utilities & Service Systems Mandatory Findings of
Significance.
3 Rev. 07/03/02
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0
w
0
0
0
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
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 on an attached sheet have been
added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that 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. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects
that remain to be addressed.
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.
4 Rev. 07/03/02
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct
an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on
the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the
form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that
might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the
basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
0 A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
0 “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
0 “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City
must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a
less than significant level.
0 “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significantly adverse.
0 Based on an “EM-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
adverse effect on the environment, but potentially significant adverse effects (a) have
been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR
or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a
supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required
by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no
additional environmental document is required.
0 When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an
earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a
“Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
5 Rev. 07/03/02
8 A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the
environment.
e If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid
preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to
less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior
to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant 1.mpact Unless
Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be
prepared.
8 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse
effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable
standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the
adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations”
for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3)
proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or
(4) through the EIA-Part 11 analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance
for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in
reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should
be given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant.
6 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact Mitigation
Incorporated I.
11.
111.
AESTHETICS - Would the project:
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
0
0
0 Substantially damage scenic resources, including but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings with a State scenic highway?
0 0 0151 Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
0 0 Create a new source of substantial light and glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - (In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model- 1997 prepared by the California
Department of Conservation as an optional model to use
in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would
project:
0 0 OIXI 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?
0 0 0151 Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
Involve other changes in the existing environment,
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
0 0 OH
AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied
upon to make the following determinations.) Would the
project :
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
7 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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 (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the
project:
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 US. Fish and Wildlife Service?
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 US. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filing, hydrological interruption, or other means?
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?
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
Impact tributary areas that are environmentally
sensitive?
Potentially
Significant Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
cl
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
w
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than
Significanl
Impact
[XI
0
0
0
[XI
IXI
0
0
0
0
No
Impact
0
IXI
IXI
0
0
0
[XI
Ixl
Ixl
IXI
8 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
/’
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a hstorical resource as defined in 8 15064.5?
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of an archeological resource pursuant to 8 15064.5?
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique -aleontology-
cal resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
IV. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving:
1.
11.
... 111.
iv .
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.
Strong seismic ground shaking?
Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
Landslides?
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
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?
Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18
- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
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?
Potentially
Significant Impact
0
0
0
0
0’
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0 o
w
IXI
w
0
0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0
0
[XI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No
Impact
la
0
IXI
IXI
IXI w
0
0
0
IXI
IXI
9 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated
IV. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -
Would the project:
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
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?
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
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?
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 workmg in the project area?
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?
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
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?
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
OIXI
OIXI
OIXI
OIXI
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the
project:
0 OIXI a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
10 Rev. 07/03/02
.-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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 whch would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for whch permits
have been granted)?
Impacts to groundwater quality?
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?
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?
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?
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
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?
Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures,
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
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?
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface
waters.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
cl
0
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
I7
0
0
0
0
0
o w
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IXI
0
11 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incornorated
m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals,
pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics,
nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash)
into receiving surface waters or other alteration of
receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
0 0
0 o n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction?
0 0 0 0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water
body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d)
list?
0 0 0 p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of
beneficial uses?
IX.
X.
X.
LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? 00 0 0
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?
0 IXI
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan? 0 0 0
MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
0 0 0 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?
0 0 o 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?
NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels
in excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of
other agencies?
0 0 0
0 0 0 b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise
levels?
12 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
X.
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?
POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 OH
0 0
0. 0 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)?
0 0 Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
0 Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered government facilities, a need for
new or physically altered government facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
0 i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
0 0
0 0
0
0 0
OB
OB
OB
OB
13 Rev. 07/03/02
XIV. RECREATION
0 0 om 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?
0 0 om 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?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project:
Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
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?
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Result in inadequate emergency access?
Result in insufficient parking capacity?
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus tum-
outs, bicycle racks)?
UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS -Would
the project:
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
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?
0
17
0
0
0 0
0 0
0'0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
om
OH
OH
14 Rev. 07/03/02
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?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumula-
tively considerable” means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects?)
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which
will cause the substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
0
0
0
0
0
0,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IXI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
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 150630(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on
attached sheets:
IV. Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
V. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
15 Rev. 07/03/02
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
VI. 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.
16 Rev. 07/03/02
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
VII. AESTHETICS
Less Than Significant Impact. The project will have a slight but insignificant affect on
aesthetics by modifying the appearance of a bluff face. This impact is less than significant
because it is not an entirely natural geologic feature, having been created in part by the
accelerated erosion due to failure of the storm drain. In addition, the slope is not visible fiom any
public road or public viewpoint. Although Jefferson Street is identified as a Natural Open Space
Corridor by the City's Scenic Corridor Guidelines, the site is not visible from Jefferson Street
and the project would not obstruct lagoon views along the roadway. It is do.wnslope from
existing homes and unlikely to be visible from any existing homes. Therefore, any effect on
aesthetics as a result of the project would be less than significant.
11. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
No Impact. There is no agriculture on the site or in the vicinity.
111. AIR QUALITY-Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a federal and
state non-attainment area for ozone (03), and a state non-attainment area for particulate
matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM,,). 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 (SNAG).
A plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of
updating the 1991 state-mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans fiom all
other California non-attainment areas having serious ozone problems and used to create the
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by the Air Resources
Board (ARB) after public hearings on November 9" through loth in 1994, and was forwarded
to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis
and debate, particularly regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the
SIP in mid- 1996.
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(B) of the State of California Environment 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:
17 Rev. 07/03/02
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
of the City’s General Plan and the RAQS. Therefore, the project is consistent with the
regional air quality plan and will in no way conflict or obstruct implementation of the
regional plan.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected
air quality violation?
Less Than Significant Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site
is in the City of Oceanside. Data available for this monitoring site through April, 2002
indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded were for the state one hour
standard for ozone (one day in both 2000 and 2001) and one day in 2001 for the federal 8-
hour average for ozone and one day for the 24-hour state standard for suspended particulates
in 1996. No violations of any other air quality standards have been recorded recently. The
project would involve minimal short-term emissions associated with grading and
construction. Such emissions would be minimized through standard construction measures
such as the use of properly tuned equipment and watering the site for dust control. 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) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Air Basin is currently in a 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 15 130 (a)(4), the proposed project’s contribution
to the cumulative impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than
significant.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
No Impact. As noted above, the proposed project 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) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
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.
18 Rev. 07/03/02
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A biological resources letter report
was prepared for the project by Cathleen Weigand of Dudek and Associates (see Reference 2).
The project site is highly disturbed by a variety of past events. The report finds no presence of
sensitive plant or animal species on the site and low potential for any sensitive species to occur
due to the state of disturbance of the site. However, some disturbed and sparse Coastal Sage Scrub
remains on the site, and this is a sensitive plant community that is subject to regulation by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game. Focused, protocol
surveys for California gnatcatcher were conducted in September 2003, and no gnatcatchers were
found.
Direct impacts to approximately 0.21 acre of sparse coastal sage scrub and disturbed coastal sage
scrub/southern mixed chaparral vegetation will occur within the proposed 30’ wide impact area.
However, this vegetation is not connected with or part of a larger block of habitat. Using the flow
chart for evaluating coastal sage scrub impacts provided in the Natural Community Conservation
Planning Guidelines (see Reference 3), this site rates low potential value for long-term
conservation.
The impact to .21 acre sparse coastal sage scrub and disturbed coastal sage scrub/southem mixed
chaparral vegetation shall be mitigated at a ratio of 2:l by creation of 0.21 acres of native habitat
onsite, offsite on the adjacent Hosp Grove property, or offsite at a location acceptable to the City
and wildlife agencies, and preservation of .21 acre offsite in a coastal habitat mitigation bank
such as Whelan Ranch in Oceanside, such that the result is no net loss of habitat in the Coastal
Zone. The project will require a Section 4(d) de minimus habitat loss permit exemption should
the HMP not be approved prior to issuance of a grading permit.
Substantial restoration may be substituted for creation if the area proposed for restoration is
severely disturbed, severely infested with invasive non-native species, or otherwise devoid of
habitat value. Restoration shall reestablish habitat type(s) that were historically present but have
suffered habitat conversion or such extreme degradation that most of the current dominant
species are not part of the original vegetation. All habitat creation or restoration work shall be
carried out by a licensed landscape contractor under the direct supervision of a biologist,
botanist, ecologist, or landscape architect with documented experience in native plant restoration.
A revegetation plan shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City and any regulatory agencies
having jurisdiction over the project. The revegetation plan shall include specific success criteria.
The area of habitat creation or restoration shall be monitored for a period of 1 year to ensure that ,
success criteria are met. If success criteria are not met within 1 year, the monitoring period shall
be extended until success criteria are met. Thereafter, the City of Carlsbad Public Works
Department shall maintain the mitigation area in a healthy and thriving condition.
Pursuant to Government Code section 65871 and Carlsbad Municipal Code Title 20, Chapter
20.04, section 20.04.140 the applicant shall record a conservation easement over the mitigation
area in favor of the City of Carlsbad, with the California Coastal Commission named as a third
party beneficiary.
Temporary indirect impacts to adjacent vegetations communities such as coastal sage scrub
would potentially result from edge effects. The potential indirect impacts resulting from
construction activities include dust, noise, and general human presence that may temporarily
19 Rev. 07/03/02
disrupt species and habitat vitality and lead to construction related soil erosion and run-off.
However, temporary indirect impacts will be avoided in that all project grading will be subject to
the typical restrictions (BMPs) and requirements that address erosion and runoff (NPDES,
SWPPP). BMPs would include but are not limited to placement of silt fencing, haybales and/or
sandbags in potential drainage areas, watering of grading area, and snow fencing of the limits of
grading. Due to the grading restrictions and requirements mentioned above, the project would
not result in significant short term indirect impacts to sensitive biological resources.
. The project will also impact .01 acre of eucalyptus woodland and .1 acre of
developedomamental. Eucalyptus woodland is not native to California and is not considered a
sensitive habitat type; however, non-developed lands, including eucalyptus woodland, are
covered under the HMP. In accordance with the HMP, the City has adopted an In-lieu Mitigation
Fee consistent with Section E.6 of the Habitat Management Plan and City Council Resolution
No. 2000-223 to fund mitigation for impacts to certain categories of vegetation and animal
species. The City has determined that all projects will be required to pay the fee in order to be
found consistent with the Habitat Management Plan and the Open Space and Conservation
Element of the General Plan. The fee becomes effective following final approval of the Habitat
Management Plan.
Eucalyptus trees may be used for roosting or nesting by raptors and other birds, but no nests were
observed during the gnatcatcher surveys. The breeding season for nesting birds occurs
approximately February 15 through August 3 1; however raptors may begin breeding as early as
January. Several bird species may nest in the habitat onsite. Indirect impacts to breeding birds
may occur if activities occur during the breeding season. The indirect impact would be
associated with grading activities and temporary. Indirect impacts can be avoided by
constructing outside the breeding season or assuring that construction activity will not result in
noise levels above 60 dBA leq at the nest site. If construction is planned during the bird breeding
season, vegetation should be cleared prior to the breeding season. Additionally, if construction
occurs during raptor breeding season (approximately February 1 to August 30) a qualified
biologist should conduct a pre-construction survey of the project site and surrounding habitat to
determine whether there are active raptor nests within the area. If an active raptor nest is
observed, a buffer should be established between the construction activities and the nest so that
nesting activities are not interrupted. The buffer should be a .minimum of 500 feet and should be
in effect as long as construction is occurring and until the nest is no longer active.
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?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Dudek report indicates no riparian, aquatic, or wetland
habitat on the site. An open channel exists but it is unvegetated.
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?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Impact. As indicated in the response
above, the biological report by Dudek indicated no wetland, marsh, vernal pool, or other wetland
habitat exists onsite. 0.06 acre of open channel that carries water during storm events is located to
the west of the storm drain impact area. The project will not impact the open channel; however,
due to project’s proximity to the open channel, indirect impacts shall be avoided through the
installation by hand of rip-rap (outside of the channel only), silt fencing shall be installed, and a
biological monitor shall be present during construction in this area to ensure no impacts occur to
downstream waters.
20 Rev. 07/03/02
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?
No Impact. As noted above, the site is not part of a wildlife corridor. It is on the edge of existing
urban development which has been developed for approximately 40 or more years. The site is
adjacent to Hosp Grove which is a relatively large, undeveloped grove of eucalyptus woodland.
Nearby but further removed from the site are Buena Vista Creek and Lagoon. However, the
eucalyptus woodland has very limited usefulness for wildlife and does not provide a comdor or
linkage for wildlife movement. Therefore, the project will not have a significant impact on the
movement of any wildlife species.
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact. The City of Carlsbad has a local plan, the Habitat Management Plan (HMP), which
describes the actions necessary to adequately conserve self-sustaining populations of native
wildlife and plant species (see Reference 4). The HMP includes provisions for allowing impacts
to small, isolated pockets of disturbed habitat such as this site. Because this site has such low
value for conservation, the HMP allows public and private projects to impact the habitat in
exchange for mitigation as specified in the plan. The City has no tree preservation policy that
would apply in this case. Therefore, the project will not conflict with local policies or
ordinances.
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?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Carlsbad HMP is a part of the Natural Community
Conservation Plan (NCCP) and the North San Diego Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan
(MHCP)(see Reference 5). The project has been analyzed by the Carlsbad Planning Department
for consistency with these adopted plans, and the Department finds that it is fully consistent
with the provisions of NCCP and MHCP. Both the HMP and NCCPMHCP allow for incidental
impacts to small, isolated fragments of habitat in exchange for adequate mitigation (see
response to item b above). The impacts of this project are small (less than 0.21 acre of coastal
sage scrub), isolated from other habitat areas, and possessing low potential value for
conservation. Therefore, the project does not conflict with the provisions of the adopted HMP,
MHCP or NCCP.
The project is also located within the Coastal Zone of Carlsbad and is subject to the jurisdiction
of the California Coastal Commission and the Mello II segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal
Program (LCP). Recently, the Coastal Commission approved new policies for permitting
impacts to environmentally sensitive habitat in the coastal zone (Carlsbad LCPA 02-10)(see
Reference 6). While the Coastal Act generally prohibits impacts to any area designated by the
Commission as environmentally sensitive, Carlsbad LCP 02-10 includes provisions for ,
incidental take of habitat if the impact is part of a larger scale conservation plan such as the
HMP, MHCP, or NCCP. LCPA 02-10 also provides specific standards for mitigation when
impacts are allowed. The mitigation emphasizes creation of habitat to replace what is lost due to
impacts, resulting in “no net loss” of sensitive habitat in the coastal zone. The proposed project
is consistent with the criteria for allowing impacts stated in LCPA 02-10, and mitigation
measures incorporated in this MND will ensure that the mitigation requirements of LCPA 02-10
are complied with (see List of Mitigating Measures below). The project will be subject to
approval of a Coastal Development Permit to be issued by the City of Carlsbad following a duly
noticed public hearing. With the mitigation measures incorporated in this MND, the question of
conflict with provisions of adopted plans is reduced to less than significant.
21 Rev. 07/03/02
g. Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive?
Less Than Significant Impact. As noted above, the project site includes an open channel that
carries stormwater. The channel is not vegetated and is not environmentally sensitive.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Less Than Significant Impact. The geological report of the project (see Reference 7) gives no
indication of subsurface cultural or historical resources. There are no historic structures on the
site. The proposed development will occur on previously disturbed area of the site where there
are no known cultural resources. The project will alter a natural bluff face which could be
considered a unique geological feature. However, the bluff face is highly disturbed and eroded
and does not rise to the level of significance, as described in the Aesthetics discussion.
Therefore, the impact to the bluff face is considered less than significant.
VI. GEOLOGY/SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury or death involving:
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.
Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
i.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii.
iv. Landslides?
Potentially Significant unless mitigation incorporated: 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 these potential earthquakes could affect Carlsbad. The risk from
ground shaking is not significant when structures are built pursuant to the Uniform Building
Code (earthquake standards). According to the Geotechnical Update Report prepared by Vinje &
Middleton Engineering for the residential project on this site, the existing northern slope where
the drain pipeline is to be installed is considered marginally stable (low safety factor) and subject
to failure upon saturation, surcharging or a significant seismic event. Provided that the
recommendations specified for remedial grading and foundations by the Geotechnical Update
Report are implemented during construction of the residential project, liquefaction and
seismically induced settlements will not be a factor in the development of the project site.
Therefore, mitigation to avoid significant impacts resulting from unstable soils shall consist of
the implementation of the Geotechnical Update Report recommendations for remedial grading
and foundations as stated in the Vinje & Middleton Engineering Report dated October 1,2003.
According to the a Geotechnical Investigation performed for the project by Ron Gutier and Erik
Nelson in 1989, one relatively large landslide and an area of bedrock downslope creep were
observed on the property. In both the 1989 Geotechnical Investigation and the Geotechnical
Update Report dated October 1, 2003, the site is determined to be favorable for the proposed
development provided the recommendations for remedial grading summarized in the preliminary
geotechnical report are followed.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
No Impact: The project’s compliance with standards in the City’s Excavation and Grading
Ordinance that prevent erosion through slope planting and installation of temporary erosion
control means will avoid substantial soil erosion impacts.
22 Rev. 07/03/02
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?
No Impact - The geotechnical analysis performed for the site by Vinje & Middleton finds that
although the site is underlain by loose undocumented fills within the pad and northern slope
areas over Formational sandstone units which are exposed in an overly steepened slope condition
within the lower terrain below, the proposed development is feasible; i.e., unstable soil
conditions will not occur provided the recommendations summarized in the preliminary
geotechnical report are followed.
Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
Less than Significant Impact - The site is favorable for the proposed development provided the
remedial grading and foundation recommendations summarized in the preliminary geotechnical
report are followed.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
No Impact: Construction of the project has no potential to expose the public to hazards or hazardous
materials.
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
No Impact (a - g) - The project will replace an existing public storm drain system and is subject to City
standards regarding water quality, drainage and erosion control, including storm water permit (NPDES)
requirements and best management practices. The residential project related to this pipeline is
conditioned to require a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) that will ensure that it is designed and
constructed in compliance with the City's NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges
Associated with Construction Activity issued by the State Water Resources Control Board and the San
Diego NPDES Municipal Storm Water Permit issued to San Diego County and Cities by the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Therefore, the project will not violate any water quality standards, deplete groundwater supplies or
quality, substantially alter existing drainage patterns, cause substantial erosion or flooding, or
significantly impact the capacity of stormwater drainage systems.
h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map?
i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect '
flood flows?
No Impact (h & i) - The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according to the
Flood Insurance Rate Map. Therefore, the proposed development will not result in housing or structures
within a 100-year flood hazard area.
j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
23 Rev. 07/03/02
No Impact (j & k) - 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, or area
subject to inundation by seiche or tsunami. Therefore, the project will not result in exposing people or
structures to significant risk from flooding as a result of a dam failure, or from inundation by seiche,
tsunami, or mudflow.
Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters.
Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives,
synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving
surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g?, temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or
following construction?
Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean
Water Act Section 303(d) list?
The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives
or degradation of beneficial uses?
No Impact (1, m, n, o & p) - The project site is not located adjacent to any body of water. Drainage
from the site is subject to the City’s drainage and storm water pollution control standards (NPDES and
best management practices), which ensure that sediment and pollutants from any development of the site
will not discharge into any downstream receiving surface waters. Also, the City’s drainage and storm
water pollution control standards ensure that development does not reduce water quality of any marine,
fresh or wetland waters or groundwater. The project is designed to drain into an existing storm drain,
and the project will be conditioned to prepare a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) to ensure that
City standards are met.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING
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?
Less Than Significant Impact. See Biological Resources, Item IV.(f) above.
X. MINERAL RESOURCES
No Impact. The project site does not contain any mineral resources; therefore, the project will not result
in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or mineral resource recovery site.
XI. NOISE
Less Than significant Impact. Construction of the project will result in some temporarily elevated noise
levels. This impact is less than significant.
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
No Impact. Replacement of the existing drainage pipeline raises no issues with regard to population or
housing.
24 Rev. 07/03/02
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
No Impact. The drainage pipeline when replaced will create no new demand for public services. Only
routine inspection and maintenance will be needed.
XIV. RECREATION
No Impact. There are no existing or proposed recreational facilities on the project site. The adjacent
Hosp Grove property owned by the City of Carlsbad is used for recreational purposes. However,
replacement of the existing drainage pipeline will not have any’ impact on the public’s ability to continue
to use Hosp Grove for recreational purposes.
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC-Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load’and
capacity of the street system?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project will temporarily generate an estimated 10 Average Daily
Trips (ADT) and an estimated 4 peak hour trips. This traffic will utilize the following roadways:
Jefferson Street and Highland Drive. Existing traffic on these streets is within the acceptable range and
the peak hour level of service at the arterial intersection(s) impacted by the project is within the
acceptable range. The increase in traffic from the proposed project will not be noticeable, and 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 would not, therefore, cause an increase in traffic that is
substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. The impacts from the
proposed project are, therefore, less than significant.
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by
the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
Less Than Significant Impact. SANDAG acting as the County Congestion Management Agency has
designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two
highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The Existing and Buildout
average daily traffic (ADT) and Existing LOS on these designated roads and highways in Carlsbad is:
Existing ADT* Buildout ADT*
Rancho Santa Fe Road 15-32 “A-C” 28-43
El Camino Real 21-50 “A-C” 32-65
Palomar Airport Road 10-52 “A-B” 29-77
SR 78 120 “F” 144
1-5 183-198 “D” 2 19-249
*The numbers are in thousands of daily trips.
The Congestion Management Program’s (CMP) acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard is “E”, or
LOS “F” if that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (e.g., SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS “F” in 1990).
Accordingly, all designated roads and highways ai2 currently operating at or better than the acceptable
standard LOS.
Note that the buildout ADT projections are based on the full implementation of the region’s general and
community plans. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan and, therefore, its traffic was
used in modeling the buildout projections. Achievement of the CMP acceptable Level of Service (LOS)
“E” standard assumes implementation of the adopted CMP strategies. Based on the design capacity(ies)
25 Rev. 07l03l02
of the designated roads and highways and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at
acceptable level(s) of service in the short-term and at buildout.
a) 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?
No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components. The project is consistent
with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the McClellan-Palomar Airport. It would not, therefore,
result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No impact assessed.
b) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses?
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. No
impact assessed.
c) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire
and Police Departments. No impact assessed.
d) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
No Impact. Although temporary construction parking will be needed, after construction there is no
parking requirement associated with the project.
e) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)?
No Impact. The project will cerate no permanent traffic demands, and therefore does not have the
potential to conflict with adopted policies.
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS
No Impact. Replacement of the existing drainage pipleline raises no issues with regard to provision of
water, wastewater, or landfill services to the public. Because the project is replacement of an existing
drainage pipeline, it will not result in any increased need for stormwater conveyance or treatment.
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
0 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?
Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated - With the required mitigation, the project will not degrade
the quality of the physical environment. The disturbance of .21 acre of sparse and disturbed CSS habitat
will be mitigated at a ratio of 2:l through revegetation of .21 acre of CSS habitat onsite, on the adjacent
hosp grove property, or offsite at a location accceptable to the city, and preservation of .21 acre offsite
in a coastal habitat mitigation bank, in accordance with Carlsbad Local Coastal Program
Amendment LCPA 02- 10.
26 Rev. 07/03/02
A Federal de minimus “take” permit issued by the USFWS is required for this minor impact prior to
grading. A Coastal Development Permit will also be required.
There are no historic structures on the site.
disturbed and highly eroded bluff face where there are no known cultural resources.
The proposed development will occur on previously
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?)
Less than Significant Impact - 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 significant cumulatively considerable impact.
With regard to any other potential impact associated with the project, City standards and regulations
regarding construction of public works projects will ensure that the project will not result in a significant
cumulative considerable impact.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated - Replacement of the existing drainage
pipeline will comply with the City’s standard public works specifications which are designed to avoid
adverse environmental effects to the public. The project site is located in an area where human beings
could be exposed to hazardous conditions due to unstable soils. The unstable soils can be mitigated
through strict adherence to the recommendations of the Plan Review Geotechnical Update Report for
remedial grading and foundations. Additionally, the residential development will be required to comply
with all applicable federal, state, regional and City regulations, which will ensure that development of the
site will not result in an adverse impact on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
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 Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008.
1. “Master Drainage and Stormwater Quality Management Plan, City of Carlsbad.” California,
April 1992.
2. “Biological Resources Letter Report for the Highland Drive Storm Drain Replacement Project,
City of Carlsbad, California.” Dudek and Associates, February 23,2004
3. “Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub Natural Community Conservation Planning,
Conservation Guidelines.” California Department of Fish and Game, November 1993.
4. “Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad.” December 1999,
with Addendum #1 dated December 1999 and Addendum #2 dated June 2003.
27 Rev. Q7lQ3lQ2
5. “Final MHCP Plan, Volume I, Prepared for: Multiple Habitat Conservation Program,
Administered by Sandag for the Cities of Carlsbad, Encinitas, Escondido, Oceanside, San
Marcos, Solana Beach, and Vista.” March 2003.
6. City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program Amendment 02-10 (Habitat Management Plan).
Approved June 12,2003.
7. “Plan Review Geotechnical Update Report - Lot at the North Terminus of Highland Drive,
Carlsbad, California” dated October 1, 2003, prepared by Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc.;
“Geotechnical Investigation” prepared by Ron Gutier and Erik J. Nelson dated February 17,
1989.
28 Rev. 07/03/02
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
All trenching and excavation activities shall be completed within the summer construction
season, April 1 to October 1 of each year. The October 1 deadline may be extended with the
approval of the City Engineer subject to implementation by October 1 of erosion control
measures designed to prohibit discharge of sediments offsite during and after the trenching
operation is completed. Extensions beyond November 15 may be allowed in areas of very
low risk of impact to sensitive coastal resources and may be approved either as part of the
original coastal development permit or as a formal amendment to an existing coastal
development permit.
As a condition of this approval, applicant must comply with the requirements of all
regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over the project and any mitigation requirements of
the environmental documents for the project. Applicant shall apply for and obtain any
permits required by regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over the project prior to project
initiation. Applicant shall comply with all terms and conditions of said permits.
Impact to .21 acre of sparse coastal sage scrub and disturbed coastal sage scrub/southern mixed
chaparral vegetation shall be mitigated at a ratio of 2:l by creation of 0.21 acres of native
habitat onsite, offsite on the adjacent Hosp Grove property, or offsite at a location acceptable
to the City, and preservation of .21 acre offsite in a coastal habitat mitigation bank such as
Whelan Ranch in Oceanside, such that the result is no net loss of habitat in the Coastal Zone.
The project will require a Section 4(d) de minimus habitat loss permit exemption should the
HMP not be approved prior to issuance of a grading permit.
Substantial restoration may be substituted for creation if the area proposed for restoration is
severely disturbed, severely infested with invasive non-native species, or otherwise devoid of
habitat value. Restoration shall reestablish habitat type(s) that were historically present but
have suffered habitat conversion or such extreme degradation that most of the current
dominant species are not part of the original vegetation. All habitat creation or restoration
work shall be carried out by a licensed landscape contractor under the direct supervision of a
biologist, botanist, ecologist, or landscape architect with documented experience in native
plant restoration. A revegetation plan shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City and any
regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over the project. The revegetation plan shall include
specific success criteria. The area of habitat creation or restoration shall be monitored for a
period of 1 year to ensure that success criteria are met. If success criteria are not met within
1 year, the monitoring period shall be extended until success criteria are met. Thereafter, the
City of Carlsbad Public Works Department shall maintain the mitigation area in a healthy
and thriving condition.
The applicant shall record a conservation easement over the mitigation area in favor of the
City of Carlsbad, with the California Coastal Commission named as a third party
beneficiary.
Payment of in-lieu mitigation fee consistent with Section E-3 of the Habitat Management
Plan for .01 acre of eucalyptus woodland to be effective upon final approval of the Habitat
Management Plan.
Schedule construction to occur outside the breeding season or assure that construction
activity will not result in noise levels above 60 dBA leq at the nest site. If construction is
planned during the bird breeding season, vegetation should be cleared prior to the breeding
season. Additionally, if construction occurs during raptor breeding season (approximately
February 1 to August 30) a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey of the
project site and surrounding habitat to determine whether there are active raptor nests within
the area. If an active raptor nest is observed, a buffer shall be established between the
construction activities and the nest so that nesting activities are not interrupted. The buffer
29 Rev. 07/03/02
6.
7.
8.
should be a minimum of 500 feet and should be in effect as long as construction is occurring
andor until the nest is no longer active.
Due to project’s proximity to the .06 acre of open channel, indirect impacts shall be avoided
through the installation by hand of rip-rap (outside of the channel only), silt fencing shall be
installed, and a biological monitor shall be present during construction is this area to ensure
no impacts occur to downstream waters.
The Geotechnical Update Report recommendations for remedial grading and foundations as
stated in the Vinje & Middleton Engineering Report dated October 1, 2003 shall be
implemented during the construction phase of the project.
Applicant shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Applicant shall provide improvements installed
pursuant to best management practices as referenced in the “California Storm Water Best
Management Practices Handbook” to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to
discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be submitted to and subject to
the approval of the City Engineer. Best management practices shall be used to eliminate or
reduce surface pollutants when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface
improvements .
30 Rev. 07/03/02
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
31 Rev. 07/03/02
PROJECT NAME: Dunn Property Storm Drain Reulacement
APPROVAL DATE:
FILE NUMBERS: CDP 03-41
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 3 180 (Public Resources Code Section
2 108 1.6).
Mitigation Measure --
1. All trenching and excavation activities shall be completed
within the summer construction season, April 1 to October
1 of each year. The October 1 deadline may be extended
with the approval of the City Engineer subject to
implementation by October 1 of erosion control measures
designed to prohibit discharge of sediments offsite during
and after the trenching operation is completed.
Extensions beyond November 15 may be allowed in areas
of very low risk of impact to sensitive coastal resources
and may be approved either as part of the original coastal
development permit or as a formal amendment to an
existing coastal development permit.
2. As a condition of this approval, applicant must comply
with the requirements of all regulatory agencies having
jurisdiction over the project and any mitigation
requirements of the environmental documents for the
project. Applicant shall apply for and obtain any permits
required by regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over
the project prior to project initiation. Applicant shall
comply with all terms and conditions of said permits.
32
Monitoring
Department
Shown on Plans Remarks Verified
Implementation
Rev. 07/03/02
Mitigation Measure
3. Impact to .2 1 acres of sparse coastal sage scrub and disturbed
coastal sage scrub/southern mixed chapanal vegetation shall be
mitigated at a ratio of 2:l by creation of 0.21 acres of
native habitat onsite, offsite on the adjacent Hosp Grove
property, or offsite at a location acceptable to the City,
and preservation of .21 acres offsite in a coastal habitat
mitigation bank such as Whelan Ranch in Oceanside, such
that the result is no net loss of habitat in the Coastal Zone.
The project will require a Section 4(d) de minimus
habitat loss permit exemption should the HMP not be
approved prior to issuance of a grading permit.
Substantial restoration may be substituted for creation if
the area proposed for restoration is severely disturbed,
severely infested with invasive non-native species, or
otherwise devoid of habitat value. Restoration shall
reestablish habitat type(s) that were historically present
but have suffered habitat conversion or such extreme
degradation that most of the current dominant species are
not part of the original vegetation. All habitat creation or
restoration work shall be carried out by a licensed
landscape contractor under the direct supervision of a
biologist, botanist, ecologist, or landscape architect with
documented experience in native plant restoration. A
revegetation plan shall be prepared to the satisfaction of
the City and any regulatory agencies having jurisdiction
over the project. The revegetation plan shall include
specific success criteria. The area of habitat creation or
restoration shall be monitored for a period of 1 year to
Monitoring
Tvoe
Monitoring
Deoartment
Shown on Plans Verified
Implementation Remarks
33 Rev. Q7lQ3lQ2
ir Mitigation Measure
ensure that success criteria are met. If success criteria are
not met within 1 year, the monitoring period shall be
extended until success criteria are met. Thereafter, the
City of Carlsbad Public Works Department shall maintain
the mitigation area in a healthy and thriving condition.
The applicant shall record a conservation easement over
the mitigation area in favor of the City of Carlsbad, with
the California Coastal Commission named as a third party
beneficiary.
4. Due to project’s proximity to the .06 acre of open channel,
indirect impacts shall be avoided through the installation
by hand of rip-rap (outside of the channel only), silt
fencing shall be installed, and a biological monitor shall
be present during construction is this area to ensure no
impacts occur to downstream waters.
Monitoring I Monitoring Shown on Plans Verified
Implementation Remarks
34 Rev. 07/03/02
Mitigation Measure
5. Schedule construction to occur outside the bird breeding
season (February 15 - August 31) or assure that
construction activity will not result in noise levels above
60 dBA leq at the nest site. If construction is planned
during the bird breeding season, vegetation should be
cleared prior to the breeding season. Additionally, if
construction occurs during raptor breeding season
(approximately February 1 to August 30) a qualified
biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey of the
project site and surrounding habitat to determine whether -- there are active raptor nests within the area. If an active
raptor nest is observed, a buffer shall be established
between the construction activities and the nest so that
nesting activities are not interrupted. The buffer should be
a minimum of 500 feet and should be in effect as long as
construction is occurring and/or until the nest is no longer
active.
6. The Geotechnical Update Report recommendations for
remedial grading and foundations as stated in the Vinje &
Middleton Engineering Report dated October 1, 2003
shall be implemented during the construction phase of the
project.
Monitoring
Type
35 Rev. 07/03/02
Mitigation Measure Shown on Plans
7. Applicant shall comply with the City’s requirements of the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit. Applicant shall provide improvements
installed pursuant to best management practices as
referenced in the “California Storm Water Best
Management Practices Handbook” to reduce surface
pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to
sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be
submitted to and subject to the approval of the City
Engineer. Best management practices shall be used to
eliminate or reduce surface pollutants when planning any
changes to the landscaping and surface improvements.
Verified
Implementation Remarks
36
Monitoring
Department
Rev. 07/03/02
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5625
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING COASTAL
INSTALLATION OF A STORM DRAIN REPLACEMENT ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHERN
TERMINUS OF HIGHLAND DRIVE AND EXTENDING INTO
HOSP GROVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE
1.
CASE NAME: DUNN PROPERTY STORM DRAIN
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CDP 03-41 TO ALLOW
REPLACEMENT
CASE NO.: CDP 03-41
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad, “Developer,” has filed a verified application
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by James Dunn and the City of Carlsbad,
“Owners,” described as
That portion of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter
of Section 31, Township 11 south, Range 4 west, San Diego
meridian, in the County of San Diego, State of California,
according to the United States Government Survey, approved
April 5,1881, together with a portion of Lots 4 and 5 of Cedar
Hill addition to the town of Carlsbad, according to Map
thereof No. 532, filed in the office of the County Recorder of
San Diego County, April 25, 1888, all being in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California and
described as per Grant Deed recorded September 25, 1962 as
File No. 164830 of official records filed in the office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, State of California,
described herein as Deed 1, along with that portion described
per Corporation Grant Deed recorded April 9,1963 as File No.
60557 of official records, filed in the office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, State of California, described
herein as Deed 2, and as shown on Record of Survey 13744,
recorded May 7,1992 as File No. 92-27634 filed in the office of
the County Recorder of San Diego County, State of California,
Tract No. 1, Parcel 2, Document 36394 recorded 1972 in Lot 19
and in Lot 20
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Coastal
Development Permit as shown on Exhibits “A” - “C” dated May 19, 2004, on file in the
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
Planning Department, DUNN PROPERTY STORM DRAIN REPLACEMENT - CDP 03-41,
as provided by Chapter 21.201.040 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 19th day of May 2004, 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, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the CDP.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
03-41 based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
APPROVES DUNN PROPERTY STORM DRAIN REPLACEMENT - CDP
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in
conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan based on the facts set forth in
the staff report dated May 19,2004 including, but not limited to the following:
Circulation Element: The replacement of an undersized and broken storm drain
with a properly sized pipe that serves an existing single family neighborhood is
consistent with the City’s goal to complete a comprehensive network of storm drain
facilities that provide appropriate flood control services to all land uses.
2. That the proposed development is in conformance with the Certified Local Coastal
Program and all applicable policies in that the storm drain replacement is required by
and consistent with LCP policy requiring that improvement and enlargement of
storm drain facilities in developed areas must be in accordance with the Master
Drainage Plan (MDP). Storm drain alignments as proposed in the MDP that empty
into Buena Vista Lagoon are not permitted unless they comply with provisions of
the Coastal Act requiring that the functional capacity of the lagoon is maintained or
enhanced. The project will maintain the functional capacity of Buena Vista Lagoon
through replacement of an undersized, broken storm drainpipe with a properly
sized pipe that will control runoff and reduce sediment prior to entering the lagoon.
3. The proposal is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3
of the Coastal Act in that there are no public recreation or access requirements
associated with the storm drain alignment.
PC RES0 NO. 5625 -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
4. The project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay
Zone (Chapter 21.203 of the Zoning Ordinance) in that the project will adhere to the
City’s Master Drainage Plan, Grading Ordinance, Storm Water Ordinance, Standard
Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) and Jurisdictional Urban Runoff
Management Program (JURMP) to avoid increased urban run off, pollutants and soil
erosion. The construction of drainage improvements are exempted from grading
restrictions on steep slopes containing native vegetation provided that the storm
drain alignment is consistent with the Coastal Act. As stated in Finding 1 above,
the project will maintain the functional capacity of Buena Vista Lagoon as required
by the Coastal Act.
5. The Planning CommissiodCity Council (select one) hereby finds that all development in
Carlsbad benefits from the Habitat Management Plan, which is a comprehensive
conservation plan and implementation program that will facilitate the preservation of
biological diversity and provide for effective protection and conservation of wildlife and
plant species while continuing to allow compatible development in accordance with
Carlsbad’s Growth Management Plan. Preservation of wildlife habitats and sensitive
species is required by the Open Space and Conservation Element of the City’s General
Plan which provides for the realization of the social, economic, aesthetic and
environmental benefits from the preservation of open space within an increasingly urban
environment. Moreover, each new development will contribute to the need for additional
regional infrastructure that, in turn, will adversely impact species and habitats. The In-
Lieu Mitigation Fee imposed on all new development within the City is essential to fund
implementation of the City’s Habitat Management Plan.
6. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed
to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the
degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
Conditions:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to issuance of a
grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first.
1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all
future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy
issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to
compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No
vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of
this Coastal Development Permit.
2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Coastal Development Permit documents, as necessary to make
them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project.
PC RES0 NO. 5625 -3-
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
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed
development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and
regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are
challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section
66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid
unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with
all requirements of law.
Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold
harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and
representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims
and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the City arising, directly
or indirectly, from (a) City’s approval and issuance of ths Coastal Development Permit
(b) City’s approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-
discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c)
Developer/Operator’s installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including
without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of
electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This obligation survives until
all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the City’s approval is not
validated.
Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required
as part of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that
Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
The applicant shall apply for and be issued building permits for this project within two
(2) years of approval or this coastal development permit will expire unless extended per
Section 2 1.201.2 10 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall apply for and obtain a
grading permit issued by the City Engineer.
This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and is subject to all conditions
contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5624 for those other approvals
incorporated herein by reference.
This project has been found to result in impacts to wildlife habitat or other lands, such as
agricultural land, which provide some benefits to wildlife, as documented in the City’s
Habitat Management Plan and the environmental analysis for this project. Developer is
PC RES0 NO. 5625 -4-
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
aware that the City has adopted an In-lieu Mitigation Fee consistent with Section E.6 of
the Habitat Management Plan and City Council Resolution No. 2000-223 to fund
mitigation for impacts to certain categories of vegetation and animal species. The
Developer is further aware that the City has determined that all projects will be required
to pay the fee in order to be found consistent with the Habitat Management Plan and the
Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan. The fee becomes effective
following final approval of the Habitat Management Plan. The City is currently updating
the fee study, which is expected to result in an increase in the amount of the fee. If the
Habitat Management Plan is approved, then the Developer or Developer’s successor(s) in
interest shall pay the adjusted amount of the fee. The fee shall be paid prior to
recordation of a final map, or issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever
occurs first. If the In-lieu Mitigation Fee for this project is not paid, this project will not
be consistent with the Habitat Management Plan and the General Plan and any an all
approvals for this project shall become null and void.
En pineering
12. Prior to the issuance of grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first,
Developer shall submit for City approval a “Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP).”
The SWMP shall demonstrate compliance with the City of Carlsbad Standard Urban
Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Order 2001-01 issued by the San Diego Region of
the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and City of Carlsbad Municipal
Code. The SWMP shall be prepared per Appendix D of the City’s current SUSMP.
Code Reminders:
13. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the
Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building
permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“fees/exac tions .”
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these feedexactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified feedexactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any feedexactions of which you have previously been given a
PC RES0 NO. 5625 -5-
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
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 19th day of May 2004, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson White, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman,
and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Montgomery and Segall
ABSTAIN: None
MELISSA WHITE, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5625 -6-