HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-03-01; Planning Commission; Resolution 60331 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6033
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
4 AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM FOR A ZONE CHANGE TO CHANGE THE
CITYWIDE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM RESIDENTIAL
6 AGRICULTURAL (R-A 10,000) TO RESIDENTIAL DENSITY-
MULTIPLE ZONE (RD-M), AND A TENTATIVE TRACT
7 MAP, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO GRADE AND SUBDIVIDE A
8 2.79 ACRE SITE INTO 14 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 3 OPEN
SPACE/RECREATION/PRIVATE DRIVEWAY LOTS ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE
10 OF DONNA DRIVE AND NORTH OF CARLSBAD VILLAGE
DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
11 CASE NAME: TRAILS END
CASE NO.: ZC 04-10/CT 04-14/HDP 04-07/PUD 04-10
13 WHEREAS, Dennis Cunningham, "Developer," has filed a verified application
14 with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Chris Coseo, "Owner," described as
Portion of lot 7 of Section 32, Township 11 South, Range 4
West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to official
17 plat thereof
18 ("the Property"); and
19 WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with
20 said project; and
21
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 1st day of March 2006, hold a
22
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
24 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
25 and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
27 relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
28
1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
2
Commission as follows:
3
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.4
- B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative
6 Declaration, Exhibit "ND," according to Exhibits "NOI" dated November 28,
2005, and "PII" dated November 21, 2005, attached hereto and made a part
1 hereof, based on the following findings:
8 Findings;
9 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
10
A. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration
11 TRAILS END - ZC 04-10/CT 04-14/HDP 04-07/PUD 04-10, the environmental
impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the project; and
13
B. the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with
14 requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines
and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and15 3
,,- C. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
17
D. based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
18 the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Conditions;
20 1. The applicant shall implement or cause the implementation of the Trails End Mitigation
21 Monitoring and Reporting Program.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PC RESO NO. 6033 -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 March 2006, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Cardosa, Dominguez,
and Whitton
NOES: Commissioner Baker
ABSENT: Commissioner Heineman and Segall
ABSTAIN:
MARTELL B. MONTPGOMER^^hairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
DONNEU
Assistant Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 6033 -3-
City of Carlsba j
Planning Department
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME:
CASE NO:
PROJECT LOCATION:
Trails End
ZC 04-10. CT 04-14. PUD 04-12. HDP 04-07
APN: 156-090-41. West of Donna Drive "and north of Carlsbad
Village Drive
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Project consists of a Zone Change, Tentative Tract Map, Planned
Unit Development, and Hillside Development Permit to allow the development of fourteen (14)
twin homes on a 2.79-acre site.
PROPOSED DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental
review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of
Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially
significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made
by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are
released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly
no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in
light of the whole record before the City that the project "as revised" may have a significant
effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be recommended
for adoption by the City of Carlsbad City Council.
A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad,
California 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to
the Planning Department within 20 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 Jessica Galloway in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4631.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD November 28. 2005 -December 18. 2005
PUBLISH DATE November 28. 2005
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-460O • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART n
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: ZC 04-10 / CT 04-14 / PUD 04-12 / HDP 04-07
DATE: November 21. 2005
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Trails End
2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: Citv of Carlsbad
3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Jessica Galloway. 760-602-4631
4. PROJECT LOCATION: APN 156-090-41 - West of Donna Drive and north of Carlsbad Village
Drive
5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: Dennis Cunningham. 6469 Camino del
Parque Carlsbad. CA 92009 • : '
6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Medium (RM)
7. ZONING: Residential Agricultural Zone - (R-A 10.000")
8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing
approval or participation agreements): N/A
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
The applicant is proposing a Zone Change. Tentative Tract Map. Planned Development Permit.
and a Hillside Development Permit to develop fourteen (14) twin homes on a 2.79 acre site,
located west of Donna Drive and north of Carlsbad Village Drive. The applicant is proposing a
zone change from Residential Agricultural (R-A 10.000) to Residential Density-Multiple Zone
(RD-M). which is in accordance with the existing General Plan land use designation of
Residential Medium (RM). The proposed tentative map (CT 04-14) will divide the parcel into 17
lots. Lots 1-14 are residential twin home lots, and lots 15-17 include the private driveway,
community area, and open space which will be maintained and owned by the Home Owners
Association. Impacts to Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub include 1.10 acres for the proposed
development. These impacts meet the terms set by the HMP regarding CSS. The impacts will be
Rev. 07/03/02
mitigated per the Carlsbad HMP. The project site is surrounded by residential and Carlsbad
Village Drive to the south.
Rev. 07/03/02
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked belo.w 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.
I | Aesthetics
|__J Agricultural Resources
[~~| Air Quality
|XJ Biological Resources
[~J Cultural Resources
I | Geology/Soils Noise
] Hazards/Hazardous Materials d Population and Housing
J Hydrology/Water Quality | | Public Services
I I Land Use and Planning
I I Mineral Resources
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
| I Recreation
I I Transportation/Circulation
|_J Utilities & Service Systems
Rev. 07/03/02
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
D
D
I I
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 hi 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 hi 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 hi 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
Planning Director's Signature Date
Rev. 07/03/02
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article ^."Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental
Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental
Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical,
biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information
to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or
to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
• A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported
by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to
projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source
document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
• "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not
significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies.
• "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact."
The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
• "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly
adverse.
• Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the
environment, but all 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 J-
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. _
Rev. 07/03/02
• 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 beeri discussed or
mitigated in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation
measures that reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding
Considerations" for 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 II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect,
or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a
level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing
mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant.
Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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?
II. 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?
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?
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless
Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
D
D
n n
n
n n
n
Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian,
aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations or by California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filing, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally
sensitive?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant- No
Impact Impact
d' n n
n
n D
n D
D
n
n n n
a
a
a
Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi-
cance of an archeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi-
cal resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
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:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
o? 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?
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
D
n
n n
Q
n
n
n
n
n IEI nn n IEI
D
n
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:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
environment?
e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
n
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
n n
n
n
IE!
IE!
D
n
n
n
n n
n n n
10 Rfiv. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with ground water recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local ground water table
level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
c) 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?
f) 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?
g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
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?
j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface
waters.
m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals,
pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics,
nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash)
into receiving surface waters or other alteration of
receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant . No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
D D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D D
n
n
Q D
D
n n
n
n
n
n
Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or
wetland waters) during or following construction?
o) 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?
IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
s
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?
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?
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?
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
n n
n
n
n
n n
n
n
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
n
n
n
n
n
n
12 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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?
XII. 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
a) Would the project result hi substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered government facilities, a
need for new or physically altered government
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i) Fire protection? ,
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
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 No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
n
n
D
n
n
a
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
13 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:
a) 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)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level
of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads
or highways?
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?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in insufficient parking capacity?
g) 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:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which would
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could ' cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
D D
D
D D
n a
a a
D n
a
a a
14 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
D D D
n n
D
n
n
n n n
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?
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?
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?
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
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
15Q63(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.
n n
15 Rev. 07/03/02
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
AESTHETICS
No Impact. The project is subject to the site design, and architectural standards contained in City Council Policy
44 regarding neighborhood architectural design and City-Council Policy 66 regarding livable neighborhoods, which
are designed to reduce visual impacts.
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
No Impact. There will be no impacts on agricultural resources due to the proposed project as the site is not
designated as or used as farmland. The subject site is zoned for single-family Residential (Rl-10,000) and is not
subject to Williamson Act Contract. The project would not result in other changes to the environment that would
result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. The project would be characterized as infill
development and has been surrounded by residential development for many years.
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 (O3), and a state non-attainment area for paniculate 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 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?
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
16 , Rev. 07/03/02
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 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 15130 (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, 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.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES—Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated (a, b and f). The following table summarizes the impacts
to vegetation types as documented in the Biological Resources Assessment prepared for the project (Planning
Systems, 2005).
17 Rev. 07/03/02
POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO EXISTING HABITAT TYPES AND LAND COVERS (ACRES)
HABITAT
Non-Native Grassland
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub
(unoccupied)
Eucalyptus Woodland
Ornamental
Disturbed
TOTAL
EXISTING ACREAGE*
0.64
1.10
.69
.22
0.1
2.75
IMPACTS FROM PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT (ACRES)
0.64
1.10
.69
.22
0.1
2.75 -
Acreage may not total exactly due to rounding.
Sensitive Plants and Wildlife Species
No sensitive plant or animal species were detected during site surveys. The only sensitive vegetation resource
observed on site is the 1.10 acres of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (DCSS). No California gnatcatchers (Polioptila
californica califomica) (CAGN) were observed during the course of the general wildlife surveys and therefore no
focused surveys were conducted. CAGN are not expected to occur on-site site because the site is surrounded by
urban development, DCSS area size is well below the typical territory size of CAGN, and the subject edge effects
and the presence of urban predators compromise the quality of the habitat. The wildlife surveys identified or
observed signs of twenty avian species, two reptilian, and ten mammal specie's. None of the species observed are
considered sensitive or listed as endangered or threatened by state or federal resource agencies. No records of
endangered or threatened species on or immediately adjacent to the property are identified in the Carlsbad HMP.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION REQUIREMENT (ACRES)
HABITAT
Non-Native
Grassland
Diegan Coastal
Sage Scrub
Eucalyptus
Woodland
Disturbed and
ornamental
EXISTING
ACREAGE*
0.64
1.10
.69
0.32
IMPACTS FROM
PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT
(ACRES)
0.64
1.10
.69
0.32
MITIGATION FEE RATIO
0.5:1
1:1
1:1
1:1
MITIGATION
REQUIREMENT
(ACRES)
.32
1.10
.69
.32
Mitigation Measures or Requirements
The project site is not located in an identified HMP preserve area. The project site is an infill site with no sensitive
plant or wildlife species. Therefore, the project will be conditioned to pay habitat in-lieu mitigation fees according
to the ratios~established by the HMP as mitigation for project impacts to non-native grassland, Diegan Coastal Sage
Scrub, Eucalyptus woodland, and disturbed and ornamental habitats. The fee will be paid prior to recordation of a
final map, or issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first. 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, with the incorporation of the mitigation measure, no potentially significant impacts to above
identified biological resources will occur.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
18 Rev. 07/03/02
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive?
No Impact (c, d, e, and g). The biological resource assessment provides a focused, current and detailed project
level analysis of site-specific biological impacts and provides refined project level mitigation measures.
Please see "Biological Resources Assessment for APN # 156-090-41 Carlsbad, California" prepared by Planning
Systems, dated June 10, 2005 (Planning Systems, 2005).
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES—Would the project:
No Impact (a-d). The project site does not appear on the City of Carlsbad Cultural Resources Map and the list of
archeological sites prepared by San Diego State University, 1987. The subject site is undeveloped, yet is disturbed
and is an urbanized infill site, which is surrounded by residential development, and there will be no impacts on
cultural resources. There are no known historical, archeological, paleontological, or human remains on the project
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:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
No Impact. The "Geotechnical Grading Plan review, Trails End Development, Northwest Corner of the
Intersection of Donna Drive and Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California" (Geosoils, 2005)
found that by following standard and accepted soil preparation techniques, the site is suitable for the project
proposed, and would not expose people or structures to fault ruptures, liquefaction or landslides.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact - There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zones within the City of Carlsbad
and there is no other evidence of active or potentially active faults within the City. However, there are several active
faults throughout Southern California, and these potential earthquakes could affect Carlsbad. The project site is
located in an area of generally stable soil conditions and the risk of seimic-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 Investigation was prepared by Geosoils Incorporated, dated August 29,
2005. The report states that strong seismic ground shaking is a potential that affects all construction in this region of
California. It is understood that the same building code standards, which ensure the relative safety of all new
residential construction, will be applied to the units constructed pursuant to the proposed tentative map.
iii. „ Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
No Impact. The above referenced geotechnical study found that by following standard and accepted soil
preparation techniques, the site is suitable for the proposed project, and would not expose people or structures to
fault ruptures, liquefaction or landslides. The site has natural stable slopes and according to the City of Carlsbad
Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992, the project site is in an area of stable soil
conditions that are not subject to landslides. All new slopes will not exceed a 2:1 steepness. Also, according to the
soils report, the existing and proposed slopes will have a surficial safety factor of 1.5 or greater. Graded slopes will
be properly landscaped and irrigated. Groundwater is not expected to be a major factor in the development of the
site. However, seepage and/or perched groundwater conditions may develop throughout the site along boundaries of
contrasting permeabilities and should be anticipated during and after development. Such occurances can be rectified
as they appear with the advice and monitoring of a soils engineer.
19 •• Rev. 07/03/02
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less Than Significant Impact -The site is underlain by colluvium/top soil, and Quaternary-age Terrace Deposits:
In addition, as described in the soil report, artificial fill was found in one of the test pits. This fill, as well as
topsoil/colluvium and Quartenary-age terrace deposits within planned grading limits should be removed and
replaced as compacted fill prior to placing additional fill and/or structural improvements. The project's compliance
with standards in the City's Excavation and Grading Ordinance that prevent erosion through slope planting and
installation of temporary erosion control means will avoid substantial soil erosion impacts.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction,
or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
No Impact (c and d). Significant geologic hazards were not observed or are known to exist on the site that could
adversely impact proposed development. The site has natural stable slopes and according to the City of Carlsbad
Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992, the project site is in an area of stable soil
conditions that are not subject to landslides. Expansive soils composed of clay and silt are found within the
Quartenary-age terrace deposits. The soils report recommends removal of these soils where structures will be placed
and replacing with suitable soil.
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?
No Impact. The proposed project does not propose septic tanks and will utilize the public sewer system. Therefore,
there will be no impacts involving soils that support the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems.
Reference "Geotechnical Grading Plan review, Trails End Development, Northwest Comer of the Intersection of
Donna Drive and Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California" prepared by Geosoils
Incorporated, revised August 29, 2005.
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS—Would the project:
a-h) No Impact The proposed residential development does not propose any transportation or storage of
hazardous materials. The site is not listed as a hazardous materials site. The site is consistent with the
McClellan Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
VII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY—Would the project:
a-p) No Impact. The proposed project will include the water quality infrastructure as required by the City of
Carlsbad. All drainage will be directed to an onsite precast concrete modular storm water detention system.
Drainage currently sheet flows over natural slopes in a southwesterly direction. The proposed detention system will
store drainage such that post-development flows off-site do not exceed existing flows during a 10 year or 100 year
storm event. Stored water within the detention system that does not percolate into the ground will be released
through an-orifice, sized to control the flow to predevelopment levels, before entering the westerly open space
property. Pollutants from street and roof runoff will be treated via grass swales or strips before entering the
detention system. All onsite storm drains are designed to accept a 100-year storm event. As a result, there will be no
impact to water quality, site erosion, pollutant discharge, or drainage from the site as it may affect adjacent
properties and existing stormwater infrastructure.
Please reference the Drainage Study and the Stormwater Management Plan prepared by Tait Consulting, Inc., dated
September 2005.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING—Would the project:
a) No Impact. The project is a residential development consistent with the surrounding uses. The site does not
physically divide an established community.
20 , Rev. 07/03/02
b-c) No Impact. The proposed project does not conflict with any existing or proposed land use plans or policies
of the City of Carlsbad. The project is consistent with the City of Carlsbad General Plan. The General Plan
land use designation is Residential Medium (RM), which anticipates medium density residential development
(4 to 8 du/ac). The project is providing 14 dwelling units that will yield 5.88 du/ac, within the anticipated
range. The project includes a Zone Change from Residential Agriculture Zone (R-A 10,000) to Residential
Density Multiple Zone (RD-M). A zone change is required to bring this project in compliance with the
General Plan land use designation of RM. The project would not be able to develop consistent with the as a
R-A-10,000 Zone and still achieve the minimum density required by the RM land use classification (4 du/ac).
The project does not conflict with any applicable plans or policies.
X. MINERAL RESOURCES—Would the project:
a-b) No Impact. There is no indication that the subject property contains any known mineral resources that would
be of future value to the region or the residents of the State.
XI. NOISE—Would the project:
a) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The "Acoustical Analysis Report, Trails End
Subdivision Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA, Project #A40326N2", by Eilar Associates Acoustical and
Environmental Consulting (2005) reported that the traffic noise levels from Carlsbad Village Drive in the year
2020 will exceed the City's 60-dBA CNEL noise threshold for all units within the proposed development
having a line of sight to Carlsbad Village Drive (Lots 2-6); therefore, these lots will require mitigation. The
proposed ground level mitigation plan consists of a six-foot-high sound attenuation barrier along the
southeastern property line fronting Carlsbad Village Drive. Prior to approval of building plans, Lots 2 -6 will
require supplemental acoustical analysis of the exterior building design elements to ensure adequate noise
attenuation to achieve noise levels below 45 CNEL in habitable residential space.
b & d) Less than Significant Impact. The anticipated grading operation associated with the proposed tentative
map would result in a temporary and minor increase in groundbome vibration and ambient noise levels.
Following the conclusion of the grading, the ambient noise level and vibrations is expected to return to pre-
existing levels.
c) No Impact. The ambient noise levels on site were found to be consistent with the observed setting and
intervening topography.
e & I) No Impact. The project is not within the 60 dBA CNEL influence area of McClellan-Palomar Airport. The
above acoustical assessment states that no aircraft noise mitigation would be required for this project.
Please reference the "Acoustical Analysis Report, Trails End Subdivision Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA,
Project #A40326N2", prepared by Eilar Associates Acoustical and Environmental Consulting, dated June 29, 2005.
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING—Would, the project:
a) No Impact. The area surrounding the proposed development is designated for residential development and
was analyzed in the City's Growth Management Plan accordingly. The proposed development's density by
the tentative map is consistent with the City of Carlsbad General Plan. The GP land use designation is RM,
whiclj anticipates medium density residential development (4 to 8 du/ac). The project is providing 14
dwelling units that will yield 5.88 du/ac, within the anticipated range. No major infrastructure facilities are
proposed for extension to serve the project.
b-c) No Impact. The project site is currently vacant therefore ho existing housing or people will require
replacement housing elsewhere due to the development of the site.
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES—Would the project:
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:
21 • Rev. 07/03/02
a. Fire Protection?
b. Police Protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks?
e. Other public facilities?
No Impact. The proposed project is in compliance with the City of Carlsbad's Growth Management Plan and is not
exceeding the population projections anticipated for the site or the northwest quadrant.
VTV. RECREATION —Would the project:
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?
No Impact. The proposed project will not generate use that would substantially cause physical deterioratioa_to a
regional or existing neighborhood park. In addition, the project is providing two common recreation areas. The
central common recreation area is 3,794 square feet including a 1,000 square foot tot-lot. The second common area
is 3,710 square foot passive recreation area.
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?
No Impact. The grading and construction of the proposed common recreation areas are developed within the scope
of project grading and will not have an adverse effect on the environment.
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. The project will generate 112 Average Daily Trips (ADT) and 9 morning and 11
afternoon/evening peak hour trips. This traffic will utilize the following arterial roadway: Carlsbad Village Drive.
Per the latest data, existing traffic on this arterial is 12,400 ADT (2002) and the 2002 peak hour level of service at
the arterial intersection(s) impacted by the project is "A". The design capacities of the arterial roads effected by the
proposed project is 20,000 to 40,000 vehicles per day. The project traffic would represent 0.9 % and 0.28 % of the
existing traffic volume and the design capacity respectively. While the increase in traffic from the proposed project
may be slightly noticeable, the street system has been designed and sized to accommodate traffic from the project
and cumulative development in the City of Carlsbad. The proposed project would not, therefore, cause an increase
in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. The impacts from
the proposed project are, therefore, less than significant.
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
Less Than Significant Impact. SANDAG acting as the County Congestion Management Agency has designated
three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad
as part of the regional circulation system. The Existing and Buildout average daily traffic (ADT) and Existing LOS
on these designated roads and highways in Carlsbad is:
Existing ADT* LOS Buildout ADT*
Rancho Santa Fe Road 17-35 "A-D" 35-56
El Camino Real 27-49, "A-C" 33-62
Palomar Airport Road 10-57 "A-D" 30-73
SR78 124-142 "F" 156-180
1-5 199-216 "D" 260-272
*The numbers are in thousands of daily trips.
22 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 capacities of the designated roads and
highways and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at acceptable levels 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) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)?
No Impact The project has access to bus stops along Carlsbad Village Drive which can be accessed by pedestrians.
The proposed project does not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation.
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS—Would the project:
No Impact (a-g) - The proposed project development will be required to comply with all Regional Water Quality
Control Board Requirements. In addition, the Zone 1 LFMP anticipated that the project site would be developed
with residential uses thus wastewater treatment facilities were planned and designed to accommodate future
development on the site. All public facilities, including water facilities, wastewater facilities, wastewater treatment
facilities and drainage facilities, have been planned and designed to accommodate the growth projections for the
City at build-out. The proposed project will increase the demand for these facilities. However, the proposed project
would not result in an overall increase in the City's growth projection. Therefore, the project will not result in
development that will result in a significant need to expand or construct new water facilities/supplies, wastewater
treatment or storm water drainage facilities.
Existing waste disposal services are adequate to serve the proposed subdivision on site without exceeding landfill
capacity. In addition, the proposed development will be required to comply with all federal, state, and local statues
and regulations related to solid waste.
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
23 , Rev. 07/03/02
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range or
rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California or prehistory?
No Impact. The proposed project will not degrade the quality of the environment. The project site does not contain
any sensitive fish or wildlife species. Therefore, the project will not reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species.
The project site is currently undeveloped and 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.
The project will not threaten the number of 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 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
standard, 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 described above, the project would
contribute to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described
above, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the development is implemented.
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 had determined, based on the City's growth projectipns 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 impacts from the project to the regional circulation
system are less than significant.
With regard to any other potential impacts associated with the project, City standards and regulations will ensure
that development of the site will not result in any significant cumulatively considerable impacts.
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.
24 Rev. 07/03/02
EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning
Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008.
1. Acoustical Analysis Report. Trails End Subdivision Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA, Project
#A40326N2", prepared by Eilar Associates Acoustical and Environmental Consulting, dated June 29,2005.
2. Biological Resources Assessment for APN # 156-090-41 Carlsbad, California prepared by Planning
Systems, dated June 10,2005 (Planning Systems 2005).
3. City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study. November 1992.
4. City of Carlsbad Cultural Resources Map and the list of archeological sites prepared by San Diego State
University, 1987.
5. Drainage Study and the Stormwater Management Plan prepared by Tait Consulting, Inc., dated September
2005.
6. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01).
City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994.
7. Geotechnical Grading Plan Review. Trails End Development, Northwest Corner of the Intersection of
Donna Drive and Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California" prepared by Geosoils
Incorporated, revised August 29, 2005.
25 Rev. 07/03/02
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1. Prior to recordation of a final map or issuance of grading permit, whichever occurs fist, the project shall
pay habitat in-lieu mitigation fees according to the ratios and amounts established by the Habitat
Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad.
IN-LIEU MITIGATION REQUIREMENT (ACRES)
HABITAT
Non-Native
Grassland
Diegan Coastal
Sage Scrub (un-
occupied)
Eucalyptus
Woodland
Disturbed and
ornamental
EXISTING
ACREAGE*
0.64
1.10
.69
0.32
IMPACTS FROM
PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT
(ACRES)
0.64
1.10
.69
0.32
MITIGATION FEE RATIO
0.5:1
1:1
1:1
1:1
MITIGATION
REQUIREMENT
(ACRES)
' .32
1.10
.69
.32
NOISE
2. The proposed project shall construct, as shown on the grading plan, a six-foot-high solid, decorative
masonry sound attenuation barrier along the southeastern property line fronting Carlsbad Village Drive.
3. Prior to the issuance of building permits Lots 2-6 will required to complete and submit a supplemental
acoustical analysis of the exterior building design elements to ensure adequate noise attenuation to achieve
noise levels below 45 CNEL in habitable residential space.
26 Rev. 07/03/02
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR
WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
27 ,. Rev. 07/03/02
1
PROJECT NAME: Trails End FILE NUMBERS: ZC 04-10. CT 04-14. PUD 04-12. HDP 04-07
APPROVAL DATE: December 11. 2005
The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate
identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that
this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly
Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6).
mz
55o
smz
Mitigation Measure
Prior to recordation of a final map or issuance of
grading permit, whichever occurs first, the project shall
pay habitat in-lieu mitigation fees according to the
ratios and amounts established by the Habitat
Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City
of Carlsbad. (See EIA Part II for ZC 04-10)
The proposed project shall construct, as shown on the
grading plan, a six-foot-high, solid, decorative masonry
sound attenuation barrier along the southeastern
property line fronting Carlsbad Village Drive.
Prior to issuance of building permits Lots 2-6 will
required to complete and submit a supplemental
acoustical analysis of the exterior building design
elements to ensure adequate noise attenuation to
achieve noise levels below 45 CNEL in habitable
residential space.
Monitoring
Type
Project
Project
Project
Monitoring
Department
Planning
Department
Planning
Department
Planning
Department
Shown on
Plans
Yes
Yes
Verified
Implementation Remarks
Io
so
o2
ooxmo
u(0(D
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular
mitigation measure.
information.
Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be
initialed and dated.
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented,
this column will be initialed and dated.
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other
RD - Appendix P.