Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-09-01; Planning Commission; Resolution 57181 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. 5718 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, A LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT, AND A ZONE CHANGE TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM RLM, TO RLM AND OS AND TO CHANGE THE CITYWIDE ZONING AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM ZONING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, AND A HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO SUBDIVIDE AND GRADE A 5.64 ACRE SITE INTO 16 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 2 OPEN SPACE LOTS, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF BLACK RAIL ROAD, SOUTH OF POINSETTIA LANE IN THE MELLO I1 SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 20. CASE NAME: TABATA RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION DESIGNATION FROM L-C, TO R-1 AND OS, AND A DEMOLISH AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY HOME AND CASE NO.: GPA 04-13/LCPA 03-07/ZC 03-05/CT 03-06/ CDP 03-24/HDP 04-02 WHEREAS, Noboru & Evelyn Tabata and Isokazu Tabata, “Developer/Owner,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as A portion of the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 22, T12S, R4W, SBBM, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 1st day of September 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 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 considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Exhibit “ND” according to “NOI” dated June 21,2004 and “PII” dated May 20,2004, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findinm : 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: a. b. C. d. Conditions: it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration for 05/CT 03-06/CDP 03-24/HDP 04-02, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and TABATA RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION - GPA 04-13LCPA 03-07/ZC 03- the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. 1. The Developer shall implement or cause the implementation of the Tabata Residential Subdivision Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. ... ... ... PC RES0 NO. 5718 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of September 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, and Segall NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Cardosa ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5718 -3- - City of Carlsbad MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: TABATA RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION PROJECTLOCATION: Generally located on the east side of Black Rail Road, south of CASE NO: GPA 04-13LCPA 03-07/ZC 03-05/CT 03-06/CDP 03-24/HDP 04-02 Poinsettia Lane, Citv of Carlsbad, County of San Diego PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for approval of a General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Map, Coastal Development Permit, and Hillside Development Permit to demolish an existing single-family home and subdivide and grade a 5.64 acre site into 16 residential lots and two open space lots. 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) did not identify any potentially significant impacts on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows: Although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. 0 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. (Negative Declaration applies only to the effects that remained to be addressed). c] 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 @) 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 fbrther 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 19,2004, pursuant to Citv Council Resolution No. 2004-338 ATTEST: & -y& MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director @ 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: TABATA RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION CASE NO: ZC 03-05/GPA 04-13/LCPA 03-07/CT 03-06/ CDP 03-24MDP 04-02 PROJECT LOCATION: The eastside of Black Rail Road, south of Poinsettia Lane PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for approval of a Zone Change, General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Tentative Map, Coastal Development Permit, and Hillside Development Permit to demolish an existing single-family home and subdivide and grade a 5.64 acre site into 16 residential lots and two open space lots 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 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission. A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration are on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of the date of this notice. The proposed project and Mitigated Negative Declaration are subject to review and approval/adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council. Additional public notices will be issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Gary T. Barberio in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4606. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD JUNE 2 1,2004 TO JULY 21,2004 PUBLISH DATE JUNE 21,2004 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 0 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 wwvt. i car1 Yaanuar y S’B%IoF. us @ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 CASE NO: ZC 03-O5/GPA 04-13 LCPA 03-07/CT 03-06/CDP 03-24/HDP 04-02 DATE: May 20,2004 BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. CASE NAME: TABATA RESIDENTIAL SUBDJYISION LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Gary T. Barberio (760) 602-4606 PROJECT LOCATION: The eastside of Black Rail Road, south of Poinsettia Lane PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: Noboru &.Evelyn Tabata and Isokazu Tabata, c/o Greg Harrinpton, P.O. Box 679, Carlsbad, CA 92008 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Low-Medium Densitv (0 - 4 dwelling units per gross acre) ZONING: Limited Control (L-C) OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): California Coastal Commission (For LCPA) PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: The project site is 5.64 acres in size and is located on the eastside of Black Rail Road, south of Poinsettia Lane and immediately adiacent to the Twin “D” Reservoirs site. The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment (GPA 04-13), a Zone Change (ZC 03-05), and a Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 03-07) to change the General Plan land use designation from Residential Low-Medium Density (XM) to Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM) and Open Space (OS), and change the zoning designation from Limited Control (LC) to One-Family Residential Zone (R-1) and Open Space (OS). The application also includes a Tentative Tract Map (CT 03-06), a Coastal Development Permit (CDP 03-24), and a Hillside Development Permit (HDP 04-02) to demolish an existing single-family home and subdivide and grade the 5.64 acre site into 16 residential lots and two open space lots. The site is currently developed with one single-family home and an agricultural field crop operation with a roadside sales stand. Surrounding development includes the City of Carlsbad Twin “D” Reservoirs and future single- family homes (Redeemer by the Sea residential lots) to the north, single-family residential development to the south, oDen space (Aviara Master Plan) and single-family homes to the east, and sinsle-family residential development to the west. 1 Rev. 07/03/02 ENVIRONMENTAL, FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 0 Aesthetics Ix] Geology/Soils Noise 0 Population and Housing 0 Agricultural Resources Ix] HazardslHazardous Materials Air Quality 0 HydrologyNater Quality 0 Public Services Ix] Biological Resources 0 Land Use and Planning 0 Recreation 0 Cultural Resources Mineral Resources 0 TransportatiodCirculation 0 Utilities & Service Systems Ix] Mandatory Findings of Significance 2 Rev. 07/03102 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) I find that the proposed project CO JLD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, anl NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. a 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 impactts)” 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. Date ’ PI er S’ nature 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 llke 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 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but a 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 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. 4 Rev. 07/03/02 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 Overridmg Considerations” for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the EIA-Part I1 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). Potentially Significant Impact I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) b) 0 0 0 0 Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? c) 11. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - (In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model- 1997 prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would 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? 0 0 b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 0 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? 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) 0 0 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Potentially Significant Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact Unless Less Than 0 0 0 ow om 0 ow 0 0 0 0 ow OB om mo 6 Rev. Q7IQ3lQ2 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 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? 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? Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 !XI lxl 0 El 0 0 Less Than significant Impact Kl 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 No Impact 0 [XI lxl 0 0 !XI El !XI El El 7 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the project: Cause a Substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? Cause a Substantial adverse change in the signifi- cance of an archeological resource pursuant to 4 15064.5? Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi- cal resource or site or unique geologic feature? Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: Expose people or structures to potential Substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. 11. ... 111. iv . Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other Substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Strong seismic ground shaking? Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Landslides? Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating Substantial risks to life or property? Potentially Significani Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El 0 Potentially Significant Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact Unless Less Than 0 0 0 0151 la0 0 ow 0 I7 0 0 la 0 no OB 8 Rev. 07103lQ2 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment? For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact Unless Less Than om IXI on I71 OH 0 0 0 0 0 lxl 0 OH OIXI 17151 9 Rev. OlIQ3lO2 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level 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? Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? Place withm 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. 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)? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 -0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Impact IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI Kl [XI IXI !XI IXI IXI 10 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated 0 0 0 Less Than Significant No Impact Impact ow n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? ow 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? 0 0 ow IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 0 0 ow om b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 0 0 ow c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. 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? 0 0 ow 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? 0 0 ow XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: 0 !XI no a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? 0 ow b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? 0 0 ow c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 0 ow 11 Rev. 07103102 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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 worlung in the project area to excessive noise levels? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or worlung in the project area to excessive noise levels? XI. 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)? 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? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES 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 whch 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? XIV. 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? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact 0 IXI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Impact 17 151 IXI IXI 5 12 Rev. 07l03102 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 0 0 OB b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 0 0 0 0 Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 0 0 Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 0 0 0 ow Result in insufficient parlung capacity? OH OB Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn- outs, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: 0 0 0 ow OB Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? 0 0 0 OIXI 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? Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 0 0 13 * Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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 addtion to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XW. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumula- tively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 [XI 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 No Impact [XI [XI lxl 0 lxl [XI Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a> Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 14 Rev. Oll03102 Earlier analysis of thxs proposed residential project has been completed through the General Plan Update (GPA 94- 01) and related Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR 93-01). The MEIR is cited as source #1 in the source list included in this document. This proposal is consistent with the applicable portions of the General Plan and is considered a project that was described in MEIR 93-01 as within its scope. All feasible mitigation measures identified in MEIR 93-01 which are appropriate to this project have been incorporated into the project. The project site is also located in an area which is subject to the requirements of the Zone 20 Specific Plan approved by City Council in 1994. A program EIR (PEIR) (EIR 90-03) was certified for the Zone 20 Specific Plan. The Zone 20 PEIR identified, analyzed, and recommended mitigation to reduce potential significant impacts to insignificant levels. The Zone 20 PEIR analyzed potential impacts to agriculture, air quality, biology, circulation, land use, noise, pesticide residue, paleontology, public facilities financing, soils/geology, and visual aesthetics that could result from the development of the Specific Plan area. The PEIR is intended to be used in the review of subsequent projects within Zone 20. The project incorporates the required Zone 20 PEIR mitigation measures, and through the analysis of the required additional biological resources, cultural resources, geotechnical, Phase 1 Environmental, hydrology, and noise studies a determination has been made that no additional significant impacts beyond those identified and mitigated by the PER will result from th~s project. The following environmental evaluation briefly explains the basis for this determination along with identifjmg the source documents that support the environmental determination. The Zone 20 PEIR and additional technical studies are cited as source documents for this environmental evaluation. 15 Rev. 07/03/02 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. AESTHETICS - Less Than Significant Impact - The project is subject to the site design, architectural, and landscaping standards contained in the Zone 20 Specific Plan and the City of Carlsbad Policy 66 regarding livable neighborhoods, which are designed to reduce visual impacts. n. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - Less Than Significant Impact - The project site is shown as an area of non-prime agricultural land in the Coastal Agricultural Overlay Zone of the Local Coastal Program (LCP). The project site has been designated for residential development and agricultural uses are allowed as interim uses and conversion of the property from agricultural to urban development shall be permitted subject to mitigation measures as specified in the LCP, Policy 2-1. Mitigation measures were adopted with the EIR for the Zone 20 Specific Plan to mitigate the impacts to a level of insignificance and these mitigation measures will be included as conditions of approval for this project. 111. AIR QUALITY-Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a federal and state non-attainment area for ozone (03), and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PMIo). The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothill areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 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 15125(B) of the State of California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the following: 0 Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area? Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan? The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is being implemented. The project is consistent with the growth assumptions of the City’s General Plan and the RAQS. Therefore, the project is consistent with the regional air quality plan and will in no way conflict or obstruct implementation of the regional plan. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is in the City of Oceanside. Data available for this monitoring site through April, 2002 indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (one day in both 2000 and 2001) and one day in 2001 for the federal 8-hour average for ozone and one day for the 24-hour state standard for suspended particulates 16 Rev. 07/03/02 in 1996. No violations of any other air quality standards have been recorded recently. The project would involve minimal short-term emissions associated with grading and construction. Such emissions would be minimized through standard construction measures such as the use of properly tuned equipment and watering the site for dust control. Long-term emissions associated with travel to and from the project will be minimal. Although air pollutant emissions would be associated with the project, they would neither result in the violation of any air quality standard (comprising only an incremental contribution to overall air basin quality readings), nor contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less Than Significant Impact. The Air Basin is currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine particulates. The proposed project would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with the proposed project would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the proposed project, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15 130 (a)(4), the proposed project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No Impact. As noted above, the proposed project would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or concentrations. In addition, there are no sensitive receptors (e.g., schools or hospitals) located in the vicinity of the project. No impact is assessed. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact. The construction of the proposed project could generate fumes from the operation of construction equipment, whch 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. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated - A Report of Biological Resources Survey was completed for the proposed project (Vincent N. Scheidt, October, 2003). The report identified that most of the project site habitat (5.6 acres of the 5.64 acre project site) could be classified as Extensive Agriculture - Row Crops or Disturbed Habitat. A small (1,834 square feet or .04 acres), narrow strip of the property at the lowest portion of the eastern slope and property line was classified as Southern Maritime Chaparral (SMC) habitat. The project has been designed to avoid the entire .04-acre SMC habitat and to preserve the area in an open space habitat lot. In addition, the eastern slope above the SMC habitat is proposed to be reconstructed as a naturalized, variable slope (2: 1 to 3: 1) and revegetated with indigenous, native plant species in order to prevent invasivehoxious species form invading the SMC habitat. The project design and the incorporation of the above mitigation measures, together with the implementation of the additional mitigation measures identified in the Report, reduce the impacts to a level of insignificance. The project shall incorporate all mitigation measures identified in the Report of Biological Resources Survey completed for the proposed project (Vincent N. Scheidt, October, 2003). V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Less Than Significant Impact - A Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation was completed for the proposed project (Brian F. Smith and Associates, August 28, 2003). The archaeological survey and institutional records search identified cultural resources both within and near the project. A portion of one archaeological site, SDI-6819, is located within the proposed project site. The investigation of Site SDI-6819 revealed a sparse shell and fiie-affected rock scatter with no associated artifacts. In a broader perspective, the various records for SDI-6819 that encompass the entire resource indicate that the site was a temporary camp. However, the portion of the site on this project represents only the southern fringe of the site. Due to the lack of artifacts and the sparse nature of the shell scatter, the research potential oY this site has been exhausted with the current investigation. Based on the information derived from the testing program, Site SDI-6819 within the proposed project site has been determined to not be a significant resource as defined by CEQA (Section 15064.5) and the City of Carlsbad Cultural Resource Guidelines. No further archaeological investigations are recommended for this site. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated - A Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report was prepared for the project site (Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc., May 22, 2003). Based upon the investigations, development of the project site as proposed is feasible. Much of the project 17 Rev. 07103/02 site is underlain by dense and stable Terrace Deposits which are mantled by a thin section of loose to soft sandy to clayey filL'topsoils. However, the eastern slope of the project site is underlain by thick undocumented fill deposits placed over original canyon terrain in an over-steepened slope condition. This existing over-steepened loose fill slope is potentially unstable and can undergo deep and surficial failures. The Report is recommending that the slope should be removed and reconstructed as a properly compacted fill slope in accordance with the requirements outlined within the Report. Implementation of the geotechnical mitigation measures identified in the Report will reduce the impacts to a level of insignificance. The project shall incorporate all mitigation measures identified in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared for the project site (Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc., May 22,2003). VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated - A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared for the project site (Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc. May 14, 2003). Two areas of the site registered contaminate concentrations which exceed the recommended remediation goal of the EPA for soil in a residential setting. It is estimated that 1,000 cubic yards of soil are impacted with elevated levels of pesticides. It is recommended that the pesticide affected areas be excavated to a depth of one foot below the surface and be incorporated into the fill material utilized as a part of the re-compaction of the eastern slope of the project site. Burial and placement of the approximately 1,000 cubic yards of soil should be placed a minimum of 5 feet below planned utility trenches, five feet inside of the proposed face of slope, and ten feet below the surface to eliminate any potential for human exposure. It is hrther recommended that a qualified engineering professional be present upon removal of pesticide-impacted soil to collect two representative soil samples for laboratory analysis to confirm adequate removal of contaminated soil. Implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment will reduce the identified impacts to a level of insignificance and these mitigation measures shall be included as conditions of approval for th~s project. XI. NOISE - Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated - An Acoustical Site Assessment was completed for the project site (Investigative Science and Engineering, Inc., June 30, 2003). The project site is in close proximity to Poinsettia Lane and is subject to roadway noise at or below the 60 dBA CNEL threshold established by the Noise Guidelines Manual, City of Carlsbad. Exterior noise mitigation in the form of noise attenuation walls is not required to attenuate the noise from the roadway. However, the project site would have second-story noise exposure levels exceeding the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24 noise abatement threshold. To mitigate this impact to a level of insignificance the Acoustical Site Assessment recommends that the proposed project should complete an interior noise analysis compliant with the CCR, Title 24, Noise Insulation Standards, prior to the issuance of building permits to demonstrate that the proposed architectural design would limit interior noise to 45 dBA CNEL or less. In addition, prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall prepare and record a notice that the property may be subject to noise impacts from Poinsettia Lane. The project site is also located approximately 5,000 feet south of the Palomar Airport and is subject to over flight. The noise from aircraft is below 60 dBA CNEL. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall prepare and record a notice that the property is subject to over flight, sight, and sound of aircraft from Palomar Airport. These noise mitigation measures shall be included as conditions of approval for this project. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC-Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? Less Than Significant Impact. A Traffic Impact Analysis was completed for the proposed project (Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers, May 1,2003). The project will generate 160 Average Daily Trips (ADT) and 16 peak hour trips. Whle 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) congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard estabIished by the county 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: 18 Rev. 07103102 Existing ADT* LOs Buildout ADT* Rancho Santa Fe Road 15-32 “A-C” 28-43 El Camino Real Palomar Auport Road SR 78 1-5 21-50 “A-C” 32-65 10-52 ‘‘A-B” 29-77 120 “F” 144 183-198 “D” 219-249 *The numbers are in thousands of daily trips. The Congestion Management Program’s (CMP) acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard is “E”, or LOS “F” if that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (e.g., SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS “F” in 1990). Accordingly, all designated roads and highways 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 proposed project is consistent with the general plan and, therefore, its traffic was used in modeling the buildout projections. Achievement of the CMP acceptable Level of Service (LOS) “E” standard assumes implementation of the adopted CMP strategies. Based on the design capacity(ies) 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 project does not include any aviation components. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the McClellan-Palomar Airport. It would not, therefore, result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No impact assessed. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses? No Impact. All project circulation improvements will be designed and constructed to City standards; and, therefore, would not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the City’s general plan and zoning. Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use. No impact assessed. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and Police Departments. No impact assessed. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. The proposed project is not requesting a parking variance. Additionally, the project would comply with the City’s parking requirements to ensure an adequate parking supply. No impact assessed. g) turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)? Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus No Impact. The project is in an area conducive to public transportation, being in close proximity to Poinsettia Lane, a major circulation element roadway. No impact is assessed. 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? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated, RESOURCES and Section V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. See discussion under Section IV. BIOLOGICAL b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? 19 Rev. 07103102 No Impact. The proposed project has no impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Impact. The proposed project has no environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 11 12 Final Master Environmental Impact Reaort for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994. Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Zone 20 Specific Plan project, Carlsbad, California, (EIR 90-03), City of Carlsbad, CA, June 1992 (SCH 90010134). Acoustical Site Assessment, Tabata Tentative Map - Carlsbad, CA. Investigative Science and Engineering, Inc., June 30,2003. Report of a Biological Resources Survey for the Tabata Black Rail Road Proiect, Vincent N. Scheidt, October, 2003. A Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation for the Black Rail Project, City of Carlsbad, Brian F. Smith and Associates, August 28, 2003. Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation. Black Rail Road, Vinge & Middleton Engineering, Inc., May 22, 2003. Preliminary Hydrology Calculations Pre and Post Development Hydrology Study, Black Rail Road, Pasco Engineering, Inc., May 27, 2003. Tentative Map Hydrology Study for Tabata - Black Rail Road, Pasco Engineering, Inc., Revised Date February 6, 2004. Runoff Control Plan Preliminary Hydrology Calculations Pre and Post Develoament Hydrology Study, Black Rail Road, Pasco Engineering, Inc., October 7,2003. . Modified Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, Tabata Proper@, Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc., May 14,2003. . Traffic Impact Analysis, Black Rail Subdivision, Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers, May 1, 2003. . Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for Tabata - Black Rail Road, Pasco Engineering, Inc., Revised February 10,2004. 20 Rev. 07/03/02 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES -The project approval shall be conditioned to provide mitigation, consistent with Policy 2-l(3) of the City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, Mello I1 Segment, for the conversion of non-prime coastal agricultural lands. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The project approval shall be conditioned as follows: -Temporary habitat protection fencing shall be installed to protect the SMC habitat during grading and construction. A sturdy chain-link fence shall be placed between the habitat and the bottom of the eastern slope. The lower four feet of the fence shall be blocked with ‘/4 inch or thicker plywood sheeting to prevent materials from spilling down the slope into the habitat area. A City-approved biologist shall establish the limits of the SMC habitat in the field prior to grading and the biologist shall verify in writing that the habitat protection fence has been appropriately placed and is adequately functioning during site grading. -Once grading and construction is completed, the temporary fence shall be removed and a permanent fence, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, shall be placed at the top of slope or in an approved location above the sensitive habitat. -The landscape plan shall utilize only indigenous, native species on the reconstructed eastern slope in order to prevent invasive/noxious species from invading the sensitive habitat. All project landscaping west of the eastern slope area shall be fklly compatible with native chaparral vegetation. No invasive/noxious species shall be allowed within the project’s plant palette. The landscape plan plant palette shall be reviewed by the project biologist and the project biologist shall certify in writing, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, that the plant palette is appropriate and meets this standard prior to approval of the landscape plan by the City. -All project lighting shall be directed away from and shall be shielded from the eastern slope area to prevent light pollution on the sensitive habitat. -Surface drainage from development-related hardscape surfaces shall be processed onsite, and no discharge of materials (other than clean water) shall be directed into the sensitive habitat area. -Construction noise that could affect migratory songbirds and other species associated with the sensitive habitat area shall be avoided. In order to ensure compliance, grading shall be avoided during the bird-breeding season, defined as between 1 March and 15 August of each year. This restriction can be waived by the City of Carlsbad, with concurrence from the Wildlife Agencies (USF&W, CDF&G), upon completion of a nesting bird survey. If a nesting bird survey is not completed, or if the survey is positive, ‘presence” will be assumed, and appropriate noise restrictions or seasonal restrictions shall be required. GEOLOGY AND SOILS The project approval shall be conditioned as follows: -The eastern slope shall be removed and reconstructed as a properly compacted fill slope in accordance with the requirements outlined within the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report (Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc., May 22, 2003). All other geotechnical mitigation measures identified in the Report shall be incorporated into the final, approved project design. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS The project approval shall be conditioned as follows: -The pesticide-impacted areas identified in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc., May 14, 2003) shall be excavated to a depth of one foot below the surface and be incorporated into the fill material utilized as a part of the re-compaction of the eastern slope of the project site. Burial and placement of the approximately 1,000 cubic yards of soil should be placed a minimum of 5 feet below planned utility trenches, five feet inside of the proposed face of slope, and ten feet below the surface to eliminate any 21 Rev. 07/03/02 potential for human exposure. A qualified engineering professional shall be present upon removal of pesticide- impacted soil to collect two representative soil samples for laboratory analysis to confirm adequate removal of contaminated soil. . NOISE The project approval shall be conditioned as follows: -The project shall complete an interior noise analysis, compliant with the CCR, Title 24, Noise Insulation Standards, prior to the issuance of building permits for future homes to demonstrate that the proposed architectural design would limit interior noise to 45 dBA CNEL or less. -Prior to the recordation of the Final Map, the developer shall prepare and record a notice that this property may be subject to noise impacts from Poinsettia Lane, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney. -Prior to the recordation of the Final Map, the developer shall prepare and record a notice that this property is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating from McClellan-Palomar Airport, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney. 22 Rev. 07103102 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 23 Rev. 07103102 I PROJECT NAME: Tabata Residential Subdivision FILE NUMBERS: ZC 03-05/GPA 04-13ILCPA 03-07/CT 03- OG/CDP 03-24/HDP 04-02 APPROVAL DATE: JClick Here1 The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 31 80 (Public Resources Code Section 21 081.6). Mitigation Measure 1. Theproject approval shall be conditioned to provide mitigation, consistent with Policy 2-l(3) of the City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, Mello II Segment, for the conversion of non-primecoastal agricultural lands. 2. Temporary habitat protection fencing shall be installed to protect the SMC habitat during grading and construction. A sturdy chain-link fence shall be placed between the habitat and the bottom of the eastern slope. The lower four feet of the fence shall be blocked with '/4 inch or thicker plywood sheeting to prevent materials from spilling down the slope into the habitat area. A City-approved biologist shall establish the limits of the SMC habitat in the field prior to grading and the biologist shall verify in writing that the habitat protection fence has been appropriately placed and is adequately functioning during site grading. 3. Once grading and construction is completed, the temporary fence shall be removed and a permanent fence, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, shall be placed at the top of slope or in an approved location above the sensitive habitat. Monitoring Type Project Project Project Monitoring Department Planning Planning Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks Explanation of Headinqs: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. information. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other this column will be initialed and dated. RD - Appendix P. 2 Mitigation Measure . 4. The landscape plan shall utilize only indigenous, native species on the reconstructed eastern slope in order to prevent invasivehoxious species from invading the sensitive habitat. All project landscaping west of the eastern slope area shall be fully compatible with native chaparral vegetation. No invasivehoxious species shall be allowed within the project’s plant palette. The landscape plan plant palette shall be reviewed by the project biologist and the project biologist shall certify in writing, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, that the plant palette is appropriate and meets this standard prior to approval of the IandscaPe rslan bv the Citv. 5. All project lighting shall be directed away from and shall be shielded from the eastern slope area to rsrevent liaht Dollution on the sensitive habitat. 6. Surface drainage from development-related hardscape surfaces shall be processed onsite, and no discharge of materials (other than clean water) shall be directed into the sensitive habitat area. Explanation of Headinus: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulafive. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. information. Shown on Plans =When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Monitoring Type Project Project Project Monitoring Department Planning Planning Planning Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other this column will be initialed and dated. RD - Appendix P. 3 Mitigation Measure 7. Construction noise that could affect migratory songbirds and other species associated with the sensitive habitat area shall be avoided. In order to ensure compliance, grading shall be avoided during the bird-breeding season, defined as between 1 March and 15 August of each year. This restriction can be waived by the City of Carlsbad, with concurrence from the Wildlife Agencies (USF&W, CDF&G), upon completion of a nesting bird survey. If a nesting bird survey is not completed, or if the survey is positive, “presence” will be assumed, and appropriate noise restrictions or seasonal restrictions shall be required. 8. The eastern slope shall be removed and reconstructed as a properly compacted fill slope in accordance with the requirements out1 ined with in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report (Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc., May 22, 2003). All other geotechnical mitigation measures identified in the Report shall be incorporated into the final, approved project design. Explanation of Headinqs: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. information. Shown on Plans =When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Monitoring Type Project Project Monitoring Department Planning Planning Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other this column will be initialed and dated. RD - Appendix P. 4 Mitigation Measure ll 9. The pesticide-impacted areas identified in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc., May 14, 2003) shall be excavated to a depth of one foot below the surface and be incorporated into the fill material utilized as a part of the re-compaction of the eastern slope of the project site. Burial and placement of the approximately 1,000 cubic yards of soil should be placed a minimum of 5 feet below planned utility trenches, five feet inside of the proposed face of slope, and ten feet below the surface to eliminate any potential for human exposure. A qualified engineering professional shall be present upon removal of pesticide-impacted soil to collect two representative soil samples for laboratory analysis to confirm adeauate removal of contaminated soil. 10. The project shall complete an interior noise analysis, compliant with the CCR, Title 24, Noise Insulation Standards, prior to the issuance of building permits for future homes to demonstrate that the proposed architectural design would limit interior noise to 45 dBA CNEL or less. 11. Prior to the recordation of the Final Map, the developer shall prepare and record a notice that this property may be subject to noise impacts from Poinsettia Lane, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney. Monitoring Type Project Project Project Monitoring Department Planning Planning Planning Shown on Plans Verified Implementation ~~ Remarks Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other this column will be initialed and dated. information. Shown on Plans =When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. RD - Appendix P. Monitoring Type Project Mitigation Measure 12. Prior to the recordation of the Final Map, the developer shall prepare and record a notice that this property is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating from McClellan-Palomar Airport, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney. . Exolanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. information. Shown on Plans =When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks Monitoring Shown on Verified Department Plans Implementation Planning Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other this column will be initialed and dated. RD - Appendix P. 0 I 0 x rn I- - v) -I ..