HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-02-02; Planning Commission; Resolution 58281
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. 5828
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO CHANGE
THE CITYWIDE ZONING AND LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM ZONING DESIGNATIONS FROM LIMITED
A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO GRADE AND SUBDIVIDE A
5.09 ACRE SITE INTO 16 RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF
BLACK RAIL ROAD, SOUTH OF SONGBIRD AVENUE AND
NORTH OF OCEAN CREST AVENUE IN THE MELLO I1
SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 20.
CASE NAME: YAMAMOTO SUBDIVISION
CONTROL (L-C) TO ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) AND,
CASE NO.: ZC 04-0 1 /LCPA 04-02/CT 04-0 1/CDP 04-0 1
WHEREAS, William Gustafson, “Developer,” has filed a verified application
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
The south half of the northwest quarter of the northwest
quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 27, T12S, R4W,
SBBM, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 2nd day of February 2005,
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 Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
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
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit
“ND” dated December 6,2004, according to Exhibits “NOI” dated December 6,
2004, and “PII” dated November 30, 2004, attached hereto and made a part
hereof, based on the following findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered Negative Declaration, YAMAMOTO
SUBDIVISION - ZC 04-01LCPA 04-02KT 04-01KDP 04-01 the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments
thereon prior to RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the project; and
b. the Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
d. based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Conditions:
Note:
1.
...
...
...
Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to issuance of
grading permit or approval of a final map, whichever occurs first.
Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnifl, protect, defend and hold
harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and
representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims
and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the City arising, directly
or indirectly, from (a) City’s approval and issuance of this Negative Declaration, and (b)
City’s approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-
discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein. This obligation survives
until all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the City’s approval
is not validated.
PC RES0 NO. 5828 -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
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these feedexactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified feedexactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any feedexactions of which you have previously been given a
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2nd day of February 2005, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez
Heineman, Montgomery and Whitton
NOES:
ABSENT:
AB AIN: 2553 JEFFRE N. SEGALL; Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
DON NEU
Assistant Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5828 -3-
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME: Yamamoto Subdivision
PROJECT LOCATION:
CASE NO: ZC 04-0 1/ LCPA 04-02/ CT 04-0 1 /CDP 04-0 1
The Southeast corner of Black Rail Rd and Songbird Avenue (APN 215-
040-05)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The subject site is 5.04 acres in size and is located at the southeast comer
of Black Rail Road and Songbird Avenue. The proposed project includes a Zone Change (ZC 04-01) and a
Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 04-02) to rezone the subject site from Limited Control (L-C) to
One-Family Residential (R-1) zone. The application also includes a Tentative Tract Map (CT 04-01) and a
Coastal Development Permit (CDP 04-01) to subdivide and grade the subject site into 16 residential lots
with a minimum area of 7,500 square feet. The site is currently vacant and is surrounded by residential
development to the north, south and east and a vacant property to the west.
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 (EM Part 2) did not identi@ any potentially significant impacts on the
environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows:
IXI
0
0
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment.
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).
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 fbrther is required.
A copy of the initial study (EM Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is
on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008.
ADOPTED: , pursuant to
ATTEST:
DON NEU
Assistant Planning Director
@ 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
- City of Carlsbad
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME: Y amamoto Subdivision
PROJECT LOCATION:
CASE NO: ZC 04-01/ LCPA 04-021 CT 04-01/CDP 04-0 1
The Southeast comer of Black Rail Rd and Songbird Avenue (A€” 215-
040-05)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The subject site is 5.04 acres in size and is located at the southeast comer
of Black Rail Road and Songbird Avenue. The proposed project includes a Zone Change (ZC 04-01) and
a Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 04-02) to rezone the subject site from Limited Control (L-
C) to One-Family Residential (R-1) zone. The application also includes a Tentative Tract Map (CT 04-
01) and a Coastal Development Permit (CDP 04-01) to subdivide and grade the subject site into 16
residential lots with a minimum area of 7,500 square feet. The site is currently vacant and is surrounded
by residential development to the north, south and east and a vacant property to the west.
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 Negative Declaration will
be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad City Council.
A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed 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 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 Saima Qureshy in the Planning
Department at (760) 602-4619.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD DECEMBER 6.2004 TO JANUARY 5.2005
PUBLISH DATE DECEMBER 6,2004
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 - (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us 49
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
CASE NO: ZC 04-01/ LCPA 04-02/ CT 04-01/CDP 04-01
DATE: November 30,2004
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
CASE NAME: YAMAMOTO SUBDIVISION
LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NLJh4BER Saima Oureshv (760) 602-461 9
PROJECT LOCATION: The Southeast corner of Black Rail Rd and Songbird Avenue (APN:
PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: William Gustafson, 1465 E. Mountain Drive,
Santa Barbara, CA 93 108
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Low-Medium (0-4 du/ac)
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 subiect site is 5.04 acres in size and is located at the southeast comer of Black Rail Road and
Songbird Avenue. The proposed moiect includes a Zone Chancre (ZC 04-01) and a Local Coastal
Program Amendment (LCPA 04-02) to rezone the subiect site from Limited Control (L-C) to
One-Family Residential (R-1) zone. The application also includes a Tentative Tract Map (CT 04-
01) and a Coastal Development Permit (CDP 04-01) to subdivide and made the subject site into
16 residential lots with a minimum area of 7.500 square feet. The site is currently vacant and is
surrounded by residential development to the north, south and east and a vacant property to the
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 0 GeologylSoils Noise
Agricultural Resources
0 Air Quality 0 Hydrology/Water Quality Public Services
Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Recreation
0 Cultural Resources 0 Mineral Resources TransportatiodCirculation
c] Utilities & Service Systems 0 Mandatory Findings of
Significance
2 Rev. 07/03/02
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
IXI
0
I?
0
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have
been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have “potentially significant impact(s)” on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis
as described on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects
that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required.
Planner Signature Date
3 Rev. Ql/Q3/Q2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental
Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental
Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical,
biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information
to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or
to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
0 A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported
by an mformation source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to
projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source
document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
0 “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not
significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies.
0 “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Sipficant Impact.”
The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
0 “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly
adverse.
0 Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the
environment, but potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier
EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a
supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental
document is required.
0 When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR
if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable
standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made
pursuant to that earlier EIR.
0 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.
0 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
e 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 “Skitement of Overriding
Considerations” for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3)
proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the
EIA-Part 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) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
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?
d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
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-1 997 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?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
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?
III. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied
upon to make the following determinations.) Would the
project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Significant
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
Unless Less Than
0 OIxI
0 OB
0 om
0 om
0 IXIO
6 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project regon 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?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by California Department of Fish and
Game or US. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian,
aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations or by California Department
of Fish and Game or 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
0
0
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
0
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
cl
Less Than Significant
Impact
[x1
0
cl
0
0
0
0
No
Impact
0
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
1x1
[x1
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
§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:
1.
ii.
... 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 - l-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
Potentially Significant Impact
I7
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
[XI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
8 Rev. 07/03/02
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 with 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
0
0
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
,u
0
0
0
cl
El
Less Than Significant Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
I8
No
Impact
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
[XI
[XI
IXI
151
[XI
0
9 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with ground water recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local ground water table
level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level 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 within 1 00-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
cl
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than
Significanl Impact
0
IXI
!XI
[XI
€XI
0
0
0
0
IXI
IXI
10 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact
n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or
wetland waters) during or following construction? 0
0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired
water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section
303(d) list?
0 0
p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater
receiving water quality objectives or degradation of
beneficial uses?
0
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? 0
0 0 b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
0 c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan? 0 Ixl
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 0 0
IXI
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?
IXI
XI. NOISE - Would the project result in:
0 0 0 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
I7
0 U [XI b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise
levels?
0 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?
11 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
0 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 levels?
0 f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
ON
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) 0 0 OB 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 mfrastructure)?
o 0 OB b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
0 0 ow c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
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? 0 I7 nw
ii) Police protection? 0 0 ow
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
XIV. RECREATION
0
0
0
0
0 0
a) Would the project increase the use of existing 0 0 OB neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
12 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project:
Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level
of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads
or highways?
Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Result in inadequate emergency access?
Result in insufficient parking capacity?
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn-
outs, bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the
project:
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which would
cause significant environmental effects?
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?
Potentially
Significant Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
0
17
Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigation [ncorporated
0
0
0
'0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than Significant Impact
0
IXI
IXI
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
0
No Impact
IXI
0
(XI
IXI
Iz
(XI
IXI
(XI
(XI
IXI
(XI
13 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources), Potentially Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
0 0 ow 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?
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs?
OB f)
0 0 OB g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
0 0 0 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?
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 hture projects?)
0 IXIO b)
0 0 OIXI c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
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)(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 fiom the above checklist were withn 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. 07/03/02
The project site is located in an area which is subject to the requirements of the Zone 20 Specific Plan approved by
the City Council in 1994. A program EIR (PEIR) (EIR 90-03) was certified for the Zone 20 Specific Plan. The
Zone 20 PEIR identified, ailalyzed, and recommended mitigation to reduce potential significant impacts to
insignificant levels. The Zone 20 Program EIR 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 project specific analysis a determination has been made that no additional significant
impacts beyond those identified and mitigated by the PEIR will result from this project. The following
environmental evaluation briefly explains the basis for this determination along with identifying 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
AESTHETICS
Less than significant. 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.
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
No Impact. The project site is shown as an area of non-prime apcultural land in the Coastal Agricultural Overlay
Zone of the Local Coastal Program (LCP). The subject site has not been used for agriculture for most of the last
fifty years, with some sporadic agricultural use. The project site has been designated for residential development.
The site is currently vacant and there are no impacts assessed to agricultural resources. The project would not result
in other changes to the environment that would result in the conversion of fannland to non-agricultural uses. The
project would be characterized as infill development and is surrounded by residential development on three sides.
AIR QUALITY-Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a federal and state non-attainment area
for ozone (03), and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter
(PM,,). The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin
(SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothill areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution
controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is
embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District
(APCD) and the San Diego Association of Governments (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 and/or RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that are
incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city’s and the
County’s general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the project
presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that
the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact.
Section 15125(B) of the State of California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific
reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality
management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set
forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California
Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the
following:
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?
16 Rev. 07/03/02
Less Than Significant Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is in the City of
Oceanside. Data available for this monitoring site through April, 2002 indicate that the most recent air quality
violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (one day in both 2000 and 2001) and one day in
2001 for the federal 8-hour average for ozone and one day for the 24-hour state standard for suspended particulates
in 1996. No violations of any other air quality standards have been recorded recently. The project would involve
minimal short-term emissions associated with grading and construction. Such emissions would be minimized
through standard construction measures such as the use of properly tuned equipment and watering the site for dust
control. Long-term emissions associated with travel to and from the project will be minimal. Although air pollutant
emissions would be associated with the project, they would neither result in the violation of any air quality standard
(comprising only an incremental contribution to overall air basin quality readings), nor contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation. Any impact is assessed as less than significant.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Less Than SigniBcant 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)
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.
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
No Impact. The construction of the proposed project could generate fumes from the operation of construction
equipment, which may be considered objectionable by some people. Such exposure would be short-term or
transient. In addition, the number of people exposed to such transient impacts is not considered substantial.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
No Impact. The project site is currently a vacant and previously graded area which was used for agriculture in the
past. The site is surrounded by residential development on three sides. No native vegetation or habitats exist on or
near the property. In addition, no sensitive or endangered species reside or use the property. The City’s Habitat
Management Plan does not identify the site for preservation and no local policies or ordinances exist regarding the
removal of mature non-native trees. Therefore, no adverse impacts to biological resources will occur.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
No Impact. A Cultural Resource Test Report for the subject site was prepared by Gallegos & Associates in July
2004. The report provides the results of a cultural resource test program to determine site significance for cultural
resource SDM-W-2046. Testing included excavation of 11 shovel test pits and one lxl-m unit, artifact analysis and
determination of site significance. Cultural material recovered as a result of the testing program included 7 debitage,
3 ceramic fragments, 5 grams of shell and 0.1 grams of bone. Disturbance at SDM-W-2046 included previous
grading, agriculture and modem trash. Given the low amount and narrow range of cultural material, the absence of features and disturbance, site SDM-W-2046 is identified as not significant under CEQA criteria. No further
archaeological investigations are recommended for this site.
VI. 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:
17 Rev. 07/03/02
1. 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?
Less than Significant Impact (a.i. to a.iii.). There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zones withn the City of
Carlsbad and there is no other evidence of active or potentially active faults withn 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, a project specific Geotechnical Evaluation was prepared by GeoSoils, Inc. dated January 8,
2004. The report states that the potential for liquefaction, earthquake induced settlement and lateral spread are
considered to be low for the site because of the low susceptibility to liquefaction. There are no landslides identified
as having the potential to affect the subject site. As a result, the project would not expose people or structures to
potential adverse effects involving landslides.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion of the loss of topsoil?
Less than Significant Impact. Onsite analysis of soils on the subject site by GeoSoils, Inc., dated January 8, 2004
concludes that the earth materials have a moderate to high erosion potential. Cut and fill slopes resulting from the
grading will be subject to erosion during and after the excavation period. During this grading, the exposure of soils
would lead to an increased chance for the erosion of soils from the site. A significant impact resulting from erosion
could result if the grading does not follow best management practices for the control of erosion, such as straw bale
or sandbag barriers, silt fences, slope roughening, and outlet protection in exposed areas. Per the project description
identified in the Storm Water Management Plan, by MLB Engineering dated January 2004, finished grades will be
hydroseeded or otherwise protected as required per the adopted City Grading Ordinance. If necessary, temporary
slope cover such as jute matting or mulch will be applied to newly graded slopes to reduce the impact of soil erosion
or the loss of topsoil to a level of less than significant. Temporary sediment control basins will also be provided as
necessary in order to control the loss of topsoil.
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?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site consists of relatively dense sandstone earth materials, which have a
low potential for liquefaction. As a result, a significant impact is not anticipated, and no mitigation will be
necessary.
d) 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Geotechnical Evaluation prepared by GeoSoils, Inc., January 8,
2004, the project site’s potential for soil expansion ranges from low to very low. The potential for medium
expansive soils exposed at finish grade cannot be precluded.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wasterwater
disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
No Impact. The project site will utilize existing sewer systems that provide wastewater service in the area.
18 Rev. 07/03/02
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
No Impact. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared for the project site (Planning Systems, January
2004). The report states that the subject site was briefly used for agriculture during the past 50 years and it is
currently fallow agricultural land. There are no overt indicators of agricultural chemical usage onsite such as patchy
vegetation that might suggest high levels of fertilizers in the soil. The report recommends no further measures since
no environmental concerns were discovered during the course of the report. However, the project is required to
implement the mitigation measures identified in the Zone 20 EIR.
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY-Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Less than Significant Impact. The project is required to comply with Order 2001-02 issued by the Regional Water
Quality Control Board. The proposed project will comply with state and local regulations for water quality. The
project will adhere to applicable City of Carlsbad regulations for control of sedimentation and erosion, including the
installation of temporary desiltation basins or other means of stabilization as required by the State Water Resources
Control Board. All exposed graded areas shall be treated with erosion control pursuant to City of Carlsbad erosion
control standards, including hydroseed, berms, desiltation basins, jute matting, sandbags, bladed ditches, or other
appropriate methods. Any subsequent environmental impact on water quality will be considered less than
significant due to adherence to water quality standards and waste discharge requirements.
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 (Le., 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)?
No Impact. The proposed project is not proposing to use any ground water; therefore there will be no impacts to
depletion of any existing aquifer or ground water table level.
c) Impacts to groundwater quality?
No Impact. Implementation of the project will not result in impacts to groundwater quality.
d) 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?
e) 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 storm
water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f)
Less than Significant Impact. A Preliminary Drainage Study was prepared by MLB Engineering, dated January
2004. The report identifies pre and post development runoff quantities and downstream conditions. The report also
identifies measures to reduce the potential of an increase in erosion or siltation downstream.
g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Less than Significant Impact. A Storm Water Management Plan was prepared by MLB Engineering, dated
January 2004. This report identifies potential pollutants of concern and methods to treat runoff prior to leaving the
site such that the potential to impact downstream water quality is minimized to the maximum extent probable.
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. There are no FEMA 100-year flood hazard areas identified on the project site.
19 Rev. 07/03/02
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?
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? k)
No Impact. The project is not located within any significant drainage area, is not located downstream of any dam,
and thus will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding.
Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters?
Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic
organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other
alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following
construction?
Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section
303(d) list?
The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or
degradation of beneficial uses?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project and grading will follow best mbagernent practices for erosion
control. The Best Management Practices for the project have been identified in the Storm Water Management Plan
prepared by MLB Engineering dated January 6, 2004. This SMWP indicates that finished grades will be promptly
hydroseeded or otherwise protected as required per the adopted City Grading Ordinance. If necessary, temporary
slope cover such as jute matting or mulch will be applied to newly graded slopes to reduce the impact to soil erosion
or the loss of topsoil to a level of less than significant. Discharge points will not be changed and gravel check dams
will be placed to attenuate the flow velocities. Additionally, hay bales and silt fences will be utilized during
construction for the temporary control of surface water and the subsequent loss of topsoil.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING
No Impact. The subject site is a previously graded, infill site which is surrounded by single-family residential
development to the east, north and south and a vacant property to the west. Proposed grading and subdivision to
create 16 single family residential lots will be compatible with and will integrate into the existing community.
X. MINERAL RESOURCES
No Impact. There are no known mineral resources, of local importance or otherwise, on the project site. Therefore,
the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of such resources.
XI. 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?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise
levels?
No Impact - Based upon the nature of the proposed residential use, the project will not result in any activity that
would generate excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels. In addition, the project site is not
located adjacent to any use that generates excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels.
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
20 Rev. 07/03/02
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
Less than Significant Impact (c & d) - Other than traffic generated noise, typical grading/ subdivision/ residential
land uses do not generate a substantial amount of noise. With regard to temporary or periodic increase in noise
levels, the only potential increase in noise would be from construction activity associated with the development of
the project. The City incorporates standard regulations on all project construction activity to ensure that noise and
other potential impacts to surrounding properties are not significant. Therefore, the proposed project will not result
in a substantial permanent or temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact (e & f) - The project site is not located within an area covered by an airport land use plan or an area
where such a plan has not been adopted. The project site is located approximately 5,000 feet south of the
McClellan-Palomar Airport (public general aviation airport). The project site is not located within any flight, crash,
or safety hazard zones associated with the airport. Therefore, the project will not result in a safety hazard for people
residing on the project site.
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
No Impact. The project would result in the grading and subdivision of the subject site into 16 single family
residential lots. The subject site is an infill site surrounded by existing residential development that is served by
existing roads and utilities and therefore, the project would not induce substantial growth either directly or
indirectly. The project is proposed on vacant land and would not displace any existing housing or individuals.
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFC-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 160 Average Daily Trips (ADT). 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 17-35 “A-D” 35-56
El Camino Real 27-49 “A-C” 33-62
Palomar Airport Road 10-57 ‘‘A-D” 30-73
SR 78 124-142 “F’ 156-180
260-272 1-5 199-2 16 “D”
*The numbers are in thousands of daily trips.
21 Rev. 07/03/02
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 not located within the
boundaries 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.
4 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) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)?
No Impact. The proposed project does not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation.
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?
No Impact. The proposed project will not degrade the quality of the environment. The project site does not contain
any fish or wildlife species. Therefore, the project will not reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species.
The project site is a vacant, previously graded, infill site whch is surrounded by existing residential development.
The site is not identified by any habitat conservation plan as containing a protected, rare or endangered plant or
animal community. Therefore, the project will not threaten a plant or animal community.
In addition, there are no historic structures on the site and there are no known cultural resources on the site. The
project will not result in the elimination of any important examples of California History or prehistory.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
22 Rev. 07/03/02
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. Those issues are air quality and regional circulation. As discussed above, the project
would contribute to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As
described above, however, emissions associated with the residential development would be minimal. Given the
limited emissions potentially associated with the 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
15130 (a)(4), the project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed
as less than significant.
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
the proposed development of the site will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
No Impact. Based upon the residential nature of the project and the fact that future development of the site will
comply with all City standards, the project will not result in any direct or indirect substantial adverse environmental
effects on human beings. 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.
EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
The following documents were used in the analysis of thls 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.
Final Promam Environmental Impact Report for the Zone 20 Specific Plan proiect, Carlsbad, California,
(EIR 90-03), City of Carlsbad, CA, June 1992 (SCH 90010134).
Preliminarv Geotechnical Evaluation, Yamamoto Property, APN 2 15-040-05. City of Carlsbad, San Diego
County, Geosoils, Inc, January 8,2004.
Storm Water Management Plan for Yamamoto Property Tentative MaD, Michael L. Benesh, RCE 37893,
January 6,2004.
Drainage Studv. Tentative Map CT 04- . Yamamoto Property, Michael L. Benesh, RCE 37893, January 6,
2004.
Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment. Yamamoto Propem. Black Rail Road. Carlsbad. CA 92009. AI”
2 15-040-05, Planning Systems, January 2004.
Cultural Resources Test Report for the Yamamoto Property: Site SDM-W-2046 Carlsbad. California,
Gallegos & Associates, July 2004.
Citv of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992.
23 Rev. 07/03/02