The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCT 98-14; Thompson/Tabata; Tentative Map (CT) (169)City of Carlsbad Planning Department Project Address/Location: Project Description: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION North and south of Poinsettia Lane, west of Aviara Parkway and east of Snapdragon Drive, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California Request for a Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment to change 40.41 acres of the subdivision from Limited Control (L-C) to Residential Multiple-Density with a Qualified Development Overlay Zone (RD-M-Q) and to change 41.79 acres from Limited Control (L-C) to One Family Residential with a Qualified Development Overlay Zone (R-l-Q); and a Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development Permit, Site Development Plan, Condominium Permit, Hillside Development Permit and Coastal Development Permit to subdivide, grade, and develop 82.20 acres, creating 238 single family lots, two open space lots, four recreation lots, one recreational vehicle storage lot and a 24 unit, for-sale condominium project, affordable to lower-income households. 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 is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is 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 date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Michael Grim in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4623. DATED: CASE NO: APRIL 4, 2001 ZC 98-08/LCPA 98-04/CT 98-14/PUD 98-05/CP 00-02/SDP 99-06/HDP 98- 15/CDP 98-68 CASE NAME: THOMPSON/TABATA PUBLISH DATE: APRIL 4, 2001 MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLCER Planning Director 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: ZC 98-08/LCPA 98-04/CT 98-14/PUD 98-057 CP 00-02/SDP 99-06/HDP 98-15/CDP 98-68 DATE: March 1.2001 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Thompson/Tabata 2. APPLICANT: Standard Pacific Housing 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5750 Fleet St. Suite 200. Carlsbad CA 92008 (858)292-2200 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: September 18. 1998 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for a Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment to change 40.41 acres of the subdivision from Limited Control (L-C) to Residential Multiple- Density with a Qualified Development Overlay Zone (RD-M-Q) and to change 41.79 acres from Limited Control (L-C) to One Family Residential with a Qualified Development Overlay Zone (R-l-Q); and a request for a Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development Permit. Site Development Plan, Condominium Permit, Hillside Development Permit and Coastal Development Permit to subdivide, grade, and develop 82.20 acres, creating 238 single family lots, two open space lots, four recreation lots, one recreational vehicle storage lot and a 24 unit, for- sale condominium project, affordable to lower-income households, on property generally located north and south of Poinsettia Lane, between Aviara Parkway and Snapdragon Drive, in Local Facilities Management Zone 20. SUMMARY OF 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. Land Use and Planning |/\l Transportation/Circulation Public Services [ | Population and Housing [XJ Biological Resources Utilities & Service Systems /\ Geological Problems | | Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics Water | | Hazards | | Cultural Resources Recreation[XI Noise X | | Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 03/28/96 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) I I I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. DKI 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 significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one potentially significant effect 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. 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 pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. Planner Signature / / Date Planning Director's Signature Date Rev. 03/28/96 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. • A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. • "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. • "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. • "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. • Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but all potentially significant 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 (Prior Compliance). • When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. • A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. Rev. 03/28/96 • If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. • An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant 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 impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #'s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18. #2: Pgs 111-74 - 111-87) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18. #2, Pgs 111-74 - 111-87) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18. #2, Pgs 111-74 -111-87) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18. #2, Pgs 111-27 - III- 31) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18. #2, Pgs 111-74 -111-87) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated D D D n D D II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6. #2, Pgs 111-74 -111-87) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6. #2, Pgs 111-74 -111-87) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6. #2, Pgs 111-74 -111-87) D D D D III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15. #2: Pgs III- 112 - HI- 11 8) b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15. #2: Pgs III- 112 -HI- 11 8) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15. #2:PgsIII-112-III-118) e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15. #2: PgsIII-112-III-118) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15. #2: Pgs IIM 12 -III-l 18) g) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15. #2: Pgs III-l 12 -III-l 18) h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15. #2: Pgs III-l 12 -III- 11 8) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - D nn n n Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2- 11) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1-5..2-11) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 -5..2-11) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1-5..2-11) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2- 11) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1-5..2-11) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated D n D D n n V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3- 1 - 5.3-12. #2: Pgs 111-28 -111-36) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12. #2: Pgs 111-28 -111-36) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12. #2: Pgs 111-28 -111-36) d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12. #2: Pgs IH-28 -111-36) n n n n n VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22. #2: Pgs 111-58 -111-75) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22. #2: Pgs 111-58 -111-75) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? . (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22. #2: Pgs 111-58 -111-75) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22. #2: Pgs 111-58 -111-75) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22. #2: Pgs 111-58 -111-75) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22. #2: Pgs 111-58 -111-75) D D D D n n Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22. #2: Pgs III-58-III-75) Potentially Significant Impact D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24. #2: Pgs III- 37 -111-58) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24. #2: Pgs 111-37 -111-58) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24. #2: Pgs 111-37 -111-58) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24. #2: Pgs HI-37 -111-58) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24. #2: Pgs 111-37 -111-58) VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13- 1-5.13-9) c) 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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5,13-1-5.13-9) n n n IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5. #2:PgsIII-97-III-105) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5. #2: Pgs 111-97 -III-105) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5. #2: Pgs 111-97 - III-105) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5. #2: Pgs III- 97-III-105) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5. #2: Pgs III- 97-III-105) n n EI n n n X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9- 15.#2:PgsIII-88-III-98) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#1 :Pgs 5.9- 1 - 5.9-15. #2: Pgs 111-88 -111-98) n n Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6. #2: Pgs III-108-III-lll) b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4. #2: Pgs III-108-III-lll) c) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5. #2: Pgs III-108 - Ill-Ill) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.8-7. #2: Pgs III-108-III-111) e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7. #2: Pgs III-108 - III-l 11) D D D D XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1-5.13-9) b) Communications systems? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7) e) Storm water drainage? (#1 :Pg 5.2-8) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)f) g)Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) D D n an XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs I I 5.11-1 -5.11-5. #2: Pgs 111-119-111-151) '—' b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs I I 5.11-1 - 5.11-5. #2: Pgs III-l 19 - III-151) c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5. #2: Pgs I Iiii-i 19-m-151) '—' XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8- 10. #2: Pgs 111-106-111-107) b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8- 10) c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs 5.8- 1-5.8-10) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) D D XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1-5.12.8-7) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporatedn Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D XVI. 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? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? D D D D XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. A number of previous environmental review documents and technical studies have been performed for the project site. The pertinent environmental review documents include the Master Environmental Impact Report for the 1994 General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01) and the Program Environmental Impact Report for the Zone 20 Specific Plan (EIR 90-03). The MEIR reviewed the potential environmental impacts associated with buildout of the City's General Plan, including transportation and air quality. The Program EIR for the Zone 20 Specific Plan reviewed the potential impacts associated with the development of the Zone 20 Specific Plan with uses in accordance with the City's General Plan. All applicable mitigation measures contained in these two documents that are relevant to the proposed project have been incorporated into the project design or are expressly listed in the mitigation measures below. The pertinent technical documents include the project's geotechnical, hydrologic, traffic impact, biological, acoustical, and contaminant review reports. These references, listed at the end of this document, contain specific information regarding the potential environmental impacts and recommended mitigation measures associated with the development of the proposed Thompson/Tabata project on the project site. All of these references were used to make the enclosed environmental determination and should be referred to in addition to the discussion contained below. Rev. 03/28/96 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The Thompson/Tabata proposal involves two components. The first involves a Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment to change 40.41 acres of the property from Limited Control (L-C) to Residential Multiple-Density with a Qualified Development Overlay Zone (RD-M-Q) and to change 41.79 acres from Limited Control (L-C) to One Family Residential with a Qualified Development Overlay Zone (R-1-7.500-Q). The second component involves a Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development Permit, Condominium Permit, Site Development Plan, Hillside Development Permit and Coastal Development Permit to allow the subdivision, grading, and development of 238 single family dwellings, two open space lots, three recreation lots, one recreational vehicle storage area and a 24-unit, for-sale condominium project affordable to lower-income households over the entire 82.20 acre site. The project site is located north and south of Poinsettia Lane, between Aviara Parkway and Snapdragon Drive, in Local Facilities Management Zone 20. The western 40.41 acres of the site is designated Residential Medium (RM) in the City's General Plan, allowing from 4.0 to 8.0 dwelling units per acre. The eastern 41.79 acres of the site is designated Residential Low-Medium, allowing up to 4.0 dwellings per acre. The City's Growth Management Plan limits these densities to maximums of 3.2 and 6.0 dwellings per acre, respectively. The project site is also located within the Mello II segment of the City's Local Coastal Program and within the Zone 20 Specific Plan area. The project site is zoned Limited Control (L-C) that allows agricultural uses and requires a Zone Change prior to or concurrent with detailed development plans. The project site consists of three areas. The majority of the site is located south of Poinsettia Lane, with two areas north of Poinsettia Lane: at the extension of existing Lemon Leaf Drive and at the extension of existing Lonicera Street. 20 single-family planned development lots would be created on the Lonicera Street extension and 19 single family lots (minimum of 10,000 square feet in area) would be created along future Lemon Leaf Drive. The remaining 199 single-family units, the 24-unit multifamily condominium, the recreational vehicle storage area and the passive recreational areas are all located south of Poinsettia Lane, Except for a small portion in the northeastern corner, the project site is completely surrounded by residential development and related open space. The surrounding developments are: Mariner's Point to the north, Sandpiper at Aviara to the east, Spinnaker Hill to the southeast and east, and Vista Pacifica to the east. The two portions north of Poinsettia Lane are separated by two existing lots totaling 2.40 acres that are not a part of the proposed subdivision. The properties contain the existing single-family residence and accessory structures from the previous agricultural operations. The residence currently takes access off of Lonicera Street, just south of its intersection with Camino de las Ondas, via an access easement and paved driveway. The proposed subdivision does not affect this existing access and provides public street frontage to the east side of the lot through the extension of Lemon Leaf Drive, thereby allowing future development of the site. All three of the project areas have historically been under commercial agricultural production. The agricultural uses consisted of open fields, greenhouses and related access roads and storage structures. There is an existing single-family house located south of Poinsettia Lane that would remain with the proposed development. In late 2000, the greenhouses were cleared from the site, which is currently covered by fallow open fields. The topography of the site is a north-south trending ridgeline and west- facing slope. There is a small strip of native habitat along the eastern boundary of the project site that is part of a larger open space canyon within the Aviara Master Plan community. The proposed residential development would entail a balanced grading scheme with approximately 496,700 cubic yards of cut and fill. Some removal of unconsolidated materials may be necessary, depending upon detailed soils investigations. The proposed topography would remain essentially the same, with a north-south trending ridge and development stepping down the west-facing slope. The proposed development includes public infrastructure, such as streets, storm drains, and sewer and water systems. The proposed subdivision would connect to the surrounding street system in three locations: at 10 Rev. 03/28/96 Rose Drive and Poinsettia Lane; through the extension of Alyssum Road to the west; and through the extension of Rose Drive to the south. All three of these connections were designed to accommodate access to the project site with the original development of the surrounding subdivisions. The proposed development would also connect to the existing infrastructure, such as sewer, storm drain, potable and recycled water, within existing rights-of-way or utility easements. The project proposes three residential dwelling unit types: small-lot single-family, standard lot single- family and multifamily condominiums. The small lot single-family product would range from 2,836 square feet to 3,297 square feet whereas the standard single-family product would range from 3,567 square feet to 4,849 square feet. The multifamily condominiums would range from 1,129 square feet to 1,872 square feet. The standard single-family products would be a mix of one- and two-story units while the small-lot single-family and multifamily condominium would be two-story structures. The architectural styles would be varied and would be compatible with the existing surrounding residential neighborhoods. The site would also include a recreational vehicle storage site and several common passive open space parks. I. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? The subject property is covered by two General Plan designations: the western 40.41 acres is designated Residential Medium density (allowing 4.0 - 8.0 dwelling unit per developable acre) and the eastern 41.79 acres is designated Residential Low-Medium density (allowing 0.0 to 4.0 dwelling units per acre). As detailed in the project description, each portion of the project proposes residential development within the allowed density range of the underlying General Plan designation; the proposed densities are 3.88 dwellings per acre on the western portion (including the proposed 24-unit affordable condominium project) and 2.58 dwellings per acre on the eastern portion. The maximum densities allowed through the General Plan have been modified by the City's Growth Management Ordinance (Chapter 21.90 of the Zoning Ordinance) through the use of Growth Management Control Points. These Growth Management Control Points are 6.0 dwellings per acre for the RM designation and 3.2 dwellings per acre for the RLM designation. The proposed project densities in each portion of the project are below their respective growth management control points. The project site is currently zoned Limited Control (L-C) on the City's Zoning Map. Limited Control is a temporary zoning designation typically given to newly annexed properties of the City. It allows agricultural uses, as well as those uses existing on the property as of annexation. According to Section 21.39.010 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Limited Control zoning should be replaced with an appropriate zoning once development plans have been formed. The project site is also located within the Zone 20 Specific Plan Area (SP 203), which constitutes the zoning for the subject property. According to Section III.B.l of the Zone 20 Specific Plan, the appropriate zoning for the General Plan RM designated properties is Residential Multiple Density (R-DM); the appropriate zoning for the General Plan RLM designated properties is One Family Residential with a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet (R-l- 7,500). The zoning designations proposed for the project site through the project's Zone Change (ZC 98- 08) correlate with those zoning designations recommended by the Zone 20 Specific Plan for the respective General Plan designations. In addition to conforming to the General Plan designations, and the Zone 20 Specific Plan with regard to the appropriate zoning designations, the proposed project is consistent with all applicable zoning and Specific Plan standards and requirements. These standards include lot size and configuration, building coverage, building height, building setbacks and placement of buildings, 11 Rev. 03/28/96 b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? The applicable local environmental plans and policies include the Master Environmental Impact Report for the 1994 General Plan Update, the Program Environmental Impact Report for the Zone 20 Specific Plan, and the environmental policies and regulations contained in the Carlsbad General Plan and the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The project is also located within the Mello II segment of the City's coastal zone and, therefore, subject to the environmental policies of the Mello II segment of the City's Local Coastal Program. The Master Environmental Impact Report for the 1994 General Plan Update evaluates the potential impacts of the complete development of the City in accordance with the General Plan. As noted in Section XVII above (Earlier Analysis), the proposed project is consistent with the various policies of the General Plan and incorporates all applicable mitigation measures of the Master EIR. Therefore no conflicts with the environmental policies of those documents will occur. Title 19 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Environmental Review) contains the City's regulations with regard to the processing of environmental review documents. According to Section 19.04.030, the State CEQA Guidelines are adopted by reference and the processing regulations contained in Title 19 are substantially as shown in the State CEQA Guidelines. The Mello II segment of the City's Local Coastal Program contains several environmental policies centering around the preservation of coastal resources, namely: environmentally sensitive habitat areas, wetlands, riparian resources, and steep slope areas with native habitat. The proposed project is consistent with these policies in that no environmentally sensitive areas exist within the previously disturbed site. The only native habitat existing on site is a 1.8-acre strip of coastal sage scrub habitat located along the eastern boundary that is proposed to remain undisturbed by construction and would be placed under an open space easement for perpetuity. The other potentially sensitive resource is a 0.1-acre patch of disturbed southern willow scrub that was created by agricultural runoff within a man-made depression. As discussed in Section VILa below, even though the patch is isolated and disturbed it would be mitigated on-site at a ratio two-to-one. Given the above, the proposal is consistent with all applicable environmental plans and policies. c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? With the exception of the multifamily development along the project's northwestern boundary (Las Playas), the land uses surrounding the project site are single-family with intermittent open space along a portion of the eastern boundary. The surrounding developments are: Mariner's Point to the north, Sandpiper at Aviara to the east, Spinnaker Hill to the southeast and east, and Vista Pacifica to the east. The densities of these surrounding neighborhoods are: Las Playas at 7.58 dwellings per acre, Sandpiper at Aviara at 1.25 dwellings per acre, Spinnaker Hill at 3.64 dwellings per acre, and Vista Pacifica at 5.55 dwellings per acre. Given the above, the proposed densities of the project are compatible with the surrounding land uses. The Thompson/Tabata project also contains certain features that necessitate discussion. The first feature is a 24-unit, for sale condominium project over 2.93 acres of the western portion of the project. While this project was included in the overall density calculations for the General Plan RM designated portion of the property, it does constitute a different land use than the remainder of the proposed development. The 24-unit condominium project is situated within the interior of the project site and gains access directly off of Rose Drive, a future public street that forms a signalized intersection with Poinsettia Lane. Adjacent to the proposed 24-unit condominium project is proposed to be a 16,800 square foot recreational vehicle storage area. This RV storage area is also situated within the interior of the project site and gains access directly off of Rose Drive. Neither of these components of the project are considered to be incompatible to the existing land uses given their interior location, their direct access though a signalized intersection and the fact that neighboring land uses also contain multifamily dwellings and recreational vehicle storage areas. 12 Rev. 03/28/96 The project also proposes connections of local streets in accordance with those previously approved and constructed residential subdivisions. The project proposes the extension of Alyssum Drive on the western boundary of the site and Rose Drive on the southern boundary of the site. As discussed further in Section VI - Transportation/Circulation below, the proposed additional traffic trips do not exceed the maximum design volumes of the existing public streets and lack of connection of these roadways would reduce the circulation efficiency of the overall area. Given the above, the proposed project is not incompatible to the existing land uses in the vicinity. d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? The proposed project site has been under agriculture up until late 2000 with open strawberry fields and greenhouse rose production. Since the site is surrounded by existing residential uses and intermittent open space, it represented the last stand of agriculture in the immediate area. No other agricultural operations use the site for access nor do any agricultural lands use runoff from the site. Therefore, no adjacent or neighboring agricultural resources or operations would be impacted by the in-fill residential development. A large majority of the project site is identified as Site III of the Mello II segment of the City's Local Coastal Program, bringing it under the regulation of the Coastal Agricultural Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.202 of the Zoning Ordinance). Requirements for the conversion of this site from agriculture to residential development are also contained in the Program EER. for the Zone 20 Specific Plan. To mitigate the potential impacts due to loss of prime agricultural areas within the Coastal Zone, the project is conditioned to pay the required agricultural conversion mitigation fee of $6,655.00 per acre for that portion of the site contained in Site III (approximately 63 acres), or a total of $419,265.00. Satisfaction of this mitigation measures brings the potential impacts to agricultural resources to less than a significant level. e) Disrupt of divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including low- income or minority community)? The proposed project is completely contained within the project boundaries and requires no off-site improvements. Therefore, the physical arrangements of the established communities would not be disrupted or divided as a result of the proposed development. As mentioned above, two of the adjacent existing residential subdivisions contained roadway segments that were designed to serve the site and provide those neighborhoods with an alternate connection to Poinsettia Lane, the area's major arterial roadway. Therefore, development of the proposed project would complete the local residential street system in this area, ending the existing division of neighborhoods caused by the continuation of agricultural operations on the site. II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? Regional population projections are provided by the local Council of Governments known as the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). In concert with the update of local Housing Elements, SANDAG prepares a Regional Housing Needs Assessment. This assessment distributes the expected growth among the member jurisdictions based upon a number of variables. The 1999 needs assessment identified a estimated housing need within Carlsbad of 6,214 additional dwelling units over the next five years. In addition, according to SANDAG population projections, the San Diego region should expect an additional 990,000 residents within the next 20 years. In fact, the Regional Growth Management Strategy Committee for SANDAG is requesting that all member agencies, including the City of Carlsbad, enhance the residential capacity of their local General Plans to accommodate this additional growth. 13 Rev. 03/28/96 Therefore, if the project exceeded the City's General Plan residential density designation, it would more closely approximate and accommodate, rather than exceed, regional population projections. Local population projections are provided by the City's Growth Management Program and are detailed in the City's Housing Element of the General Plan. The Growth Management Program established dwelling unit maximums for the four quadrants of the City. The quadrants are those four areas defined by the intersection of El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road, with the project site falling in the southwest quadrant. The estimated amount of future dwelling units for the City was calculated by multiplying the Growth Control Point of all undeveloped residential properties by the their total developable acres; by adding the sum of undeveloped property yield to the total units existing as of 1986, the total dwelling unit maximums were derived. The dwelling unit maximum for the southwest quadrant is 12,859. Since the density of the proposed project is below the Growth Control Point for the property, the project does not exceed local housing unit projections. The City's Housing Element also contains information regarding the expected and potential amount of housing unit and population growth. In addition to detailing the Regional Housing Needs Assessment from SANDAG, the element estimates the potential growth within the City. According to Section I.D.4 of the 1999 Housing Element, the City could accommodate a total of 24,694 additional dwelling units over the next five years, based upon the availability of residentially designated land and the facility planning provided by the Local Facilities Management Zone Plans. Given the above, the proposed project would not cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. b) Induce substantial growth in an area directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? The proposed project constitutes an in-fill development, replacing the existing agricultural uses with uses similar to those surrounding the property. As discussed in Section II(a) above, the project proposed fewer dwelling units than planned for in the City's Growth Management Plan and General Plan. As detailed above, there is no extension of major infrastructure proposed with the project. Therefore, the proposed in-fill development would not induce substantial growth, either directly or indirectly. c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? As mentioned above, the project site has been used for agriculture and, except for the two existing single- family homes to remain in place, the site contained no housing units. In addition, no housing units currently or historically used the site for access. Therefore development of the site would not displace any existing housing, rather it is providing improved infrastructure and services to the existing homes and adding affordable housing units to the site. III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS: Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? The potential geologic impacts of the proposed development were reviewed and reported in the project geotechnical investigation (Geotechnical Investigation - Poinsettia Agricultural Property, dated September 1998, Geocon, Inc. Geotechnical Consultants). According to that report, the project site is not located on any known active or potentially active fault trace. The nearest known active fault is the Rose Canyon fault, located approximately five miles to the west. Therefore construction of the proposed project would not rupture or otherwise affect any known fault. b) Seismic ground shaking? As mentioned above, the Rose Canyon fault zone is located approximately five miles west of the project site. Other potential sources of ground motion on the site are the Elsinore Fault Zone and the Offshore 14 Rev. 03/28/96 Zone of Deformation. These sources of potential ground motion affect the entire coastal San Diego County area. Therefore, any development of the site would be subject to the same existing earthquake or ground motion hazards that affect the entire southern California area. The project is conditioned, therefore, to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code's construction standards for Seismic Zone 4 - those areas containing known active faults. Conformance with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code lessens any potential impacts due to fault rupture to a less than significant level. c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? The potential for seismic ground failure, including liquefaction, is typically limited to those soils that are relatively loose or unconsolidated. Liquefaction also typically requires a permanent water table below the site. According to the project's geotechnical investigation, the fill and formational materials of the project site contain a relatively high density and grain-size distribution characteristics and there is no permanent water table in the development areas. Therefore, according to the report, "the risk of seismically induced soil liquefaction occurring at the property is considered very low." d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? A seiche is an oscillating movement within a closed body of water caused by seismic or atmospheric disturbances, similar to a tsunami in the ocean. There are no lakes or open areas of standing water on or near the project site; the closest water body being the Batiquitos Lagoon 1.33 miles to the south and well over 150 feet lower in elevation. As mentioned in Section III(b) above, there is an Offshore Zone of Deformation off of the southern California coast that has the potential of creating a tsunami, or tidal wave. The project's site elevation of 180 to 310 feet above mean sea level greatly reduces the chance of adverse impacts due to tsunami. According to the project geotechnical report (Geotechnical Investigation - Poinsettia Agricultural Property, dated September 1998, Geocon, Inc. Geotechnical Consultants), there are no volcanic hazards on the project site or within the project area. Given the above, the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts due to seiches, tsunamis, or volcanic hazards. e) Landslides or mudflows? The project's geotechnical report states that no ancient landslides have occurred within the project boundaries. The report does reference two confirmed and one suspected landslide near the project area, along the east-facing slope near the east-central and southeast project boundary. These historic landslides occurred within the adjacent development to the east, Aviara Sandpiper (CT 90-37) and were mitigated and prepared for development through removal of soils, buttressing and stability fills. According to the project geotechnical report, no mudflows were observed on the project site and the likelihood of a mudflow occurrence is low. Given the above, no significant adverse environmental impacts due to landslides or mudflows would occur with development of the proposed project. f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill? The proposed project is subject to the provisions of the City of Carlsbad Engineering Standards, Coastal Zone Ordinances, and the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit. All of the regulatory documents contain requirements for erosion control and desedimentation of storm water runoff. These requirements would be provided in the project's approved grading plan and monitored by City Engineering Inspection staff during construction. The essential north-south trending ridge topography would remain with the project development. The proposed development would result in cuts and fills of up to 30 feet, however the general topography would not significantly change. All grading operations are required to maintain stable soil conditions. The project geotechnical report identified some unconsolidated fill, topsoil and colluvium/alluvium materials on the project site. These materials are not suitable for the support of fill or structural loads and, therefore, require remedial grading in the form of removal and compaction. As part of the grading permit application process, a detailed soils 15 Rev. 03/28/96 investigation would be conducted and reviewed and any detailed soil treatment or handling requirements would be incorporated into the grading permit. Given the design of the proposed development and the regulatory measures in place for grading operations, the project would not cause any significant adverse environmental impacts due to erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill. g) Subsidence of the land? Subsidence, or sinking, of the land can occur when material below the ground is altered or removed. This is typically associated with groundwater, oil or natural gas deposits that are extracted and result in a lowering of the surface elevation. As mentioned above, there is no permanent water table below the project site and no mineral resources have been identified on site. No drilling or extraction activities are proposed with the residential subdivision and no mention of possibility of subsidence is mentioned in the project's geotechnical investigation. Therefore, the proposed development would not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts associated with subsidence of the land. h) Expansive soils? According to the project's geotechnical report, the site contains with undocumented fill, topsoil, colluvium/alluvium material, terrace deposits, and Santiago Formation/Torrey Sandstone. The expansion potential of the Santiago Formation/Torrey Sandstone and the terrace deposits is low, therefore no impacts due to expansion of those materials would be expected. The colluvium/alluvium materials, topsoil and undocumented fill all have a potential for expansion and, in accordance with the project's geotechnical report, would be required to undergo remedial grading in the form or removal and compaction. Adherence to the project geotechnical report is therefore a mitigation measure of the project that would bring the potential adverse environmental impacts due to expansive soils to a level of insignificance. i) Unique geologic or physical features? According to the project's geotechnical report, no unique geologic or physical features exist within the project site. The types of materials found on the site (i.e. terrace deposits, colluvium/alluvium, etc.) are typical to the Carlsbad region and are not unique. As stated previously, no off-site improvements are proposed with the project. Therefore, construction and occupation of the proposed residential subdivision would not create any significant adverse impacts to unique geologic or physical features. IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? The proposed conversion of the previously agricultural property into a residential subdivision similar to the surrounding development would change the absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface runoff. Until recently, the property was either in open fields or covered by greenhouses, agricultural buildings and paved access roads. Even though greenhouses covered a large portion of the site, the amount of impervious surfaces would increase with the proposed residential development of the property because of the increase in paved areas and the replacement of open fields with residential roof areas. To mitigate potential off-site impacts related to the increase in absorption rates, drainage patterns and the amount of surface runoff, the City of Carlsbad requires that any development be designed such that there is no increase in the velocity of the runoff at the property line. According to the project's hydrology report (Preliminary Hydrology Report for Zone 20 Poinsettia Properties, dated September 8, 1999, Buccola Engineering, Inc.) the project has been designed to accommodate runoff from a 100-year storm event, as required by the City of Carlsbad. In addition, prior to the issuance of a grading permit or final map, a detailed hydrology report must be reviewed and approved. Given that the project design accommodates a 16 Rev. 03/28/96 100-year storm event and the project would be subject to the standard requirement of detailed hydrology reports upon final design, there would be no significant adverse environmental impacts due to the changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate or amount of surface runoff. b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? As mentioned above, the project's hydrology report (Preliminary Hydrology Report for Zone 20 Poinsettia Properties, dated September 8, 1999, Buccola Engineering, Inc.) states that the project design could accommodate a 100-year storm event within the proposed storm drain infrastructure and the open drainage courses, including public streets. All proposed lots would be graded in accordance with City Engineering Standards that require a minimum of five feet of positive drainage away from all structures. This standard provides a swale for water runoff to traverse the lot instead of flooding the structure. Given the above, there would be no significant adverse environmental impact due to the exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding. c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? No surface waters exist on or in close proximity to the project site. The closest open body of water is the Batiquitos Lagoon located 1.33 miles to the south. All water leaving the project site is subject to the requirements of the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES) and, therefore, must meet the water quality standards of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. All of the project site runoff would be intercepted and collected by the project's storm water drainage facilities and conveyed through existing facilities to the existing detention/desiltation basin north of Batiquitos Lagoon, within the Azure Cove residential subdivision. The detention and desiltation of the storm water allows for settlement of particulate matter and for the reduction in water speed. Given the requirements for clean runoff by the City's NPDES permit and the treatment of the water through the desiltation/detention basin, the proposed project would not cause significant adverse environmental impacts due to discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality. d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? As stated above, there are no surface water bodies on or in close proximity to the project site. All storm water runoff would be conveyed to the existing detention/desiltation basin within the Azure Cove development and then would drain into Batiquitos Lagoon. The detention basin serves to reduce the speed and volume of water entering the lagoon, thereby reducing impacts to the amount of surface water in the water body. It should also be noted that, due to recent renovation efforts, Batiquitos Lagoon was returned to its original tidal flushing regime. Therefore, the amount of water in the lagoon varies with the changing tides. Given the passage of storm water runoff through the detention basin and the tidal aspects of the lagoon, no significant adverse environmental impacts due to changes in the amount of surface water in any water body would occur as a result of the project. e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements As discussed above, no open bodies of water or streams exist within or near the project site. No off-site improvements are required or proposed with the project. As discussed above, the runoff from the project site would pass through a detention basin, thereby reducing its speed, volume and energy. The project runoff would then drain into Batiquitos Lagoon, a tidal flushing lagoon. Due to the lack of surface water on the project site and the minimization of incident energy of project runoff, the proposed development would not result in significant, adverse changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements. 17 Rev. 03/28/96 f) Changes in the quantity of ground water, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? According to the project's geotechnical report, only perched groundwater and seepages were found on the project site; no permanent water table exists below the project development area. The City's Master EIR states that the City of Carlsbad is not located within a groundwater basin, which would be subject to additions, withdrawals and recharges, and contains no aquifers. While the construction activities may penetrate areas of perched groundwater or seepage from previous precipitation events, these areas are temporary in nature and do not contribute to the regional groundwater supply. Given that the project site is outside of a groundwater basin and only temporary perched groundwater and seepage have been found on the project site, no significant adverse changes in the quantity of ground water, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability, would occur as a result of the project. g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? As mentioned in Section FV.f above, there are no permanent groundwater sources within the project area and Carlsbad is not located within a groundwater basin. The perched groundwater and seepages contained in the project site are temporary in nature and are not connected to a larger groundwater system. Therefore, no significant adverse environmental impacts due to the alteration of direction or rate of flow of groundwater would occur due to the project construction and occupation. h) Impacts to groundwater quality? As mentioned above, no significant or permanent sources of groundwater exist on or neat the site. All water needed to serve the proposed residential subdivisions would come from aqueduct rather than groundwater sources. Development of the proposed residential subdivision, including all excavation operations, would therefore no cause any significant adverse environmental impacts to the groundwater quality. i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? As mentioned in Section FV.f above, there are no permanent groundwater sources within the project area and Carlsbad is not located within a groundwater basin. The perched groundwater and seepages contained in the project site are temporary in nature and are not connected to a larger groundwater system. No local or regional public water supplies rely on groundwater resources from the Carlsbad area; the California and Colorado River aqueducts supply all local water. Therefore, no significant adverse environmental impacts due to the reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies would occur due to construction and occupation of the project. V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? In 1994 the City prepared and certified an EIR that analyzed the impacts that will result from the build- out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concludes that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts in the form of increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to build-out as 18 Rev. 03/28/96 proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan build-out, a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MEIR. This document is available at the Planning Department. The City has reviewed the 1994 MEIR to determine whether it is still adequate to review subsequent projects. Although the MEIR was certified more than five years ago, the City found that no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MEIR was certified. The only potential changed circumstance, the intersection failure at Palomar Airport Rd. and El Camino Real, is in the process of being mitigated to below a level of significance. Additionally, there is no new available information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the MEIR was certified. Therefore, the MEIR remains adequate to review later projects. b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? See (a) above. c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? The conversion of the project site from an agricultural site with open fields and greenhouses to a residential subdivision would alter the air movement, moisture and temperature on a microclimatic level. The height of the proposed single family residences and multifamily residences would be limited to 30 feet and 35 feet respectively. The proposed development would include numerous areas of ornamental landscaping to offset the increase in paving area. There would also be a change in surface reflectiveness, or albedo due to the inclusion of concrete and other light materials in the development. All of these factors are limited in nature and are typical for in-fill developments. No significant adverse environmental impacts due to the alteration of air movement, moisture, temperature, or climate change would occur as a result of the proposed residential subdivision. d) Create objectionable odors? The project site has been previously used for commercial agricultural operations and, therefore, has been the source or objectionable odors in the past. Some odors may be present during construction of the proposed residential subdivision, including exhaust fumes from construction equipment and odors associated with the extraction of soils and underground tanks. These brief encounters with odors are short-term and isolated and are not considered significant in nature. Since only those uses typical to a residential development are proposed with the project, no objectionable odors are expected upon occupation of the residential subdivision. Therefore, no significant adverse environmental impacts due to the creation of objectionable odors would result due to the proposed project. 19 Rev. 03/28/96 VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? The potential traffic impacts of the proposed project are discussed in the project's traffic report (Traffic Impact Analysis, Thompson Property, Carlsbad. California, dated December 6, 2000, Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers). According to the traffic report, the proposed residential subdivision would generate a total of 2,572 new vehicle trips. These trips would be distributed amongst the- connecting streets at Poinsettia Lane, Alyssum Road, and Rose Drive. The continuation of the two existing road segments (Alyssum Road and Rose Drive) would slightly alter the distribution of traffic in the surrounding neighborhoods by offering multiple vehicle connection opportunities. Poinsettia Lane and the local streets adjacent to the project were designed to carry the additional traffic generated by the proposed subdivision. According to the analysis in the project traffic report, the total trip generation and peak trip generation of the does not exceed capacity of any of the adjacent streets; therefore no significant adverse environmental impacts due to increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion would occur. In 1994 the City prepared and certified a Master EIR that analyzed the impacts that would result from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concluded that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan would result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate build-out traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at build- out. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan build-out, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at build-out of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all projects covered by the General Plan's Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MEIR. This document is available at the Planning Department. The City has reviewed the 1994 MEIR to determine whether it is still adequate to review subsequent projects. Although the MEIR was certified more than five years ago, the City has found that no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MEIR was certified. The only potential changed circumstance, the intersection failure at Palomar Airport Rd. and El Camino Real, is in the process of being mitigated to below a level of significance. Additionally, there is no new available information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the MEIR was certified. Therefore, the MEIR remains adequate to review later projects. 20 Rev. 03/28/96 b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? All of the public and private streets within the proposed residential subdivision meet the Engineering Standards of the City of Carlsbad. All sharp curves meet the City standards with regard to design and speed limit of the roadway and all intersections meet or exceed the minimum intersection spacing. As noted previously, the intersection of future Rose Drive with Poinsettia Lane, a major arterial, would be signalized to provide for safe traffic movements. Due to the construction of Poinsettia Lane in the late 1980's, some of the agricultural operations have traversed the major arterial for daily operations. The development of the adjacent residential subdivisions, including the Aviara Master Plan community, necessitated adjustments by the agricultural operations to maintain compatibility. Development of the in-fill property with residential uses eliminates the potential for safety hazards due to incompatible uses. Given the above, no significant adverse impacts due to hazards from street design features would result from the development of the proposed project. c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? The proposed residential development would connect its internal public street system with the adjacent properties in three locations: Rose Drive at Poinsettia Lane to the north, connection with existing Alyssum Road to the west, and connection with Rose Drive to the south. The signalized intersection at Poinsettia Lane and the local street connections allow for multiple access points to the proposed subdivision, thus providing ample emergency access to the site. By connecting the local street systems between neighborhoods, access to nearby uses is also augmented. The project also contains the standard condition requiring all-weather access roads be provided and maintained throughout construction to allow for emergency access. Therefore, given the proposed street design and project conditions, no significant adverse impacts due to emergency access or access to nearby uses would occur. d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? The parking requirements for residential uses are contained in Chapter 21.44 - Parking and Chapter 21.45 - Planned Development of the City's Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, the Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP 203) contains requirements for recreational vehicle storage for standard single-family subdivisions. Both Chapters 21.44 and 21.45 require that all single-family homes contain a two-car garage, minimum 20 feet by 20 feet in dimension. In addition, Chapter 21.45 requires all planned developments to provide guest parking and recreational vehicle storage. As mentioned above, the western half of the proposed subdivision would be a planned development with 133 single-family units and 24 multi-family units. According to the requirements of Chapter 21.45 of the Zoning Ordinance, this portion of the development would need a minimum of 42 guest parking spaces and a minimum of 3,140 square feet of recreational vehicle storage area. The proposed subdivision meets all of the applicable parking requirements. All single-family units contain two-car garages and all multifamily units have at least two covered parking spaces, some with a two-car garage. The planned development portion of the project contains 42 guest parking spaces and a recreational vehicle storage area of 16,808 square feet. To conform to the requirements of the Zone 20 Specific Plan, a minimum of ten percent of all standard single-family lots have increased side yard setbacks to accommodate the storage of a recreational vehicle. Given the above, the proposed project has sufficient parking capacity on-site and no impacts to off-site parking should occur. e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? Construction of the project will be conducted completely on-site and no pedestrian or bicycle traffic currently uses the previously agricultural site for circulation. There are existing pedestrian and bicycle 21 Rev. 03/28/96 circulation paths on the three streets adjoining the proposed subdivision, namely Poinsettia Lane, Alyssum Road and Rose Drive. The only anticipated hazards or barriers to pedestrian and bicycle circulation would occur during the construction of the Poinsettia Lane/Rose Drive signalized intersection. This construction activity would require the processing of Traffic Control Plans that would address and mitigate any hazards or barriers to pedestrian and bicycle circulation. These measures would be temporary in nature and short-term in duration. Upon completion of the proposed residential subdivision and connection of the three access points, the circulation opportunities for pedestrians and bicyclists would be greatly enhanced. Given the above, the proposed project will not cause any significant adverse environmental impacts with regard to pedestrian or bicycle circulation. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? As discussed previously, almost the entire project site has been under agricultural operations until several months ago. According to the project biological resource report (Biological Survey of the Thompson Property, City of Carlsbad, dated October 3, 2000, Dudek and Associates, Inc.), no sensitive plant, fish, insect, animal or bird species within the project area. There are two sensitive habitats within the project site. The first is a narrow strip of Coastal sage scrub habitat along the eastern boundary of the property that is part of a larger open space area to the east, within the Aviara Master Plan. A total of 1.8 acres exists on the project site; it is dominated by California sagebrush and includes flat-top buckwheat, California bush sunflower, black sage, laurel sumac, lemonadeberry, and prickly pear. The habitat is proposed to remain undisturbed and would be covered by an open space easement with the residential development. Also within the project site, on the western boundary, is a 0.1-acre patch of disturbed southern willow scrub habitat. This area is located within a manmade water retention basin created to trap agricultural tail water. The area contains arroyo willow, red willow, tamarisk and giant cane. While the area was manmade and is disturbed, the applicant is nevertheless mitigating the loss of the southern willow scrub habitat with the provision of two detention basins on lots 170 and 182 of the subdivision. These detention basins would function similarly to the existing tail water capture basin and would be planted with similar species of flora. The project biological report recommends a mitigation ratio of 2:1, resulting in 0.2 acres of replanted habitat within the project desiltation basins. The planting mix would include cuttings of arroyo willow, southwestern willow, sandbar willow and a seed mix including western ragweed, mugwort, mule fat, and San Diego sagewort. A mitigation measure has been added to address to impacts to the southern willow scrub habitat. When referring to agricultural lands, the Zone 20 Program EIR notes that there is a potential for fallow land to be occupied by burrowing owls. Since the project site has been historically used for agriculture and has been fallow for a number of months, the recommended mitigation measure from the Zone 20 Program EIR has been incorporated into this environmental document. The project would be conditioned such that a biological reconnaissance survey by a certified biologist shall be conducted for the burrowing owl a prior to issuance of a grading permit. If owls are found on the site, the biologist shall reconynend mitigation for the disturbance to bring the project impacts to a level of insignificance. According to the Zone 20 Program EIR, this mitigation would include on-site preservation in a defensible open space easement or off-site mitigation within a quality habitat. Given the lack of sensitive flora and fauna species on-site, the proposed preservation of the on-site coastal sage scrub, the proposed mitigation of the loss of the disturbed southern willow scrub habitat, and the required survey for burrowing owls, the proposed residential project would not produce any significant adverse environmental impacts relating to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats. 22 Rev. 03/28/96 b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? The City of Carlsbad has not designated any flora species as locally significant and has no heritage trees. In addition, no mature trees exist within the project boundaries due to the site's historic agricultural use. No off-site construction or development is needed to accommodate the project, therefore, no off-site trees would be impacted. Given the above, the proposed development would not result in significant adverse environmental impacts related to locally designated flora species. c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? As discussed above and in the project biological report (Biological Survey of the Thompson Property, City of Carlsbad, dated October 3, 2000, Dudek and Associates, Inc.), the project site contains two sensitive habitats. Please refer to section VILa above for a discussion of potential impacts and mitigation. d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? As discussed above and in the project biological report (Biological Survey of the Thompson Property, City of Carlsbad, dated October 3, 2000, Dudek and Associates, Inc.), the project site contains a small patch of southern willow scrub habitats. No vernal pools were identified on the project site. Please refer to Section VILa for a discussion of potential impacts and mitigation for the southern willow scrub habitat. e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? Since the project site has been actively used for agricultural operations continuously until several months ago, and due to its location within a developed residential area of the City, no wildlife has occupied the site, either permanently or transiently. As discussed in the project biological report and the Zone 20 Program EIR, the property has no possibility of viable connectivity to neighboring habitats and has no value as a wildlife dispersal or migration corridor. No significant adverse impacts to wildlife corridors would occur due to the proposed development. VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? There are currently no local adopted energy conservation plans within the City. Energy would be provided to the project by San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), a division of Sempra Energy. According to SDG&E, the estimated demand rate for residential uses is 5,926 kilowatts per dwelling unit per year. The entire southern California region has experienced recent energy shortages, however these energy shortages are due to the recent deregulation of energy rather than a shortage of supply. The State of California, through Title 24, requires new construction to incorporate energy conservation design and materials. This requirement is enforced during the building permit review. Given the above, no significant adverse environmental impacts due to conflicts with adopted energy conservation plans would occur due to the proposed residential development. b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? The proposed residential development does not propose any unique or special construction methods or building materials that would result in the wasteful or inefficient use of non-renewable resources. Standard construction practices call for the efficient use of materials for economic and budgetary purposes. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts due to the wasteful and inefficient use of non- renewable resources would occur due to the proposed project. 23 Rev. 03/28/96 c) 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? As stated previously and contained in the project's geotechnical report (Geotechnical Investigation - Poinsettia Agricultural Property, dated September 1998, Geocon, Inc. Geotechnical Consultants), no known mineral resources exist on the subject property. Therefore no resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State would become unavailable due to construction of the proposed development. Given the above, no significant adverse environmental impacts due to loss of availability of mineral resources would occur as a result of the proposed residential subdivision. IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? The proposed residential development would involve grading and construction activities that require the storage of flammable materials on site. All construction projects within the City are required to obtain Fire Marshal approval of such storage prior to bringing the materials on-site. Therefore the risk of accidental explosion is low. As mentioned previously, the project site has been used for commercial agricultural operations for many years. In order to evaluate the potential impacts due to pesticides, hazardous materials, methane or other gases, an Environmental Site Assessment was conducted. The results of that survey are contained in Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update Including Methane and Fixed Gases Survey - Poinsettia Agricultural Property, dated February 6, 2001, Geocon, Inc. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants. According to Phase I report, "the potential for the existing presence of environmental impairment to the site from hazardous materials/wastes on-site or on properties in the vicinity remains low." Despite this fact, the Zone 20 Program EIR contains a mitigation measure requiring that a detailed soils investigation shall be conducted and submitted to the San Diego County Health Department prior to issuance of grading permit. Any recommended remediation or other soil handling shall be incorporated into the scope of work for the project grading operations. This mitigation measure has been added to ensure that no significant adverse environmental impacts due to accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances would occur. b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Since the project site has been under private agricultural operations and currently contains no public streets or roads, access through the site is not included in any emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. The proposed residential subdivision would include public streets that would connect to existing public streets in three locations: at Poinsettia Lane to the north, at Alyssum Road to the west and at Rose Drive to the south. By providing multiple street connections and multiple points of access to the site, emergency response to the proposed subdivision and the surrounding existing subdivisions is enhanced. As is standard for all developments, the project is conditioned to provide all-weather emergency access roads throughout construction until such time as the newly constructed public streets can provide adequate access. Given that the site is not currently used for emergency access, and that access will be provided during and after construction of the project, no adverse impacts due to interference with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans would occur due to development of the proposed project. 24 Rev. 03/28/96 c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? As discussed in Section IX.a above, the historic agricultural operations on the property have not produced any circumstances that would cause potential health hazards upon development of the site with residential uses. Fire Marshal approval is required prior to the import of any flammable materials and a subsequent soils investigation must be reviewed and approved by the San Diego County Department of Health prior to any grading operations. No significant adverse impacts due to the creation of any health hazards or potential health hazards should occur due to the development of this residential subdivision. d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? Please see Sections IX.a and K.c above. e) Increase fire hazards in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? The project site is currently consists of fallow agricultural fields. There are no significant stands of trees or brush and the overgrowth of grass has been curtailed by the efforts of the property owner. No significant fire hazards currently exist on site. The construction activities of the project would be monitored by the Engineering and Fire Departments with regard to the storage of flammable materials and provision of all-weather emergency access roads through the site. The proposed development would consist of single-family and multi-family residential uses, with associated ornamental landscaping. All landscaping would be irrigated and, therefore, no increase in fire hazards in areas with flammable brush trees, or grass would occur. X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? Until recently, the project site has been used for commercial agricultural operations, involving machinery, large trucks, and other noise producers. Construction of the proposed project would temporarily increase ambient noise levels due to construction activities. All construction activities are limited to particular times of the day and days of the week through Section 8.48.010 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This ordinance prohibits construction noise on Sundays, holidays and between sunset and 7:00 am on Mondays through Fridays and before 8:00 am on Saturdays. Upon development of the proposed subdivision, it is anticipated that typical noise levels experienced within residential areas will occur within the proposed project. No uses are proposed that would produce additional noise. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts due to increases in existing noise levels would occur with development of the project. b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? The project site is currently exposed to two significant sources of noise: traffic noise from Poinsettia Lane in the northern portion of the site, and aircraft noise due to overflight of planes and helicopters using McClellan-Palomar airport, located approximately 1.23 miles northeast of the project site. The City of Carlsbad General Plan calls for exterior noise levels to be mitigated to a maximum level of 60 dBA CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level), based upon buildout traffic volume projections. Exterior noise impacts from aircraft overflight are limited to 65dBA CNEL. All internal noise levels must be mitigated to a level of 45 dBA CNEL. To assess the potential noise exposure from Poinsettia Lane, an acoustical study was prepared. This study, Standard Pacific Poinsettia Property Acoustical Study, dated January 2, 2001, Investigative Science and Engineering, Inc., identified several future lots that would necessitate mitigation measures in order to meet the 60 dBA CNEL exterior noise maximum. The lots, identified in the project acoustical study and in the mitigation measures, will require the placement of a five to seven foot high sound wall or 25 Rev. 03/28/96 sound wall/berm combination between the rear or side yards and Poinsettia Lane. Placement of the sound wall would lower the projected buildout traffic noise levels within the subject lots to less than 60 dBA CNEL. The exterior noise levels due to aircraft overflight have already been addressed by the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the McClellan-Palomar Airport (CLUP). The CLUP indicates the projected noise contours of aircraft noise levels at buildout of the airport. The areas that would be subjected to exterior noise levels over 65 dBA CNEL are restricted to non-residential uses. The proposed project lies well outside of the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour, therefore no adverse noise levels should be experienced due to aircraft overflight. The Zone 20 Program EIR does contain a mitigation measure requiring that potential homebuyers be noticed about the likelihood of aircraft overflight. Given the proposed mitigation measures, the project would not cause any significant adverse environmental impacts due to the exposure of people to severe noise levels. XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result on a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? The project site is served by Fire Station #4, located at the corner of Batiquitos Drive and Buttercup Road, approximately 0.38 miles away. According to the City's Growth Management Program, no new development can cause the violation of a performance standard for one of the facilities listed in the program. The performance standard for fire protection is a response time of five minutes or less for priority one emergency calls. Due to the proximity of the fire station, and the current and planned staffing levels, the Fire Department has stated that the development of the proposed project would not cause a violation in the Growth Management performance standard for fire protection. Therefore no significant adverse impacts related to fire protection would occur. b) Police protection? The Carlsbad Police station is located at the Safety Center, approximately 2.46 miles to the northeast. While there is no Growth Management performance standard for police protection, the Carlsbad Police Department does review development proposals for the purposes of staffing level maintenance. The proposed subdivision would be surrounded by existing residential subdivisions and, therefore, would not constitute a remote area that might be difficult to serve. The proposed connections of the development to the local street system also facilitate emergency access to the future residential neighborhood. Given the above, the proposed development would not cause any significant adverse environmental impact due to effects on police protection. c) Schools? The project site is located within the Carlsbad Unified School District. There are currently two elementary schools and one middle school near the project site, namely the Pacific Rim Elementary (approximately 0.36 miles to the west) and the Aviara Oaks Elementary and Middle Schools (approximately 1.13 miles to the east). The only high school within the Carlsbad Unified School District is Carlsbad High School, approximately 3.98 miles to the northwest. According to the latest enrollment information, all three schools have capacity to accommodate additional students. The student generation rates currently available are as follows: 0.261 elementary students per dwelling unit; 0.072 junior high school students per dwelling unit; and 0.136 high school students per dwelling unit for a total of 0.469 students per dwelling unit. The proposed 238 dwelling unit residential subdivision would therefore generate a capacity demand for 111.62 elementary school students, 62.12 junior high school students and 17.14 high school students. In order to mitigate the increased demand on school facilities, the project would be conditioned to pay the appropriate school fees to the satisfaction of the Carlsbad Unified School District. Proof of satisfaction of school mitigation would be required prior to 26 Rev. 03/28/96 issuance of building permits. Payment of school fees reduces the potential adverse environmental impacts due to the effect on schools to below a level of significance. d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? The proposed public streets, storm drains, sewer, potable and reclaimed water facilities within the project area would fall under the maintenance responsibility of the City of Carlsbad. The Public Works Department currently operates a number of programs that maintain the City's entire public facility infrastructure. These operations are funded, in part, through the collection of Public Facilities Fees associated with any development. According to the Zone 20 Program EIR, collection of Public Facilities Fees prior to the issuance of building permits would adequately address the proposed residential development's impacts to the maintenance of public facilities. Therefore, no significant adverse environmental impacts due to public facility maintenance should occur. e) Other governmental services? The other governmental services examined for this report are city administration facilities and libraries. These services are covered by the City's Growth Management Plan performance standards. As discussed above, the development community's funding for the construction of these facilities usually comes in the form of a Public Facilities Fee that is paid at time of building permit issuance. According to the Program EIR and Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 20, the proposed development would not create a violation of any Growth Management performance standards for governmental services. Therefore, the standard practice of payment of a Public Facilities Fee is adequate to address the proposed project's impact on governmental services. Given the above, no significant adverse environmental impacts due to effects on governmental services would result from development of the proposed subdivision. XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? The proposed residential subdivision would connect to the existing power and natural gas infrastructure provided by Sempra Energy. Under the current energy regulatory framework, the individual future homeowners would be able to purchase power from any available provider and even produce power onsite if desired. According to the Master EIR, no significant adverse environmental impacts due to power or natural gas supply would occur due to the buildout of the City. Therefore, the project would not result in the need for new power or natural gas systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to power or natural gas systems. b) Communications systems? The proposed residential subdivision would connect to the existing telecommunications and cable television infrastructure provided by Pacific Bell, MCI and Daniels Cablevision. According to the Master EIR, no significant adverse environmental impacts on communications systems would occur due to the buildout of the City. Therefore, the project would not result in the need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to communication systems. c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? Wastewater generated by the project site would be conveyed to the Encina Wastewater Treatment Facility, located approximately 1.14 miles to the west. According to the Carlsbad Public Works Department, the treatment plant is currently processing 23.68 million gallons per day, whereas its capacity is 36.00 million gallons per day. The treatment plant therefore has sufficient capacity to accommodate the increased sewer treatment demand generated by the proposed development and no significant adverse impacts to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities would occur. 27 Rev. 03/28/96 d) Sewer or septic tanks? The project site is within the jurisdiction of the City of Carlsbad Sewer Service District. There are currently no sewer lines on the property and the two existing single-family dwellings are on septic systems. The proposed residential subdivision would be conditioned to provide all on-site and off-site sewer system improvements necessary to accommodate the increased sewer demand. The improvements would be required concurrent or prior to the need. The existing dwelling unit south of Poinsettia Lane would continue to use its existing septic tanks. The sewerage generated by the project would exit the site in four locations, connecting to the existing sewer systems within existing public streets or easements. Developments north of Poinsettia Lane would connect to the existing facilities in Lemon Leaf Lane and Lonicera Street rights-of-way. The development south of Poinsettia Lane would connect to the existing sewer facilities within the Alyssum Road, Rose Drive, and a sewer easement though lot 183 and the Vista Pacifica residential subdivision along the eastern boundary of the project. According to the relevant Growth Management and environmental documents, the Local Facilities Management Plan and the Program EIR for Zone 20, the sewer system facilities downstream of the project site are adequate to accommodate the sewer volumes up to, and possibly exceeding, its total anticipated residential yield. Sewer volumes are expressed in units known as Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU); the proposed Thompson/Tabata subdivision would generate a demand for 238 EDU of sewer capacity. The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 20 anticipated a total of 378 EDU for the subject property, therefore all sewer system facilities are adequately sized to accommodate the proposed development. e) Storm water drainage? As discussed in Section IV.a above, the project's hydrology report (Preliminary Hydrology Report for Zone 20 Poinsettia Properties, dated September 8, 1999, Buccola Engineering, Inc.) stated that the proposed storm water system would adequately address the runoff from a 100-year storm. The report also stated that no alterations to the existing storm drain system would be necessary to accommodate the proposed residential subdivision. Therefore no significant adverse impacts due to storm water drainage would occur due to the proposed development. f) Solid waste disposal? Solid waste collection within the City is contracted to Coast Waste Management, the City's franchise trash hauler. The solid waste collected within the City is currently deposited in four County-owner landfills, with a majority of the waste being hauled to the Otay Mesa facility and the Sycamore Canyon facility. According to Coast Waste Management and based upon permitted daily capacity, the Otay Mesa landfill has an estimated life expectancy of 57 additional years and the Sycamore Canyon facility has an estimated life expectancy of 32 additional years. Therefore there is sufficient capacity in the appropriate landfills to accommodate the additional solid waste generated by the proposed residential subdivision. Given the above, no significant adverse environmental impacts due to solid waste disposal would occur as a result of the proposed project. g) Local or regional water supplies? The City of Carlsbad receives its water from the California and Colorado River Aqueducts. The amount of water available for existing and future demands is controlled by the Carlsbad Municipal Water District. The District Engineer has stated that there is currently enough capacity in the water supplies to accommodate the proposed residential subdivision. As is standard for all proposed developments, the project would be conditioned such that building permits could not be issues unless the District Engineer finds that water supplies would be adequate through to the time of occupancy of the proposed 28 Rev. 03/28/96 development. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts to the local or regional water supplies would result due to the proposed project. XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? As detailed in the Zone 20 Program EIR, the ridge-site project site is visible from lower elevations to the west. Therefore, the project would be designed to follow the existing topography, including stepped levels of development. The project would also include a mixture of one- and two-story homes with a variety of architectural styles and materials. All large slopes within the project would be planted with trees and shrubs to soften their appearance and add texture to the views of the project site. The proposed development would, therefore, not significantly adversely impact any scenic vistas. The proposed project is located both north and south of Poinsettia Lane, which is identified in the City's General Plan as a potential scenic roadway. In accordance with that potential designation, the Zone 20 Program EIR reviewed the potential aesthetic impacts due to development along the road. The proposed residential subdivision would be designed to minimize aesthetic impacts. The project design would incorporate an average landscaped setback from the Poinsettia Lane right-of-way of 50 feet. The proposed structures proximate to Poinsettia Lane would be a mixture of one- and two-stories, similar to the existing development along the roadway. Given the design and architectural features of the project, no significant adverse environmental impacts due to aesthetic affect on a scenic vista or highway would occur. b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? See Xlll.a above. c) Create light or glare? The two potential sources of light or glare would exist during construction and upon occupation of the proposed residential subdivision. As mentioned in Section X.a above, construction activities are limited to daylight hours and, therefore, are not expected to produce significant amounts of light. Reflective glare from construction-related equipment would likely be no more significant than the previous glare from agriculture-related equipment in the past. Any light or glare impacts related to construction would be short-term in duration. Upon completion and occupation of the residential subdivision, it is anticipated that the normal amount of light and glare associated with single-family and multifamily residential uses would be produced. The only open parking area is the recreational vehicle storage site, located in the northwest portion of the site adjacent to Poinsettia Lane. "As discussed in Section Xlll.a above, the RV lot would be screened with a wall/berm barrier and heavy landscaping. All overhead lighting would be designed to not allow significant amounts of light to leave the subject property. Review and approval of an exterior lighting plan by the Planning Director is a standard condition of approval for development projects and is incorporated into the design of the Thompson/Tabata residential subdivision. Given the minor and short- term potential impacts due to construction and the typical nature of the proposed residential uses, no significant adverse environmental impacts due to the creation of light or glare would occur as a result of the project. XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? As discussed in the project's geotechnical report (Geotechnical Investigation - Poinsettia Agricultural Property, dated September 1998, Geocon, Inc. Geotechnical Consultants), the project site contains 29 Rev. 03/28/96 materials from the Santiago Formation and terrace deposits. The Santiago Formation contains sandstones and siltstones that were formed in the Tertiary Age, approximately 45 million years ago. Some Tertiary Age deposits have produced large numbers of vertebrate and invertebrate fossils. The terrace deposits are Quaternary Age alluvial deposits that have the potential to contain fossiliferous rock from Pleistocene terrace deposits of not more than 2 million year in age. This formation also has a high likelihood for fossils. Given the potential for fossils on the project site, the project applicant has been conditioned to retain a qualified paleontologist during excavation operations to monitor and, if necessary, direct grading operations to maximize the possibility of fossil discovery and recovery. Provision of an on-site paleontologist, as described in mitigation measure number XIII below, reduces the potential adverse paleontological impacts to a level of less than significant. b) Disturb archeological resources? The project site has been surveyed for archeological and cultural resources on previous occasions. As detailed in the Zone 20 Program EIR, there are two archeological sites within the project area and one near the site to the northwest. The two sites within the project boundaries (SDM-W-2044 and SDM-W- 4031) were identified in the Zone 20 Program EIR as insignificant. The was because all evidence of cultural materials at the recorded location had been destroyed prior to the program EIR surveys or the cultural remains had been determined to be a dispersed portion of a nearby site. The nearby site (SDi- 9477) has already been tested and has been determined to be insignificant. According to the Zone 20 Program EIR, the cultural resources recorded consisted of small to moderate sized marine shellfish scatters with associated lithic materials; no additional testing or work is needed at any of these three archeological sites. Therefore, the proposed development would not cause any adverse environmental disturbances to archeological resources. c) Affect historical resources? The project site has historically been used for agricultural purposes with the only structures being greenhouses, sheds, and two single-family homes. According to the City's Master Environmental Impact Report and the Zone 20 Program EIR, no historical resources exist on or near the project site. Therefore, no significant adverse environmental impacts to historical resources would occur with the development of the proposed residential subdivision. d) Have the potential to cause a physical change that would affect unique ethnic cultural values? The physical changes proposed with the residential subdivision include grading, infrastructure installation, and construction of structures. Except for sewer connections, all proposed improvements would occur within the project boundary. The project site has not been designated as significant or used for any activities associated with unique ethnic cultural values. Conversion of the commercial agricultural site to a residential subdivision would have no potential to cause a physical change that would affect unique cultural values. e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? The previously agricultural site has not been used for any religious or sacred uses. No religious or sacred uses exist in proximity to the project site and no such off-site uses utilize the site for access or other activities. No off-site construction would occur with the project therefore no impacts to any off-site religious or sacred uses should occur. Given the above, the proposed Thompson/Tabata residential subdivision would not restrict existing religious uses or sacred uses within the potential impact area. 30 Rev. 03/28/96 XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? The provision of additional dwelling units increases the demand for parks and other recreational facilities. According to the City's Growth Management Program, 0.01 acres of additional public park area is needed for each additional dwelling unit. Performance standard conformance for parks facilities is tabulated by each quadrant of the City and, once the performance standard is exceeded, the City has up to five years to provide the necessary park space. In order to mitigate a residential development's impacts on the provision of parks, projects are conditioned to pay a park-in-lieu fee at the time of the final subdivision map. These park-in-lieu fees are then used to acquire property for future City parks. The project also proposes a number of dwelling units on substandard, or planned development, lots. The project is, therefore, required to provide private and common recreational facilities in accordance with the City's Planned Development Ordinance, Chapter 21.45 of the Zoning Ordinance. All proposed single- family planned development lots would contain a rear yard with minimum dimensions of 15 feet by 15 feet. In addition, common passive recreational areas would be provided at a ratio of 100 square feet per planned development unit, or a total of 13,000 square feet. The proposed multifamily portion of the development would provide private recreation areas in the form of balconies and patios, and would provide a minimum 1,200 square foot active recreation area within the multifamily development site. To address the potential impacts of the project on citywide recreational facilities, the project is conditioned to pay the appropriate park-in-lieu fees, as determined by the Growth Management Program (via the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 20). Given this mitigation measure, and the project's provision of passive and active recreation areas on site, the proposed development would not cause any significant adverse environmental impacts associated with the increase in demand for parks or other recreational facilities. b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? The project site has been under commercial agricultural operations and, therefore, no recreational opportunities existed on the site. The site is currently vacant and contains no authorized or unauthorized recreational opportunities. No recreational opportunities exist in close proximity to the project site and the site is not used to access any recreational areas. Development of the project would increase the number of people that could potentially use the existing recreational opportunities in the City, however no adverse impacts are anticipated due to increased park demand (see XV.a above). Given that no existing recreational opportunities exist on or near the project site and increased demand on existing recreational facilities is accommodated through the payment of park-in-lieu fees and the provision of on-site recreation areas, no significant adverse impacts to existing recreational opportunities should occur as a result of the project's development. EARLIER ANALYSES USED 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, (760) 602-4600. 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01). dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department. 2. Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Zone 20 Specific Plan Project Carlsbad, California, dated June 1992, Brian F. Mooney Associates. 3. Geotechnical Investigation - Poinsettia Agricultural Property, dated September 1998, Geocon, Inc. Geotechnical Consultants. 31 Rev. 03/28/96 4. Preliminary Hydrology Report for Zone 20 Poinsettia Properties, dated September 8. 1999, Buccola Engineering, Inc. 5. Site Assessment and Health Risk Assessment Report - Poinsettia Agricultural Property - Tabata Site Carlsbad. California, dated August 1998, Geocon, Inc. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants. 6. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment - Weidner/Dennis Property. Carlsbad California, dated March 1999, Geocon, Inc. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants. 7. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update Including Methane and Fixed Gases Survey - Poinsettia Agricultural Property, dated February 6, 2001, Geocon, Inc. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants. 8. Biological Survey of the Thompson Property. City of Carlsbad, dated October 3, 2000, Dudek and Associates, Inc. 9. Traffic Impact Analysis. Thompson Property. Carlsbad. California, dated December 6, 2000, Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers. 10. Standard Pacific Poinsettia Property Acoustical Study, dated January 2, 2001, Investigative Science and Engineering, Inc. LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES I. To mitigate the loss of agricultural lands, the property shall pay an agricultural conversion mitigation fee of $6,655.00 per acre for those prime agricultural lands within the project (approximately 63 acres or a total of $419,265.00) prior to approval of Final Map or grading permit, whichever occurs first. II. To mitigate potential impacts of the project on the provision of a variety of housing types, the project is conditioned to provide 24 for-sale housing units affordable to families of lower-income, in accordance with the provisions of the approved Affordable Housing Agreement between the property owner and the City of Carlsbad. Said affordable housing agreement must be approved and recorded prior to the approval of final map or grading permit, whichever occurs first. III. a) To mitigate potential soils and geological impacts of the project, all construction activities and operations shall comply with the recommendations of the soils and geotechnical investigation, (Geotechnical Investigation - Poinsettia Agricultural Property, dated September 1998, Geocon, Inc. Geotechnical Consultants), to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. b) To mitigate potential impacts due to ground motion, the project is conditioned to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code's construction standards for Seismic Zone 4 - those areas containing known active faults. IV. a) To mitigate potential impacts to the provision of potable water, the project is conditioned to comply with the City of Carlsbad Potable Water Master Plan and the City of Carlsbad Reclaimed Water Master Plan. In addition, the project is conditioned to not allow construction of dwelling units unless the District Engineer of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District states that water will be available for the project at time of final map recordation. b) To mitigate potential impacts to storm water runoff systems, the project shall comply with the recommendations of the hydrology report, (Preliminary Hydrology Report for Zone 20 Poinsettia Properties, dated September 8, 1999, Buccola Engineering, Inc.) and the 32 Rev. 03/28/96 requirements of the City of Carlsbad National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System general permit. V. a) To lessen the impacts of the proposed project to air quality, the project is conditioned to require coordination wit NCTD regarding the placement of bus stops and other transit needs. b) To lessen impacts of the proposed project to air quality, the homeowner's association is conditioned to obtain and distribute to owners and tenants annual information from Caltrans and NCTD regarding the availability of public transportation, ride-sharing and transportation pooling services in the area. Said mitigation measure shall be incorporated into the project CC&R's prior to approval of final map or grading permit, whichever occurs first. c) To lessen the impacts of construction activities of the proposed project on air quality, the project shall comply with all requirements of the APCD and shall incorporate the following measures into the construction activities: 1) Control fugitive dust by regular watering, paving construction roads, or other dust preventive measures; 2) Maintain equipment engines in proper tune; 3) Seed and water until vegetation cover is grown; 4) Spread soil binders; 5) Wet the area down, sufficient enough to form a crust on the surface with repeated soakings, as necessary, to maintain the crust and prevent dusk pick up by the wind; 6) Street sweeping, should silt be carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares; 7) Use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas where vehicles move damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site; 8) Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day; 9) Use low sulfur fuel (0.5% by weight) for construction equipment. VI. To address potential impacts of the project on traffic circulation, the project is conditioned to provide signalized access on Poinsettia Lane, pursuant to the recommendations of the Program EIR for the Zone 20 Specific Plan. This signalized access shall be at the Rose Drive intersection of Poinsettia Lane and shall be provided in accordance with the approved tentative map for the project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. VII. To lessen the potential impacts to on-site native vegetation, the existing stand of coastal sage scrub habitat on the easterly portion of the site shall be surveyed and staked by a certified biologist prior to disturbance of the site. The entire habitat area shall be placed in an open space easement, to be maintained by the development homeowner's association in perpetuity. VIII. To mitigate the loss of 0.1 acres of disturbed southern willow scrub habitat on the westerly portion of the project site, the property owner shall create and revegetate a minimum of 0.2 acres of southern willow scrub habitat within the proposed surface drainage devices located in the westerly portion of the site. The amount and type of vegetation to be planted shall be in accordance with the project biological report (Biological Survey of the Thompson Property. City of Carlsbad, dated October 3, 2000, Dudek and Associates, Inc.) to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. IX. To assess and address potential biological impacts of the project, a certified biologist shall conduct a biological reconnaissance for the burrowing owl a prior to issuance of a grading permit. If owls are found on the site, the biologist shall recommend mitigation for the disturbance to bring the project impacts to a level of insignificance, including on-site preservation in a defensible open space easement or quality habitat off-site. 33 Rev. 03/28/96 X. To mitigate against potential impacts to biological resources, the property owner shall consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game regarding the project's impact to wildlife and be issued any permits required by those agencies prior to approval of final subdivision map. XL To mitigate the potential health hazards due to the presence of pesticides and other hazardous substances, a detailed soils investigation shall be conducted and submitted to the San Diego County Health Department prior to issuance of grading permit. Any recommended remediation or other soil handling shall be incorporated into the scope of work for the project grading operations. XII. a) To mitigate potential impacts of the future project residents due to roadway noise, the project must comply with the recommendations of the noise report, (Standard Pacific Poinsettia Property Acoustical Study, dated January 2, 2001, Investigative Science and Engineering, Inc.), including the construction of a noise attenuation wall along the Poinsettia Lane project frontage and the provision of mechanical ventilation for units as described in the report. b) To address potential impacts due to the overflight of aircraft, the property owner shall file and record a Notice of Aircraft Overflight form on the properties, advising potential homebuyers of the overflight of aircraft using McClellan-Palomar airport. XIII. To address potential impacts to paleontological resources, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of excavations and, if necessary, salvage exposed fossils. The frequency of inspections will depend on the rate of excavation, the materials being excavated, and the abundance of fossils. In areas of high potential, monitoring shall be full-time, initially. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an exposed fossil to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage. Due to the small nature of some fossils it may be necessary to collect matrix samples for processing through fine mesh screens. Any fossils collected shall be prepared to the point of identification and properly curated before they are donated to their final repository. All fossils collected shall be donated to a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum. ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM 34 Rev. 03/28/96 1 PROJECT NAME: Thompson/Tabata APPROVAL DATE: FILE NUMBERS: ZC 98-08/LCPA 98-04/CT 98-14/PUD 98-05/CP 00-02/SDP 99-06/HDP 98- 15/CDP 98-68 CONDITIONAL NEG. DEC.: m The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). Mitigation Measure To mitigate the loss of agricultural lands, the property shall pay an agricultural conversion mitigation fee of $6,655.00 per acre for those prime agricultural lands within the project (approximately 63 acres or a total of $419,265.00) prior to approval of Final Map or grading permit, whichever occurs first. To mitigate potential impacts of the project on the provision of a variety of housing types, the project is conditioned to provide 24 for- sale housing units affordable to families of lower-income, in accordance with the provisions of the approved Affordable Housing Agreement between the property owner and the City of Carlsbad. Said affordable housing agreement must be approved and recorded prior to the approval of final map or grading permit, whichever occurs first. To mitigate potential soils and geological impacts of the project, all construction activities and operations shall comply with the recommendations of the soils and geotechnical investigation, (Geotechnical Investigation - Poinsettia Aaricultural Property, dated September 1998, Geocon, Inc. Geotechnical Consultants), to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. To mitigate potential impacts due to ground motion, the project is conditioned to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code's construction standards for Seismic Zone 4 - those areas containing known active faults. Monitoring Type Project Project Project Project Monitoring Department Planning Housing Engineering Building Shown on Plans No Yes No No Verified Implementation Remarks m I H O Oz O OXmox (75 •oD>(O(D Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. information. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other RD - Appendix P. Mitigation Measure To mitigate potential impacts to the provision of potable water, the project is conditioned to comply with the City of Carlsbad Potable Water Master Plan and the City of Carlsbad Reclaimed Water Master Plan. In addition, the project is conditioned to not allow construction of dwelling units unless the District Engineer of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District states that water will be available for the project at time of final map recordation. To mitigate potential impacts to storm water runoff systems, the project shall comply with the recommendations of the hydrology report, (Preliminary Hvdroloav Report for Zone 20 Poinsettia Properties, dated September 8, 1999, Buccola Engineering. Inc.) and the requirements of the City of Carlsbad National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System general permit. To lessen the impacts of the proposed project to air quality, the project is conditioned to require coordination wit NCTD regarding the placement of bus stops and other transit needs. To lessen impacts of the proposed project to air quality, the homeowner's association is conditioned to obtain and distribute to owners and tenants annual information from Caltrans and NCTD regarding the availability of public transportation, ride-sharing and transportation pooling services in the area. Said mitigation measure shall be incorporated into the project CC&R's prior to approval of final map or grading permit, whichever occurs first. Monitoring Type Project Project Project Ongoing Monitoring Department Engineering Engineering Planning Planning Shown on Plans Yes Yes No No Verified Implementation Remarks mz m § o o 12»zooXmo (OCD Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. information. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other RD - Appendix P. Mitigation Measure To lessen the impacts of construction activities of the proposed project on air quality, the project shall comply with all requirements of the APCD and shall incorporate the following measures into the construction activities: 1) Control fugitive dust by regular watering, paving construction roads, or other dust preventive measures; 2) Maintain equipment engines in proper tune; 3) Seed and water until vegetation cover is grown; 4) Spread soil binders; 5) Wet the area down, sufficient enough to form a crust on the surface with repeated soakings, as necessary, to maintain the crust and prevent dusk pick up by the wind; 6) Street sweeping, should silt be carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares; 7) Use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas where vehicles move damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site; 8) Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day; 9) Use low sulfur fuel (0.5% by weight) for construction equipment. To address potential impacts of the project on traffic circulation, the project is conditioned to provide signalized access on Poinsettia Lane, pursuant to the recommendations of the Program EIR for the Zone 20 Specific Plan. This signalized access shall be at the Rose Drive intersection of Poinsettia Lane and shall be provided in accordance with the approved tentative map for the project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. To lessen the potential impacts to on-site native vegetation, the existing stand of coastal sage scrub habitat on the easterly portion of the site shall be surveyed and staked by a certified biologist prior to disturbance of the site. The entire habitat area shall be placed in an open space easement, to be maintained by the development homeowner's association in perpetuity. Monitoring Type Project Project Project Monitoring Department Engineering Engineering Planning Shown on Plans No Yes Yes Verified Implementation Remarks m O 2rn | § O § O O 1 ooXmo a) (Q (D Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. information. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other RD - Appendix P. Mitigation Measure To mitigate the loss of 0.1 acres of disturbed southern willow scrub habitat on the westerly portion of the project site, the property owner shall create and revegetate a minimum of 0.2 acres of southern willow scrub habitat within the proposed surface drainage devices located in the westerly portion of the site. The amount and type of vegetation to be planted shall be in accordance with the project biological report (Biological Survey of the Thompson Property. Citv of Carlsbad, dated October 3, 2000, Dudek and Associates, Inc.) to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. To assess and address potential biological impacts of the project, a certified biologist shall conduct a biological reconnaissance for the burrowing owl a prior to issuance of a grading permit. If owls are found on the site, the biologist shall recommend mitigation for the disturbance to bring the project impacts to a level of insignificance, including on-site preservation in a defensible open space easement or quality habitat off-site. To mitigate against potential impacts to biological resources, the property owner shall consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game regarding the project's impact to wildlife and be issued any permits required by those agencies prior to approval of final subdivision map. To mitigate the potential health hazards due to the presence of pesticides and other hazardous substances, a detailed soils investigation shall be conducted and submitted to the San Diego County Health Department prior to issuance of grading permit. Any recommended remediation or other soil handling shall be incorporated into the scope of work for the project grading operations. To mitigate potential impacts of the future project residents due to roadway noise, the project must comply with the recommendations of the noise report. (Standard Pacific Poinsettia Property Acoustical Study, dated January 2, 2001 , Investigative Science and Engineering, Inc.), including the construction of a noise attenuation wall along the Poinsettia Lane project frontage and the provision of mechanical ventilation for units as described in the report. Monitoring Type Project Project Project Project Project Monitoring Department Planning Planning Planning Planning/ Engineering Planning Shown on Plans No No No No Yes Verified Implementation Remarks mz m I H O H O 5 Oz o o o Xmo a>(OCD Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. information. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other RD - Appendix P. Mitigation Measure To address potential impacts due to the overflight of aircraft, the property owner shall file and record a Notice of Aircraft Overflight form on the properties, advising potential homebuyers of the overflight of aircraft using McClellan-Palomar airport. To address potential impacts to paleontological resources, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of excavations and, if necessary, salvage exposed fossils. The frequency of inspections will depend on the rate of excavation, the materials being excavated, and the abundance of fossils. In areas of high potential, monitoring shall be full-time, initially. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an exposed fossil to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage. Due to the small nature of some fossils it may be necessary to collect matrix samples for processing through fine mesh screens. Any fossils collected shall be prepared to the point of identification and properly curated before they are donated to their final repository. All fossils collected shall be donated to a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum. Monitoring Type Project Project Monitoring Department Planning Planning/ Engineering Shown on Plans No No Verified Implementation Remarks mz<§ m I 3 1 O O 2 O OXmo •oD) (Q (D Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. information. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other RD - Appendix P. 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. 35 Rev. 03/28/96