HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-06-16; Planning Commission; Resolution 56431
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. 5643
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
ADDENDUM, AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM TO SUBDIVIDE 18 ACRES INTO 14
SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD
BETWEEN AVIARA PARKWAY AND COBBLESTONE
DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 20.
CASE NAME: EMERALD POINTE ESTATES
CASE NO.: GPA 03-05/LCPA 02-02/ZC 02-02/
CT 02-07/HDP 02-02/CDP 02-07
WHEREAS, BCS Natural Resources Corp., “Developer,” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by BCS Program L-2 LTD.,
“Owner,” described as:
Parcel 1: All that portion of that parcel of land designated as
“Description No. 5, 103.54 acres as shown and delineated on
Record of Survey Map No. 5715, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, December 19,1960.
Excepting therefrom portions of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No.
15662 as described in Official Records.
Parcel 2: Lot 115 of Carlsbad Tract No. 84-32(A), Unit No. 1
(Cobblestone Sea Village), in the City of Carlsbad, County of
San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No.
23428, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego
County, June 3,1997.
Parcel No. 3: Easement for roadway and utility purposes over
those certain strips of land designated as “60 foot strip and 66
foot easement reserved for roadway and utility purposes,” as
shown on said Record of Survey Map No. 5715.
Excepting from said 60 foot strip, that portion which lies
within Parcel No. 1 above.
Parcel 4: A temporary easement for pedestrian and vehicular
access, ingress and egress as contained in document recorded
May 1, 1996, as File No. 1996-0218757 of official records being
a portion of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 15661, that portion being a
portion of the easement for roadway and utility purposes over
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
those certain strips of land designated and as described in
official records
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum were prepared in
conjunction with said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 16th day of June, 2004, hold a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, Exhibit “ND,” according to Exhibits “NOI” dated March 28,2003, and
“PII” dated November 18,2002, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on
the following findings:
Findinps :
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Addendum, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any
comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the project; and
b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum has been prepared in
accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the
State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of
Carlsbad; and
PC RES0 NO. 5643 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
d.
Conditions:
1. Developer shall implement or cause the implementation of the Emerald Pointe Estates
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 16th day of June, 2004, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson White, Commissioners Baker, Heineman,
Montgomery, and Segall
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Dominguez and Whitton
ABSTAIN: None
MELISSA WHITE, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
n
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER v
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5643 -3-
City of Carlsbad
MITIGATED NEGATIVE
CASE NAME: Emerald Pointe Estates
CASE NO: GPA 03-05LCPA 02-02/ZC 02-02/CT 02-07/CDP 02-071
HDP 02-02
PROJECT LOCATION: South of Palomar Airport Road north of Cobblestone Road, and east of Aviara
Parkway in the southwest quadrant and Local Facilities Management Zone 20.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of a request for a General Plan Amendment and Local
Coastal Program Amendment to clarify, refine and adjust the generalized land use designation boundaries of
Residential Low (RL), Residential Low-Medium (RLM), and Open Space (OS) on the property, a Zone
Change to rezone the property from L-C, R-1 and 0-S to R-1-10,000 and 0-S, and a Tentative Subdivision
Map, Coastal Development Permit and Hillside Development Permit to grade and subdivide an 18 acre
parcel into 14 single family, 10,000 square foot (minimum), lots and two open space lots. The proposed
open space would be preserved as a habitat conservation area consistent with the City’s Habitat
Management Plan (HMP).
DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described
project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the
Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part
2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows:
[XI
0
Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been
added to the project.
The proposed project MAY have “potentially significant impact(s)” on the environment, but at least one
potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis
as described on attached sheets., (Mitigated Negative Declaration applies only to the effects that remained
to be addressed).
Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a
significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately
in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required.
A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on file in the
Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008.
ADOPTED: October 5, 2004 pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 2004-3 18
ATTEST: .
[Jh&&LLi?MB+p&
MICHAEL J. HOLZMLER
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
ADDENDUM TO EMERALD POINTE ESTATES
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION - GPA 03-
OSLCPA 02-02/ZC 02-02/CT 02-07RIDP 02-02/CDP 02-07
The project has been redesigned so that the only disturbance to CSS habitat will occur within the
final 20’ of the 60’ wide fire suppression zone as allowed by the City’s Habitat Management Plan
and Local Coastal Program. This area also provides the required 20’ wide buffer between
development and sensitive native vegetation in accordance with the City’s Local Coastal
Program and HMP. .245 acre of CSS habitat will be disturbed by fire suppression measures
within the buffer. The developer will revegetate at a 2:l ratio .5 acre of CSS habitat within the
previously disturbed area located to the west of the proposed development. Prior to issuance of a
grading permit, all necessary agency permits shall be issued and a revegetation plan shall be
approved by the USFWS and CDFG.
Mitigation measures shall be revised as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
The developer shall revegetate .5 acre previously disturbed by agricultural activity on the
property. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, all necessary agency permits shall be
issued and a revegetation plan shall be approved by the USFWS and CDFG.
Prior to commencement of grading activities, direct surveys to locate active gnatcatcher
nests shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. If nests are present, no grading shall
occur within 300 feet of active nests and noise attenuation measures shall be required to
ensure that noise levels within occupied gnatcatcher habitat do not exceed 60 cBA leq.
Construction shall be scheduled to occur outside the bird breeding season (February 15 -
August 31) or assure that construction activity will not result in noise levels above 60
dBA leq at any nest site.
Vegetation clearing and removal shall occur outside the bird breeding season (February
15 - August 3 1).
If construction occurs during raptor breeding season (February 1 to August 30) a qualified
biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey of the project site and surrounding
habitat to determine whether there are active raptor nests within the area. If an active
raptor nest is observed, a 500-foot buffer shall be established between the construction
activities and the nest that shall be in effect until the nest is no longer active.
Prior to issuance of building permits for future residences, the developer shall submit
proof that interior noise levels will not exceed 45 dBA for all units when openings to the
exterior are open or closed. If openings are required to be closed to meet the interior
noise standard, then mechanical ventilation shall be provided.
Prior to any grading of the project site:
a. A paleontologist shall be retained to perform a walkover survey of the site and to
review the grading plans to determine if the proposed grading will impact fossil
resources. A copy of the paleontologist’s report shall be provided to the Planning
Director prior to issuance of a grading permit.
A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of the
site and to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the fossils
present in the geologic strata, it may be necessary to collect matrix samples for
laboratory processing through fine screens. The paleontologist shall make
periodic reports to the Planning Director during the grading process.
The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an
exposed fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage artifacts.
All fossils collected shall be donated to a public, nonprofit institution with a
research interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum.
Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading activities of
the project shall be resolved by the Planning Director and City Engineer.
b.
c.
d.
e.
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 1 of 1
.. w 2
z a
c
(u 0 0 (u
0
a, I) 0
7
L
+ 8 w
a n
a > 0 U a a a
k
-I
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 2 of 2
- City of Carl-sbad
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME: Emerald Pointe Estates
CASE NO: GPA 03-05/LCPA 02-02/ZC 02-02/CT 02-07/CDP 02-07/
HDP 02-02
PROJECT LOCATION: South of Palomar Airport Road north of Cobblestone Road, and east
of Aviara Parkway in the southwest quadrant and Local Facilities
Management Zone 20.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of a request for a General Plan Amendment
and Local Coastal Program Amendment to clarify, refine and adjust the generalized land use
designation boundaries of Residential Low (RL), Residential Low-Medium (RLM), and Open
Space (OS) on the property, a Zone Change to rezone the property from L-C, R-1 and 0-S to R-
1-10,000 and 0-S, and a Tentative Subdivision Map, Coastal Development Pemit and Hillside
Development Permit to grade and subdivide an 18 acre parcel into 14 single family, 10,000
square foot (minimum), lots and two open space lots. The proposed open space would be
preserved as a habitat conservation area consistent with the City’s Habitat Management Plan
OFMP).
PROPOSED DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental
review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of
Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially
significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in.the project plans or proposals made
by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are
released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly
no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in
light of the whole record before the City that the project “as revised” may have a significant
effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be recommended
for adoption by the City of Carlsbad City Council.
A copy of the initial study (EM Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration are on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad,
California 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to
the Planning Department within 30 days of the date of this notice.
The proposed project and Mitigated Negative Declaration are subject to review and
approvaVadoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council. Additional
public notices will be issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any
questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4622.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD MARCH 28,2003 TO APRIL 28,2003
PUBLISH DATE MARCH 28.2003 @ 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us January 30,2003
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: GPA 03-05iZC 02-02LCPA 02-02/CT 02-07/CDP 02-07I"DP 02-02
DATE: November 18.2002
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
CASE NAME: EMERALD POINTE ESTATES
LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad - 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad,
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER Anne HysonP Associate Planner - (760) 602-
PROJECT LOCATION: South of Palomar Airport Road north of Cobblestone Road, and east of
Aviara Parkway in the southwest auadrant and Local Facilities Management Zone 20.
PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: BCS Program L-2, Ltd., % Anthony C.
Hummel, General Partner, 201 Emerald Bay Drive. Lamna Beach, CA 9265 1
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Low (RL) density
ZONING: Limited Control (L-C)
OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing
approval or participation agreements): California Coastal Commission (Local Coastal Promam
Amendment)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
The project consists of a request for a General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Program
Amendment to clarify, refine and adjust the generalized boundaries of Residential Low (RL),
Residential Low-Medium (RLM), and Open Space (OS) designations on the property, a Zone
Change to rezone the property from L-C, R-1 and 0-S to R-1-10,000 and 0-S, and a Tentative
Subdivision Map, Coastal Development Permit and Hillside Development Permit to grade and
subdivide an 18 acre parcel into 14 single family, 10,000 square foot (minimum), lots and two
open space lots. The open space would be preserved as a habitat conservation area consistent
with the City's Habitat Management Plan (HMP).
The project site consists of approximately 18 acres located south of Palomar Airport Road
between Aviara Parkway and Cobblestone Road in the southwest quadrant of the City. The infill
site is surrounded to the north by open space, to the south and east by small lot single family
development, and to the west by multi-family development. The property slopes moderately to
steeply down to the west and south from a gently sloping ridge top with elevations ranging from
140' to 262' MSL. The proposed development will occur on approximately 6 acres of the ridge
area that has been previously disturbed by agricultural activity. The remaining disturbed and
undisturbed portion of the property contains native and non-native grassland, coastal sage scrub,
southern mixed chaparral, and San Diego thorn-mint.
1 Rev. 07103102
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.
0 Aesthetics 0 Geology/Soils (XI Noise
Agricultural Resources HazarddHazardous Materials 0 Population and Housing
0 AirQuality HydrologyNater Quality 0 Public Services
Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Recreation
Cultural Resources 0 Mineral Resources 0 TransportatiodCirculation
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Utilities & Service Systems
2 Rev. 07/03/02
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact(s)" on the
environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1 ) has been adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on
attached sheets. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects
that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and
(b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures
that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required.
3-aLJ- 03
Planner Signature Date
3lzdt3
Date
3 Rev. 07/03/02
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct
an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on
the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the
form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that
might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the
basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
"No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to,
or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
"Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
"Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a
"Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
"Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significantly adverse.
Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
adverse effect on the environment, but potentially significant adverse effects (a) have
been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant
to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that
are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a
supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required
by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no
additional environmental document is required.
When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an
earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a
"Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence
that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the
environment.
If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the ,City may avoid
4 Rev. 07/03/02
preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to
less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior
to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless
Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be
prepared.
0 An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse
effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable
standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the
adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations"
for fhe significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3)
proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant;
or (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of
significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a
mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of
significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of
the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined
significant.
5 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
1. AESTHETICS -Would the project:
Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
Substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a State scenic highway?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
Create a new source of substantial light
and glare, which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
II. AGRICULTRAL RESOURCES - (In
determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and
Site Assessment Model-1997 prepared by the
California Department of Conservation as an
optional model to use in assessing impacts
on agriculture and farmland.) Would the
project:
Potentially Potentially Less
Significant Significant Than
Impact Unless Signifi-
Mitigation cant
Incorporated Impact
0 0 Ix1
CI 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
No
Impact
0
Ix)
Ix1
Ix)
6 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less No Significant Significant Than Impact
Impact Unless Signifi-
Mitigation cant
Incorporated Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique 0 0 0 IXI Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for o agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
c) Involve other changes in the existing 0 environment, which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland
to non-agricultural use?
0 X
0 0 Ix1
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
111. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the
significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to
make the following determinations.) Would
the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 0 0 IXI applicable air quality plan?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute 0 0 IXI 0 substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
7 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is in non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the
project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by
California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Potentially Potentially Less No
Significant Significant Than Impact
Impact Unless Signifi-
Mitigation cant
Incorporated Impact
0
0
0
0 IXI 0
0 0 IXI
0 IXI
IXI 0 0
0 0 IXI
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
8 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less
Significant Significant Than
Impact Unless Signifi-
Mitigation cant
Incorporated Impact
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally 0 0 protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including but not
limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filing, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any 0 0 Ixl native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally
sensitive?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the
project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as
defined in §15064.5?
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
Ixl
0
0
No
Impact
0
IXI
0
IXI
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
9. Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archeological
resource pursuant to $1 5064.5?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
IV. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the
project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
Potentially Less No
Significant Than Impact
Mitigation cant
Unless Signifi-
Incorporated Impact 0 0 Ix)
Ix) cl
cl 0 Ix)
0 Ix)
0 0 IE3 0
0 0 IXI 0
0 0 IXI
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less No
Significant Significant Than Impact
Impact Unleis Signifi-
Mitigation cant
Incorporated Impact
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of 0 0 0 Ixl topsoil?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is 0 0 TI El unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in 0 0 0 lm Table 18 - 1-6 of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation) 0
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers are
not available for the disposal of wastewater?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
IV. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS - Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public 0 or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
0 0 Ixl
0 0 El
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
11 ' Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Create a significant hazard to the public
or environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
Be located on a site which is included on
a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or
environment?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
For a project within an airport land use
plan, or where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two. miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
Potentially Potentially Less No
Significant Significant Than Impact
Impact Unless Signifi-
Mitigation cant
Incorporated Impact 0 0 0 €3
0
a
0
0
0 IXI
0 0 IXI
0 0 IXI
(See Discussion of Environmental
Eva I u a ti on)
12 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially
Significant Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
g) Impair implementation of or physically 0 0 interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
h) Expose people or structures to a 0 0
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas
or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste 0 U discharge requirements?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation) 0' 0
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with ground water
recharge such that there would be a net deficit
in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
ground water table level (i.e., the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to
a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have
been granted)?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
c) Impacts to groundwater quality?
Less No
Than Impact
Signifi-
cant
Impact 0 IXI
IXI
0 IXI
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
13 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less No Significant Significant Than Impact
Impact Unless Signifi-
Mitigation cant
Incorporated Impact
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern 0 0 0 Ixl of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a
manner, which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
e) Subtantially alter the existing drainage pattern 0 0 0 IXI of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the flow rate or amount
(volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which
would result in flooding on- or off-site?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
f) Create or contribute runoff water, which would o 0 0 Ix1 exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 0 0 0 Ix1
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard o area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood delineation map?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area 0 structures, which would impede or
redirect flood flows?
0 0 IXI
0 0 IXI
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
14 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less No
Significant Significant Than Impact
Impact Unless Signifi-
Mitigation cant
IncorDorated ImDact
Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss injury or death
involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
Increased erosion (sediment) into
receiving surface waters.
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
Increased pollutant discharges (e.g.,
heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum
derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients,
oxygen-demanding substances and trash)
into receiving surface waters or other
alteration of receiving surface water
quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
Changes to receiving water quality
(marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
Increase in any pollutant to an already
impaired water body as listed on the
Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list?
b b IXI
0 CI Ixi
17 0 Ixi
0 0
0
0 0 0
Ix1
IXI
Ixi
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
15 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less No
Significant Significant Than Impact
Impact Unless Signifi-
Mitigation cant
Incorporated Impact
p) The exceedance of applicable surface or 0 0 IXI groundwater receiving . water quality
objectives or degradation of beneficial
uses?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the
project:
a) Physically divide an established 0 community?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, 0 policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including but
not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat 0 conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the
project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a 0 known mineral resource that would be of
future value to the region and the
residents of the State?
0
0
0 IXI
€4
IXI
0 IXI
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
16 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less No
Significant Significant Than Impact
Impact Unless Signifi-
Mitigation cant
Incorporated Impact
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally 0 o 0 €4
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan, or other land use plan?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
X. NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of 0
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance or applicable standards
of other agencies?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of 0
excessive groundbourne vibration or
groundbourne noise levels?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
c) A substantial permanent increase in 0
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic 0
0
0
0
0 0
0 IXI
0 €4
€4 0
17 ' Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less No
Significant Significant Than Impact
Impact Unless Signifi-
Mitigation cant
Incorporated Impact
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation) 0 0 IXI 0
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within 2 miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise
I eve Is?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
9 For a project within the vicinity of a private 0 0 0 IXI
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
X. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the
project:
a) Induce substantial growth in an area 0 0 0 IXI
either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly
(for example, through extension of roads
or other infrastructure)?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing O 0 0 IXI
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, 0 0 0 IXI
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
18 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered government
facilities, a need for new or physically altered
government facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times, or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
Potentially Potentially Less No
Significant Significant Than Impact
Impact Unless Signifi-
Mitigation cant
Incorporated Impact
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
XIV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of 0 0 0 IXI
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation) 0 0 0 IXI
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities, which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the ' environment?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
XV. TRANSPORTATlON/TRAFFlC - Would the
project:
19 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Cause an increase in traffic, which is
substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system
(i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the
volume to capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
Exceed, either individually or
cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated
roads or highways?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic
levels or a change in location that results
in substantial safety risks?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
Result in inadequate emergency access?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
Result in insufficient parking capacity?
Potentially Potentially Less
Significant Significant Than
Impact Unless Signifi-
Mitigation cant
Incorporated Impact 0 0 IXI
No
Impact
0 0 IXI
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0.
IXI
IXI
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
20 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less No
Significant Significant Than Impact
Impact Unless Signifi-
Mitigation cant
Incorporated I mpact
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or 0 Cl 0 Ix1 programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turn-outs, bicycle
racks)?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS -
Would the project:
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of 0 the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
Require or result in the construction of new 0 water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction
of which would cause significant environmental
effects?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
Require or result in the construction of new 0 storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve 0 the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
Cl
Cl
0 (XI
0 (XI
0 0 IXI
0 0 (XI
21. Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less No
Significant Significant Than Impact
Impact Unless Signifi-
Mitigation cant
Incorporated Impact
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation) 0 0 ixI
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to
serve the project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing
commit men ts?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted o
capacity to accommodate the project‘s solid
waste disposal needs?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes 0 and regulations related to solid waste? ’
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
0 0 IXI
0 0 IXI
Ix1 0 0
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
22 Rev. 07/03/02
.-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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?)
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
c) Does the project have environmental
effects, which will cause the substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
Potentially Less
significant Than
Unless Signifi-
Mitigation cant
Incorporated Impact 0 Ix1
No
Impact
0
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)@). In this case a discussion should identify the following on
attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for
review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined
from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions
for the project.
23 Rev. 07/03/02
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less than Significant Impact - The project site is located above a scenic corridor (Palomar Airport
Minimal visual impacts will result from future development of 14 homes, the majority of Road).
which will not be visible from the roadway.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
No Impact (b & c)- The project site is undeveloped and partially disturbed by past agricultural activity.
There are no scenic resources on the site. The proposed land subdivision and grading will occur
within this previously disturbed area and will not degrade the visual character or quality of the site.
There are no significant trees or vegetation that could be damaged from future development of the
site. Future single family homes will be required to comply with the City’s development standards
that ensure high quality design and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, the
project will not damage scenic resources or degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings.
d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
No Impact - The proposed 14 single family lots will not create any new significant source of light and
glare. The majority of the site will remain undeveloped and lighting produced by 14 future single family
homes and a single cul-de-sac street will be minimal.
AGRICULTRAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact - The project site is not considered Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of
Statewide Importance. Therefore, the proposed land use and zone change will not convert farmland to a
non-agricultural use.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact - The site is designated by the Mello 11 LCP as non-prime agricultural land that is subject to
requirements for the conversion of non-prime agricultural land. The project will be conditioned to pay an
agricultural mitigation fee established by City Council. The project site is currently zoned Limited
Control (L-C), and a zone change to R-1-10,000 that is consistent with the Residential Low (RL) density
General Plan designation is proposed. The L-C zone permits agricultural use only, however, the zoning
anticipates future development by requiring L-C zoned properties to be rezoned when development is
proposed. There is no Williamson Act contract existing for the property; Therefore, the project does not
conflict with any agricultural zoning or contracts.
24 Rev. 07/03/02
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
No Impact: The project consists of the subdivision of residentially designated land into residential lots.
AIR QUALITY-Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
No Impact - The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a federal and state non-
attainment area for ozone (03), and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to
10 microns in diameter (PMlo). The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards
(AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothill areas, requires that
a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In
San Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies
(RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San Diego Association
of Governments (SNAG).
A plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the
1991 state-mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other California non-
attainment areas having serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation
Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November
9th through 10th in 1994, and was forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for
approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly regarding airsheds with the worst smog
problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996.
The proposed project relates to the SIP andor RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that
are incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on
each city’s and the County’s general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable
General Plan, then the project presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning
process. Such consistency would ensure that the project would not have an adverse regional air
quality impact.
Section 15 125(B) of the State of California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains
specific reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the
applicable air quality management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS.
The RAQS and TCM plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal
ambient air quality standards. The California Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining
whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the following:
Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area?
Is the.project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan?
The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS
is being implemented. The project is consistent with the growth assumptions of the City’s General Plan
and the RAQS. Therefore, the project is consistent with the regional air quality plan and will in no way
conflict or obstruct implementation of the regional plan.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected
air quality violation?
Less Than Significant Impact - The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is in the
City of Oceanside. Data available for this monitoring site through April, 2002 indicate that the most
recent air quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (one day in both
25 Rev. 07/03/02
2000 and 2001) and one day in 2001 for the federal 8-hour average for ozone and one day for the 24-hour
state standard for suspended particulates in 1996. No violations of any other air quality standards have
been recorded recently. Long-term emissions associated with travel generated from future residential
development of the site will be minimal. Although air pollutant emissions would be associated with a
future residential development, they would neither result in the violation of any air quality standard
(comprising only an incremental contribution to overall air bzsjn quality readings), nor contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Any potential impact is assessed as less
than significant.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard?
Less Than Significant Impact - The Air Basin is currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone and
suspended fine particulates. The project will result in future residential development, which would
represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the
air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with a fbture residential development
would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with a residential development of
the site, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the residential development is
implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15 130 (a)(4), the project’s contribution to the
cumulative impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than significant.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
No Impact - As noted above, the proposed 14 lot subdivision will result in future residential
development, which would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or concentrations. In addition,
there are no sensitive receptors (e.g., schools or hospitals) located in the vicinity of the project site. No
impact is assessed.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
No Impact - The residential subdivision will not result in any activity that could create objectionable
odors. Construction could generate fumes from the operation of construction equipment, which may be
considered objectionable by some people. Such exposure would be short-term or transient. In addition,
the number of people exposed to such transient impacts is not considered substantial.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated: According to the biology report prepared for
the project, disturbed vegetation and/or sensitive vegetationhabitats existing on the property consists of
10.5 acres of disturbed habitat (previous agricultural conditions), .33 acre of developed area (access
road), 4.86 acres of coastal sage scrub (CSS) habitat, .79 acre of chaparral, .88 acre of non-native
grassland, .61 acre of native grassland, and .03 acre of San Diego thorn mint. The project would not
encroach into sensitive vegetation and/or habitats except for disturbance to a total of .24 acre of CSS (.08
acre would be removed by grading and .16 acre would be disturbed by fire suppression techniques
including removal, thinning and pruning of high fuel vegetation). The proposed mitigation for the
removaVdisturbance of CSS consists of the preservation onsite of 4.62 acres of CSS and revegetation at a
2:l ratio of .5 acre within the area previously disturbed by agricultural activities. The undisturbed and
26 Rev. 07/03/02
revegetated coastal sage scrub along with 100 percent of the native and non-native grasslands, chaparral,
and San Diego thorn mint will be preserved within a 10.3 acre open space easement. No gnatcatcher
surveys have been conducted within the limited area of coastal sage scrub proposed for disturbance,
however, to mitigate potential disturbances to the California gnatcatcher resulting from grading activities,
prior to the commencement of grading activities, direct surveys to locate active gnatcatcher nests shall be
conducted by a qualified biologist. If nests are present, no grading or removal of habitat may take place
within 200 feet of active nesting sites during the nestinghreeding season (mid-February through mid-
July).
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations
or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact (b & c) - The project site contains no riparian or wetland habitat or wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
Less than Significant Impact - The proposed development will occur on 6.26 acres, the majority of
which has been previously disturbed by agricultural activity. Except for .24 acre of disturbance to CSS
habitat, the remaining native and non-native habitats will remain undisturbed thereby avoiding
significant impacts to the movement of any established native resident or migratory wildlife species.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact - The project is consistent with the preservation and mitigation requirements of the City’s
Draft Habitat Management Plan which is used as a standard of review for biological impacts.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Less than Significant Impact - The 18 acre site is identified as a standards area within Linkage Area F
of the Carlsbad Draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP). Linkage Area F is intended to provide for
continued animal movement between core areas, particularly for gnatcatchers and other birds. The
project is consistent with the HMP standards area requirements in that it provides the minimum 500’
wide corridor, preserves 95% of coastal sage scrub habitat and 100% of the other sensitive plant species
and habitats existing on the site. The project deviates slightly from the newly adopted Policy 3-8-9
which provides specific guidelines for the BCS property. Policy 3-8-9 indicates that no impact to native
habitat is allowed. A total of .24 acre of CSS habitat located outside of steep slopes will be disturbed by
grading (.08 acre) and fire suppression requirements for thinning and/or removal of high fuel species (.16
acre). This area of disturbance will be mitigated at a 2:l ratio (.5 acre) through onsite revegetation of
land previously disturbed by agricultural activity that is contiguous with native vegetation to the west and
a part of the proposed wildlife corridor. This slight deviation will create an HMP hardline preserve area
that is consistent with the HMP in that the revegetated area will improve the biological quality and
quantity of the habitat corridor and result in the preservation of 10.3 acres of native and non-native
habitat that aligns with hardline HMP habitat preserve areas to the north and south.
27 Rev. 07/03/02
.-
g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive?
No Impact - The site does not contain any environmentally sensitive tributary area. The Encina Creek is
located off site to the north, however, the project is separated from the creek by 400’ of native and non-
native habitat and designed to drain away from the creek into a detention basin before it flows into an
existing public storm drain system.
CULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as
defined in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
No Impact (a, b, & d) - The project site is an undeveloped infill site that has been previously disturbed
by agricultural operations. There are no known historical or archeological resources or human
remains on the project site.
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated (c) - According to the Zone 20 Program EIR,
the geologic formations present within the Zone 20 Specific Plan Area located directly south of the
project have the potential to contain significant fossils. Due to this high potential for the discovery of
fossils during future grading and construction activities, the following mitigation measures shall be
implemented during fbture grading of the site to reduce potentially significant impacts on the region’s
paleontological resources to an acceptable level:
a. Prior to any grading of the project site, a paleontologist shall be retained to perforh a
walkover survey of the site and to review the grading plans to determine if the proposed
grading will impact fossil resources. A copy of the paleontologist’s report shall be
provided to the Planning Director prior to issuance of a grading permit;
b. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of the site
and to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the fossils present in
the geologic strata, it may be necessary to collect matrix samples for laboratory
processing through fine screens. The paleontologist shall make periodic reports to the
Planning Director during the grading process;
C. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an exposed
fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage artifacts;
d. 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;
e. Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading activities of the
project shall be resolved by the Planning Director and City Engineer.
28 Rev. 07/03/02
GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
s a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,=including the risk of
loss, injury or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Less than Significant Impact (a.i. to a.iii.) - There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zones within
the City of Carlsbad and there is no other evidence of active of potentially active faults within the City.
However, there are several active faults throughout Southern California, and these potential earthquakes
could affect Carlsbad. The project site is located in an area of stable soil conditions and the risk of
seismic-related ground failure or liquefaction is very minimal (according to City of Carlsbad
Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992). In addition, the Geotechnical
Hazards Analysis identifies the project site to be in an area of low to moderate risk from ground shaking.
The risk from ground shaking is not significant when structures are built pursuant to the Uniform
Building Code (earthquake standards). Because the site is located in an area of stable soil conditions,
and any future dwelling constructed on the site must comply with the UBC earthquake construction
standards, the proposed land use and zone change will not expose people or structures to substantial
adverse effects from the risks associated with earthquakes.
iv. Landslides?
No Impact - According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study,
November 1992, the project site is in an area of stable soil conditions that are not subject to landslides.
There are no unique geologic or physical features present on the site. The geotechnical analysis
performed for the site by Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. revealed that no significant geotechnical
problems exist that could result in exposure to unsafe conditions, and that the site is favorable for the
proposed development provided the recommendations summarized in the preliminary geotechnical report
are followed.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
No Impact -According to the US Department of Agriculture, Soil Survey - San Diego Area, December
1973, the project site contains soils that have high erosion limitations, as do most soil types in Carlsbad.
The project’s compliance with standards in the City’s Excavation and Grading Ordinance that prevent
erosion through slope planting and installation of desiltation basins or other temporary means will avoid
substantial soil erosion impacts.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
No Impact - The geotechnical analysis performed for the site by Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. revealed
that no significant geotechnical problems exist that could result in exposure to unsafe conditions, and that
the site is favorable for the proposed development provided the recommendations summarized in the
preliminary geotechnical report are followed.
29 Rev. 07IQ3lQ2
d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
No Impact- The geotechnical analysis performed for the site by Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. revealed
that no significant geotechnical problems exist that could result in exposure to unsafe conditions, and that
the site is favorable for the proposed development provided the recommendations summarized in the
preliminary geotechnical report are followed.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of sdptic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
No Impact - The project site is an undeveloped infill site surrounded by urban development. Existing
sewer facilities are located near the site and are available and adequate to support a future residential
land use on the site.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or environment?
No Impact (a, b, c & d) - The project consists of a single family residential subdivision; therefore, no
hazardous materials would be used or generated by the project. The site is not included on a list of
hazardous materials sites
e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact (e & f) - The project is located within the McClellan Palomar Airport influence area. The
Carlsbad Airport Land Use Plan (CLUP) specifies the areas subject to safety hazards, i.e., the flight
activity zone and the crash hazard zone. The development is not located within either of these zones;
therefore a significant safety hazard would not result from the development of single family homes.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact - The private residential development does not interfere with the City’s emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan.
30 Rev. 07/03/02
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
Less than Significant Impact - The project is surrounded by native vegetation, cleared agricultural
land, and existing residential development. The project is required to comply with City standards
requiring fire suppression zones that create buffers between high fuel native species and residential
structures. The project will comply with these standards with the exception of 6 lots on which structures
must comply with alternative architectural standards acceptable to the Carlsbad Fire Department due to
reduced fire suppression zones. The reduced fire suppression zones are necessary to avoid impacts to
sensitive CSS habitat.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project:
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground
water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local ground water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells
would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
Impacts to groundwater quality?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate
or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on-
or off-site?
Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
No Impact (a, b, c, d, e, f & g) - The infill project will rely on an existing public storm drain system
and is subject to City standards regarding water quality, drainage and erosion control, including storm
water permit (NPDES) requirements and best management practices. The project is conditioned to
require a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) that will ensure that it is designed and constructed in
compliance with the City's "DES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with
Construction Activity issued by the State Water Resources Control Board and the San Diego "DES
Municipal Storm Water Permit issued to San Diego County and Cities by the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board.
In addition, according to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study,
November 1992, the project site is located in an area where development will not have a significant
impact to groundwater. Therefore, the project will not violate any water quality standards, deplete
groundwater supplies or quality, substantially alter existing drainage patterns, cause substantial erosion
or flooding, or significantly impact the capacity of stormwater drainage systems.
31 Rev. 07/03/02
h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map?
i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
No Impact (h & i) - The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according to the
Flood Insurance Rate Map. Therefore, the proposed land use and zone change will not result in housing
or structures within a 100-year flood hazard area.
j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No Impact (j & k) - According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping
Study, November 1992, the project site is not located within any dam failure inundation area, or area
subject to inundation by seiche or tsunami. Therefore, the project will not result in exposing people or
structures to significant risk from flooding as a result of a dam failure, or from inundation by seiche,
tsunami, or mudflow.
1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters.
m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives,
synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving
surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or
following construction?
0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean
Water Act Section 303(d) list?
p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives
or degradation of beneficial uses?
No Impact (1, m, n, o & p) - The project site is not located adjacent to any body of water. Drainage
from the site is subject to the City's drainage and storm water pollution control standards ("DES
and best management practices), which ensure that sediment and pollutants from any development of
the site will not discharge into any downstream receiving surface waters. Also, the City's drainage
and storm water pollution control standards ensure that development does not reduce water quality of
any marine, fresh or wetland waters or groundwater. The project design includes a detention basin
that will receive runoff from the project prior to entering the public storm drain, and the project will
be conditioned to prepare a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) to ensure that City standards
are met.
LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact - The project site is an infill site that is surrounded by high density apartments to the west,
and small lot single family residential development to the south and east. Future residential development
32 Rev. 07/03/02
of the site on minimum 10,000 square foot lots will be compatible with and integrate into the existing
community. Therefore, the project will not physically divide an established community.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental effect?
Less than Significant Impact - The project includes a General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal
Program Amendment to clarify, refine, and adjust the generalized land use designation boundaries of
Open Space (OS), Residential Low (RL), and Residential Low-Medium (RLM) designations on the
property. The proposed OS boundary is adjusted to the constrained area preserved as open space and
included as a hardline preserve area in the City’s Habitat Management Plan (HMP). The area shown as
OS on the General Plan encompasses a disturbed blufftop area formerly used for agriculture that is the
only developable area of the site, and the area proposed as Open Space is located within an area of steep
slopes covered with sensitive vegetation. This adjustment is consistent with the General Plan Open
Space Element in that it is greater in area, superior in environmental quality, and located contiguous to
the designated open space.
The proposed 1.2 ddacre density for the 14 lot residential project is within the Residential Low (RL)
density range (0 - 1.5 ddacre) permitted by the General Plan for the majority of the site, however, the
proposed density exceeds the Growth Management Growth Control Point (GCP) of 1 ddacre that allows
9 lots/units. The GCP was established to avoid exceeding dwelling unit caps in each quadrant of the
City. The General Plan allows projects to exceed the GCP where adequate public facilities are provided
and excess units are available, and City Council Policy 43 provides for the allocation of excess units to
projects that satisfy specified qualifications. The project qualifies for the use of excess units in that the
proposed base zone (R-1-10,000) of the infill single family subdivision allows a slightly higher yield of
units than would be allowed by the 1 ddacre growth management control point, and the proposed 1.2
ddacre density does not exceed the maximum density of 1.5 ddacre permitted by the RL designation.
The majority of the site is currently zoned Limited Control (L-C) with a very small .335 acre area zoned
R-1 and 0-S. The L-C zone is a holding zone that requires the property to be rezoned at the time
development is proposed. Although the General Plan envisions one-half acre lots on RL designated
properties, the proposed R-1-10,000 zoning allowing minimum 10,000 square foot lots enables the
development to be clustered within the unconstrained developable area of the site thereby allowing for
the preservation of a wildlife habitat corridor through the property that is consistent with the City’s
Habitat Management Plan. The R-1-10,000 zone is also more consistent with the surrounding high and
low-medium density residential land uses. The undeveloped portion of the site will be preserved as an
HMP habitat preserve area and rezoned to the Open Space (0-S) zone classification.
The project as proposed and conditioned is consistent with the applicable policies and implementation
standards for land use consistency, preservation of steep slopes and vegetation, drainage, stormwater
runoff and erosion control of the Mello II segment of Carlsbad’s Local Coasta1,Program (LCP). The
proposed General Plan amendment and zone change require Coastal Commission approval of a Local
Coastal Program Amendment to ensure consistency between the City’s General Plan and Zoning Maps
and the LCP land use and zone maps. The project is consistent with the dual criterion provisions
prohibiting removal of sensitive CSS and chaparral habitats from steep slopes. However, the project
deviates slightly from the newly adopted Policy 3-8-9 which provides specific guidelines for the BCS
property. Policy 3-8-9 indicates that no impact to native habitat is allowed. A total of .24 acre of CSS
habitat located outside of steep slopes will be disturbed by grading (.08 acre) and fire suppression
requirements for thinning and/or removal of high fuel species (.I6 acre). (The proposed fire suppression
zone will also satisfy the LCP requirement for a 20 foot wide buffer between development and native
habitat.) This area of disturbance will be mitigated at a 2: 1 ratio (.5 acre) through onsite revegetation of
land previously disturbed by agricultural activity that is contiguous with native vegetation to the west and
33 Rev. 07/03/02
a part of the proposed wildlife corridor. This slight deviation will create an HMP hardline preserve area
that is consistent with the HMP in that the revegetated area will improve the biological quality and
quantity of the habitat corridor and result in the preservation of 10.3 acres of native and non-native
habitat that aligns with hardline HMP habitat preserve areas to the north and south.
The project site is also designated by the Mello II LCP as non-prime agricultural land subject to
mitigation requirements for the conversion of non-prime agricultural land. Implementing zone standards
require mitigation for this conversion through the payment of an agricultural mitigation fee established
by City Council for agricultural acreage prior to the approval of a final map.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
Less than Significant Impact - The project site is identified by the City’s Draft Habitat Management
Plan (HMP) as a standards area located within Linkage Area F. The project is consistent with the HMP
standards area requirements in that it would preserve 95% of coastal sage scrub habitat and preserve
100% of the other sensitive plant species and habitats existing on the site; however, the project deviates
slightly from the newly adopted Policy 3-8-9 which provides specific guidelines for the BCS property.
Policy 3-8-9 indicates that no impact to native habitat is allowed. A total of .24 acre of CSS habitat
located outside of steep slopes will be disturbed by grading (.OS acre) and fire suppression requirements
for thinning and/or removal of high fuel species (.16 acre). This area of disturbance will be mitigated at
a 2: 1 ratio (.5 acre) through onsite revegetation of land previously disturbed by agricultural activity that
is contiguous with native vegetation to the west. This slight deviation will create an HMP hardline
preserve area that is consistent with the HMP in that the revegetated area will improve the biological
quality and quantity of the habitat corridor and result in the preservation of 10.3 acres of native and non-
native habitat that aligns with hardline HMP habitat preserve areas to the north and south.
MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future
value to the region and the residents of the State?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
No Impact (a & b) - According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping
Study, November 1992, the project site does not contain any mineral resources; therefore, the project will
not result in the loss of availability of a know mineral resource or mineral resource recovery site.
NOISE -Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in
the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated - The Noise Element of the General Plan
specifies that sixty (60) dB CNEL is the exterior noise level to which all residential units should be
mitigated, and that interior noise levels should be mitigated to 45 dB CNEL. In accordance with the
Acoustical Analysis performed for the project, some of the units at the second story level would be
exposed to noise levels from Palomar Airport Road exceeding 60 dBA CNEL and requiring mitigation to
reduce interior noise levels to 45 dBA. Additionally, the majority of the property falls within the 60 to
65 &A CNEL airport noise contours. The City’s General Plan Noise Element sets a maximum 65 dBA
CNEL standard for residential units subject to noise from McClellan-Palomar Airport. In accordance
34 Rev. 07/03/02
with General Plan noise standards, the project will be conditioned to require an avigation easement over
the entire property. Required mitigation to reduce interior noise levels consists of a Phase 11 acoustical
study to be submitted with final building plans verifying that the 45 dBA interior standard is satisfied.
POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
No Impact - The project is located on an infill site that is surrounded by existing andor approved
development and served by existing infrastructure.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
No Impact (b & c)- The project site is undeveloped. Therefore, the project will not displace any
existing housing or people.
PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or
physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
V. Other public facilities?
No Impact (a.i to a.v.) -The project site is located within Local Facilities Management Zone (LFMZ)
20. The provision of public facilities within LFMZ 20, including fire protection, parks, libraries and
other public facilities, has been planned to accommodate the projected growth of that area. Because the
project will not exceed the total growth projections anticipated within LFMZ 20, all public facilities will
be adequate to serve residential development on the site. Therefore, the project will not result in
substantial adverse impacts to or result in the need for additional government facilities.
RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
35 ' Rev. 07/03/02
No Impact (a & b) - As part of the City’s Growth Management Program (GMP), a performance
standard for parks was adopted. The park performance standard requires that 3 acres of Community Park
and Special Use Area per 1,000 population within a park district (quadrant) must be provided.
The project site is located within Park District #3 (Southwest Quadrant). The necessary park acreage to
achieve the GMP standard (3 acres/1,000 population) for Park District #3 was based upon the GMP
dwelling unit limitation for the Southwest Quadrant, which is 12,859 units.
Although the proposed land use change will result in additional residential units in the SW Quadrant, the
GMP dwelling unit limit will not be exceeded. In addition, the Parks and Recreation Element states that
the park acreage demand for the SW Quadrant, based on the GMP dwelling unit limit, is 89.41 acres, and
the anticipated park acreage to be provided at build-out will be 96.25 acres. Therefore, there will be
adequate parkland within the SW Quadrant, and the proposed land use change will not cause additional
demand for parkland or expansion of recreational facilities. Because park facilities will be adequate to
serve residential development on the site, any increase in use of park facilities generated from future
development of the site will not result in substantial physical deterioration of any park facility.
TRANSPORTATIONlTRAFFIC-Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and
capacity of the street system?
Less Than Significant Impact - The project will generate 140 Average Daily Trips (ADT) and
approximately 15 p.m. peak hour trips. This traffic will primarily utilize the following roadways:
Cobblestone Drive to Aviara Parkway. Existing traffic on Aviara Parkway north of Cobblestone is 8,398
ADT (2001) and south of Cobblestone is 7,529 ADT (2001). The design capacity of the Aviara Parkway
is 10,000 vehicles per day. The project traffic would represent 2% and 1.5% of the existing traffic
volume and the design capacity respectively. While the increase in traffic from the proposed project may
be slightly noticeable, the street system has been designed and sized to accommodate traffic from the
project and cumulative development in the City of Carlsbad. The proposed project would not, therefore,
cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system. The impacts from the proposed project are, therefore, less than significant.
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by
the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
Less Than Significant Impact - SANDAG acting as the County Congestion Management Agency has
designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two
highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The Existing and Buildout
average daily traffic (ADT) and Existing LOS on these designated roads and highways in Carlsbad is:
Existing ADT* Los Buildout ADT*
Rancho Santa Fe Road 15-32 “A-C” 28-43
El Camino Real 21-50 “A-C” 32-65
Palomar Airport Road 10-52 “A-B” 29-77
SR 78 120 “F’ 144
1-5 183-198 ‘D 2 19-249
*The numbers are in thousands of daily trips.
The Congestion Management Program’s (CMP) acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard is “E”, or
LOS “F” if that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (e.g., SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS “F” in 1990).
36 Rev. 07/03/02
Accordingly, all designated roads and highways are currently operating at or better than the acceptable
standard LOS.
Note that the buildout ADT projections are based on the full implementation of the region’s general and
community plans. The project is consistent with the growth projections of the general plan and,
therefore, its traffic was used in modeling the buildout projections. Achievement of the CMP acceptable
Level of Service (LOS) “Ey standard assumes implementation of the adopted CMP strategies. Based on
the design capacity(ies) of the designated roads and highways and implementation of the CMP strategies,
they will function at acceptable level(s) of service in the short-term and at buildout.
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or
a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
No Impact - The proposed residential project does not include any aviation components. The project
site is located within the McClellan-Palomar Airport influence area, however, it does not conflict with
any provision of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the McClellan-Palomar Airport. It would not,
therefore, result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No impact
assessed.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses?
No Impact - All circulation improvements associated with residential development of the site will be
designed and constructed to City standards; and, therefore, would not result in design hazards. The
residential subdivision is consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses. Therefore, it would not
increase hazards due to an incompatible use. No impact assessed.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No Impact -
Departments.
The project is designed to satis@ the emergency requirements of the Fire and Police
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
No Impact - Future residential single family structures constructed on the proposed single family lots
will be required to comply with the City’s parking requirements to ensure an adequate parking supply.
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)?
No Impact - The residential project will be designed with sidewalks, and it will be served by an existing
street system that currently has sidewalks and bus service. Therefore, the project does not conflict with
adopted policies or programs supporting alternative transportation.
UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant
environmental effects?
No Impact (a & b) - The project site is located within Local Facilities Management Zone (LFMZ) 20
which is served by the Encina wastewater treatment facility. Wastewater treatment capacity has been
37 Rev. 07/03/02
planned to accommodate the projected growth of Zone 20. Because the project will not exceed the total
growth projections anticipated within LFMZ 20, wastewater treament capacity will be adequate to serve
residential development on the site. Therefore, the project will not result in substantial adverse impacts
to or result in the need for additional wastewater treatment facilities.
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand
in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
No Impact (c, d & e) - All public facilities, including water facilities and drainage facilities, have been
planned and designed to accommodate the growth projections for the City at build-out. The proposed
residential land use will not result in growth that exceeds the City’s growth projections. Therefore, the
proposed land use and zone change will not result in a significant need to expand or construct new water
facilitiedsupplies, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage facilities.
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s
solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact (f & g) - Existing waste disposal services contracted by the City of Carlsbad are adequate to
serve the proposed 14 lot residential subdivision without exceeding landfill capacities. Future residential
development resulting from the proposed land subdivision will be required to comply with all federal,
state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated - The project will not degrade the quality of the physical
environment in that although it will disturb .24 acre of sensitive CSS habitat which is listed as a
threatened species under the Federal Endangered Species Act, mitigation will be required. Mitigation
consists of revegetating .5 acre of CSS onsite within a previously disturbed area adjacent to native
habitat, and prior to any grading activity, direct surveys to locate active gnatcatcher nests must be
conducted by a qualified biologist. Should nests be present, no grading or removal of habitat may take
place within 200 feet of active nesting sites during the nestinghreeding season from mid February
through mid July. A Federal diminimis “take” permit issued by the USFWS is required for this very
minor area prior to grading.
There are no historic structures on the site and there are no known cultural resources on the site. A
paleontological monitor is required to monitor the grading operation in accordance with CEQA
38 Rev. 07/03/02
Guidelines. Therefore, the project will not result in the elimination of any important examples of
California prehistory.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?)
Less than Significant Impact - San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projects regional
growth for the greater San Diego area, and local general plan land use policies are incorporated into
SANDAG projections. Based upon those projections, region-wide standards, including storm water
quality control, air quality standards, habitat conservation, congestion management standards, etc, are
established to reduce the cumulative impacts of development in the region. All of the City’s
development standards and regulations are consistent with the region-wide standards. The City’s
standards and regulations, including grading standards, water quality and drainage standards, traffic
standards, habitat and cultural resource protection regulations, and public facility standards, ensure that
development within the City will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact.
There are two regional issues that development within the City of Carlsbad has the potential to have a
cumulatively considerable impact on. As
discussed above, the proposed land use and zone change will result in future residential development,
which would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions
throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with a future residential
development would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with a residential
development of the site, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the residential
development is implemented. Therefore, the impact is assessed as less than significant.
Those issues are air quality and regional circulation.
Also, as discussed above, the County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) has designated three
roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in
Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The CMA has determined, based on the City’s
growth projections in the General Plan, that these designated roadways will function at acceptable levels
of service in the short-term and at build-out. The project is consistent with the City’s growth projections,
and therefore, the cumulative impact from the project to the regional circulation system is less than
significant.
With regard to any other potential impact associated with the project, City standards and regulations will
ensure that future residential development on the site will not result in a significant cumulative
considerable impact.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated - Development of the site will comply with
City development standards designed to avoid substantial adverse environmental effects to residents.
The project site is located in an area where human beings could be exposed to 60 - 65 dBA CNEL noise
levels generated by the airport. As discussed above, City standards require: 1) the recordation of
avigation easements and notification to future residents who may be exposed to noise levels in the 60 -
65 dBA CNEL range; and 2) interior noise levels to be mitigated to the 45 dBA CNEL standard. The
project will be conditioned to require an avigation easement and notices, and mitigation measures to
reduce interior noise levels will be incorporated into future residential units. Any future residential
development on the site will be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, regional and City
regulations, which will ensure the development of the site will not result in an adverse impact on human
beings, either directly or indirectly.
39 Rev. 07/03/02
EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad
Planning Department located at 163 5 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Final Master Environmental ImDact ReDort for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MER
93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994.
Carlsbad General Plan, September 6, 1994.
City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Maminp; Study, November 1992.“
“BCS Property Field Survey and Noise Assessment, Carlsbad, CA” dated May 5, 2000, prepared
by Investigative Science and Engineering, and “Acoustical Evaluation Study - BCS Emerald
Point Estates” dated April 24, 1998, Ogden Environmental and Energy Services.
“Biological Impact Assessment of the BCS Property, Carlsbad, CA, dated December 22, 1999,
prepared by Anita M. Hayworth, Biological Consultant and updated by Letter dated October 30,
2002.
“Update Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation - Proposed Emerald Pointe Estates
BCS Property” dated April 30,2002, Geotechnical Exploration, Inc.
“Emerald Pointe Estates - BCS Site (Preliminary Hydrology Report)” dated April 17, 2002,
prepared by Hunsaker & Associates.
Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Plan”.
“Draft Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad” dated
Apri1,1999.
“Cultural Resource Survey for the Emerald Pointe Estates Project, Carlsbad, California” dated
July 1998, prepared by Kyle Consulting.
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES
1.
2.
3.
4.
The developer shall revegetate with coastal sage scrub habitat .5 acre previously disturbed by
agriculture on the BCS parcel within the proposed habitat comdor. Prior to the issuance of a grading
permit, all necessary agency permits shall be issued and a revegetation plan shall be approved by the
USFWS, CDFG, and City of Carlsbad.
To mitigate potential disturbances to the California gnatcatcher resulting from grading activities,
prior to the commencement of grading activities, direct surveys to locate active gnatcatcher nests
shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. If nests are present, no grading or removal of habitat may
take place within 200 feet of active nesting sites during the nestinghreeding season (mid-February
through mid-July).
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall submit proof that interior noise levels
will not exceed 45 dBA CNEL for all units when openings to the exterior are open or closed. If
openings are required to be closed to meet the interior noise standard, then mechanical ventilation
shall be provided.
Prior to any grading of the project site:
40 Rev. 07/03/02
a. A paleontologist shall be retained to perform a walkover survey of the site and to review
the grading plans to determine if the proposed grading will impacct fossil resources. A
copy of the paleontologist's report shall be provided to the Planning Director prior to
issuance of a grading permit;
b. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of the site
and to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the fossils present in
the geologic strata, it may be necessary to collect matrix samples for laboratory
processing through fine screens. The paleontologist shall make periodic reports to the
Planning Director during the grading process;
c. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area' of an exposed
fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage artifacts;
d. 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;
e. Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading activities of the
project shall be resolved by the Planning Director and City Engineer.
41 ' Rev. 07/03/02
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date
42 Rev. Q7IQ3102