HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-12-05; Planning Commission; Resolution 50701
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5070
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM TO ALLOW A ZONE CHANGE AND LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT TO CHANGE 37.62
ACRES FROM LIMITED CONTROL (LC) TO ONE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL WITH A QUALIFIED DEVELOPMENT
OVERLAY (R-1-7,500-Q), AND TO CHANGE 40.41 ACRES
FROM LIMITED CONTROL (L-C) TO RESIDENTIAL
DENSITY-MULTIPLE WITH A QUALIFIED DEVELOPMENT
OVERLAY @D-M-Q), AND THE SUBDIVISION, GRADING
AND CONSTRUCTION OF 82.20 ACRES, CREATING 238
SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH DWELLINGS, TWO OPEN
SPACE LOTS, THREE RECREATION LOTS, ONE
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE LOT AND A 24 UNIT,
FOR-SALE CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AFFORDABLE TO
LOWER-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, LOCATED ON PROPERTY
NORTH AND SOUTH OF POINSETTIA LANE, BETWEEN
AVIARA PARKWAY AND SNAPDRAGON DRIVE IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 20.
CASE NAME: THOMPSON/TABATA
CASE NO.: ZC 98-085CPA 98-04/CT 98-14/PUD 98-05/
CP OO-02/SDP 99-06/HDP 98-l S/CDP 98-68
WHEREAS, Standard Pacific, Developer,” has filed a verified application with
the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Standard Pacific Corporation and David B.
Thompson and Karen R Thompson, “Owner,” described as
The northeast quarter of the northeast quarter and the southeast
quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 28, Township 12 South,
Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, according to the official
plat thereoc together with that portion of the southeast quarter of
Section 21, Township 12 South, Range 4 West of the San
Bernardino Meridian, according to the official plat thereof, shown
on Parcel B on a Certificate of Compliance recorded November
7,1988 as File No. 88-569475 and on Record of Survey Map No.
12096, filed on March 23, 1989; all lying within the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California; except
therefrom those portions thereof vested with Tabata Brothers
Partnership by documents recorded November 13, 1972 as File No.
303362 and November 4, 1974 as Files No. 74-292547 and 74-
292548; and except therefkom those portions, lying within Poinsettia
Lane and Rose Drive as described in Files No. 89-546752, 89-
637695,90-146889 and 91-0036964 of Official Records,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction
with said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of November 2001 and
on the 5th day of December 2001 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to
consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, according to
Exhibit “ND” dated April 4,2001, and “PII” dated March 1,2001, attached hereto
and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findinw:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments
thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines
and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
C. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
d. based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PC RESO NO. 5070 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of December 2001, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Dominguez,
Heineman, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Nielsen
ABSTAIN:
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 5070 -3-
City of Carl&ad
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: 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
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 @D-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: APRIL 4,200l
CASE NO: ZC 98-08/LCPA 98-04/CT 98-14/PUD 98-05KP 00-02/SDP 99-06/HDP 98-
1XDP 98-68
CASE NAME: THOMPSON/TABATA
PUBLISH DATE: APRIL 4.2001
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLB
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue l Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 l (760) 602-4600 l FAX (760) 602-8559 l 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 98-05/
CP OO-02/SDP 99-06/HDP 98- 1 S/CDP 98-68 DATE: March 1,201
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 ProPram Amendment
to change 40.41 acres of the subdivision from Limited Control (L-C) to Residential Multiole-
Densitv with a Qualified Development Overlay Zone @D-M-O) and to change 41.79 acres from
Limited Control (L-C) to One Family Residential with a Qualified Development Overlay Zone
(R-1-0); and a request for a Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Develovment Permit, Site
Development Plan, Condominium Permit, Hillside Development Permit and Coastal
Develovment Permit to subdivide, made, and develop 82.20 acres, creating 238 single familv lots.
two onen svace lots, four recreation lots, one recreational vehicle storage lot and a 24 unit, for-
sale condominium vroiect, affordable to lower-income households, on vrovertv 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.
lxl Land Use and Planning lxl Transportation/Circulation q Public Services
q Population and Housing El Biological Resources cl Utilities & Service Systems
lxl Geological Problems q Energy & Mineral Resources q Aesthetics
q Water q Hazards q Cultural Resources
El Air Quality lxl Noise lx Recreation
cl Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03128196
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0
Ix]
cl
0
0
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have 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.
sjz-40 I
Date
2 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 &I 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.
3 Rev. 03J28J96
l 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.
0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked. and including
but not l=d 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.
4 Rev. 03J28J96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a)
b)
cl
d)
e)
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #‘s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18. #2: Pgs III-74 -
111-87)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18. #2. Pgs III-74 - 111-87)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18. #2, Pgs III-74 - 111-87)
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18. #2, Pgs III-27 - III-
31) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18. #2, Pgs
III-74 - 111-87)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6. #2, Pgs
III-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-l -
5.5-6. #2, Pgs III-74 - 111-87)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6. #2, Pgs III-74 - 111-87)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
a)
b)
c)
4
4
f)
8)
h)
i)
expose people to potential impacts involving:
Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15. #2: Pgs III-112 -
111-l 18)
Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15. #2:
Pgs III- 112 - III- 118)
Seismic ground faiiure, including liquefaction? (#l :Pgs
5.1-l -5.1.15.#2:PgsIII-112-111-118)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l -
5.1-15. #2: Pgs III-112 - 111-118)
Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-I - 5.1-15. #2:
Pgs III- 112 - III- 118)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 -5.1-15. #2:PgsIII-112-111-118)
Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15. #2: Pgs
III-1 12 - III-1 18)
Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15. #2: Pgs III-112
-111-118)
Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15. #2: Pgs III-1 12 - 111-118)
Potentially Significant
Impact
El
cl
0
El
0
III
0
17
El
0
0
0
cl
III
cl
cl
cl
Potentially Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
cl
q
cl
(XI
0
0
0
q
0
cl
cl
III
0
q
0
lxl
0
Less l-harl Significant
Impact
0
0
q
cl
0
0
0
lxl
cl
lxl
cl
q
0
zl
El
cl
q
No
Impact
lxl
lxl
lxl
III
lxl
Ia
Ix1
lxl
Ix1
q
lxl
IXI
(XI
lxl
Ix]
Cl
lxl
5 Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a)
b)
Cl
d)
4
fl
g)
h)
9
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - .5..2-
11) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
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-l - 5..2-11)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-
11) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
5.2-l - 5..2-11)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
4
b)
C)
4
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 III-28 - 111-36)
Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l
- 5.3-12. ##2: Pgs III-28 - 111-36)
Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12. #2: Pgs
III-28 - 111-36)
Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12. #2:
Pgs III-28 - III-36)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
a>
b)
c)
4
e)
f3
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
5.7-l - 5.7.22. #2: Pgs III-58 - 111-75)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22. #2: Pgs
III-58 - 111-75)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22. #2: Pgs III-58 - 111-75)
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22. #2: Pgs III-58 - 111-75)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22. #2: Pgs III-58 - 111-75)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22. #2: Pgs III-58 - 111-75)
q
q
q
xl
q
q
q
q
q
lxl
lxl
q
cl
lxl
q
q
q
0
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
0
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
cl
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
0
q
0
q
Is]
lxl
lxl
Ix1
(XI
Ia
lxl
IXI
lxl
q
q
El
Ix)
q
txl
(xl
El
lxl
El
6 Rev. 03128196
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than Significant
Impact
No Impact
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l -
5.7.22. #2: Pgs III-58 - 111-75)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
a>
b)
cl
d)
d
VIII.
a>
b)
cl
in impacts to:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24. #2: Pgs III-
37 - 111-58)
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24. #2: Pgs III-37 - 111-58)
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24. #2:
Pgs III-37 - 111-58)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24. #2: Pgs III-37 - 111-58)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l
- 5.4-24. #2: Pgs III-37 - 111-58)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 -,5.13-9)
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
1 - 5.13-9)
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-l - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
4
b)
c)
4
4
A risk of accidental explosion or release.of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (#I:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5.
#2: Pgs III-97 - 111-105)
Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l -
5.10.1-5. #2: Pgs III-97 - 111-105)
The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5. #2: Pgs III-97 -
111-105)
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5. #2: Pgs III-
97 - III- 105)
Increase tire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5. #2: Pgs III-
97 - III- 105)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-l - 5.9-
15. #2: Pgs III-88 - 111-98)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l :Pgs 5.9-
1 - 5.9-15. #2: Pgs III-88 - 111-98)
7
Potentially Significant
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated q
lxl
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
Ix1
q
q
q
q
q
lxl
Less Than
Significant impact
q
q
q
q
(xl
q
q
q
q
El
q
q
q
q
q
q
No
Impact
El
q
IXI
lxl
lx
(XI
lxl
lxl
El
Ia
lxl
lxl
Ix]
lxl
lxl
lxl
Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
4
b)
c)
4
e)
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6. #2: Pgs
III- 108 - III- 111)
Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4. #2: Pgs
III- 108 - III- 111)
Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5. #2: Pgs III-108 -
111-111)
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7. #2: Pgs III-108 - 111-111)
Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-I -
5.12.8-7. #2: Pgs III-108 -111-l 11)
XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
a)
b)
c)
d)
4
0
ii9
XIII.
a)
b)
c)
XIV.
a)
b)
C)
di
e)
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
Communications systems? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-I - 5.12.8-7)
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.12.3-7)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
5.11-l -5.11-5.#2: Pgs 111-119-111-151)
Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
5.11-I - 5.1 l-5. #2: Pgs 111-l 19 - 111-151)
Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5. #2: Pgs
III-1 19 - 111-151)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-
10. ##2: Pgs III-106-III-107)
Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-
10) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs 5.8-
1 - 5.8-10)
Restrict existing reIigious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
8
Potentially
Significant Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
0. q
q q q q
q
q
q
q
q
q 0
q
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
q
q
q
u
q
q
q q
q q q 17
q
0
III
q
q
q 0
q
Less Illan
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Rev. 03128196
q
q
q
q
q
q
q q
Cl q q Ix1
q
q
q
lxl
0
q q
q
Ix1
Ix]
Ix]
El
IXI
Ix]
lzl
Ix1
Ix1
lxl
El
lxl
lxl
El
El
q
lxl
El lxl
El
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
a)
b)
XVI.
a)
b)
c)
XVII.
Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-I -
5.12.8-7)
Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs
5.12.8-I - 5.12.8-7)
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
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?
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)?
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
EARLIER ANALYSES.
Significat Impact
q
q
q
q
q
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated q
q
q
q
q
LessThan No
Significant Impact Impact
q q
q lxl
q lxl
w lxl
q lxl
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 (ElR 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
ElR 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.
9 Rev. 03128196
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The Thompsoflabata 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-l-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 kviara 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-fa&ily 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 comer, 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. 03128196
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.1 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. 03128196
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project?
The appIicable 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 O.l-acre patch of
disturbed southern willow scrub that was created by agricultural runoff within a man-made depression.
As discussed in Section V1I.a 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.
4 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 Thompsoflabata 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 EIR 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.
d 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:
4 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. 03128196
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.
4 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 Pronerty, 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. 03128196
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.
4 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.
0 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. 03128196
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.
I9 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,
coll.uvium/alluvium material, terrace deposits, and Santiago FormationITorrey Sandstone. The expansion
potential of the Santiago FormationITorrey 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.
9 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 Hvdrologv Reuort for Zone 20 Poinsettia Prouerties, dated September 8, 1999, Buccola
Engineering, Inc.) the project has been designed to accommodate runoff from a loo-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. 03128196
lOO-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 (Preliminarv Hvdrologv Renort for Zone 20
Poinsettia Properties, dated September 8, 1999, Buccola Engineering, Inc.) states that the project design
could accommodate a lOO-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.
cl 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 detentiotidesiltation 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.
d 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. 03128196
0 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.
I9 Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
As mentioned in Section IV.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 IV.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
Rev. 03128196
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 buiid-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.
4 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
Imuact Analysis. Thomuson Pronertv. 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.
d 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.
4 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. 03128196
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 Thomuson
Pronertv. Citv 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 O.l-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 recommend
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. 03128196
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.
d Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
As discussed above and in the project biological report (Biological Survey of the Thomuson Pronertv,
Citv of Carlsbad, dated October 3, 2000, Dudek and Associates, Inc.), the project site contains two
sensitive habitats. Please refer to section VI1.a above for a discussion of potential impacts and mitigation.
4 Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
As discussed above and in the project biological report (Biological Survey of the Thomnson Pronertv,
Citv 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 V1I.a for a discussion of potential impacts and mitigation for the southern willow scrub habitat.
d 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 inefftcient 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. 03l28l96
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 Pronerty, 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 &date Including Methane and Fixed Gases Survev - Poinsettia
Agricultural Pronertv, 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. 03128196
4 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 Kc above.
4 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 890 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 Prouertv 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. 03128196
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 comer 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.
4 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. 03128196
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.
d 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.
d 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
4 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. Thk
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 ThompsonITabata 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.
4 Storm water drainage?
As discussed in Section IV.a above, the project’s hydrology report (Preliminarv HvdroloP;v 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 lOO-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.
0 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 itd 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. 03128196
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:
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 XIII.a above.
d 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 XI1I.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 Thompsoflabata 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:
4 Disturb paleontological resources?
As discussed in the project’s geotechnical report (Geotechnical Investigation - Poinsettia Agricultural
Propertv, 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
Quatemary 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.
W 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.
cl 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.
4 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. 03128196
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.
W 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 Citv of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR
93-012, dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
2. Final Promam Environmental Impact Report for the Zone 20 Specific Plan Proiect 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.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Preliminarv Hvdrologv Report for Zone 20 Poinsettia Properties, dated September 8, 1999.
Buccola Engineering, Inc.
Site Assessment and Health Risk Assessment Report - Poinsettia Agricultural Property - Tabata
Site Carlsbad, California, dated August 1998, Geocon, Inc. Geotecbnical and Environmental
Consultants.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment - WeidnetYDennis Propertv, Carlsbad California, dated
March 1999, Geocon, Inc. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update Including Methane and Fixed Gases Survev -
Poinsettia Agricultural Property, dated February 6, 2001, Geocon, Inc. Geotechnical and
Environmental Consultants.
Biological Survey of the Thompson Property, City of Carlsbad, dated October 3, 2000. Dudek
and Associates, Inc.
Traffic Impact Analvsis. Thompson Prooertv, Carlsbad, California, dated December 6, 2000,
Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers.
Standard Pacific Poinsettia Prouertv Acoustical Studv, dated January 2, 2001, Investigative
Science and Engineering, Inc.
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES
I.
II.
III.
Iv.
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.
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 Pronertv, 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.
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, (Preliminarv Hvdrolonv Reoort for Zone 20
Poinsettia Pronerties, dated September 8, 1999, Buccola Engineering, Inc.) and the
32 Rev. 03/28/96
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
Ix.
a>
b)
c)
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.
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)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
Control fugitive dust by regular watering, paving construction roads, or other dust
preventive measures;
Maintain equipment engines in proper tune;
Seed and water until vegetation cover is grown;
Spread soil binders;
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;
Street sweeping, should silt be carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares;
Use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas where vehicles move damp
enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site;
Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day;
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.
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 Pronertv, 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.
33 Rev. 03/28/96
X.
XI.
XII.
XIII.
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.
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
Prouertv 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.
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
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 1 of 5
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 2 of 5
d 3 h 5 b
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 3 of 5
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 4 of 5
$ g
‘3 s
is ii3& c tig: 5.s Q m tO0na 00 E r0-;g -o br lx.=
:
c II
c&3 8 .iJ g clJ,E CSL.EE 5 11 2 - g:‘z
re
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 5 of 5
iJ 2
3 e E 3
zi E 0 -1 P 8 ‘C .B 0 C 5
E 2 s 5 a
al s
B
E s
iz 2 v)