Loading...
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.