Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-04-05; Planning Commission; Resolution 60541 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6054 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 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT, AND ZONE CHANGE 6 TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FROM 7 RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM (RM, 4-8 DU/AC) TO RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM-HIGH (RMH, 8-15 DU/AC) AND OPEN SPACE (OS), 8 AND TO CHANGE THE CITYWIDE ZONING AND LOCAL o COASTAL PROGRAM ZONING DESIGNATIONS FROM LIMITED CONTROL (L-C) TO RESIDENTIAL DENSITY- 10 MULTIPLE WITH A QUALIFIED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (RD-M-Q) AND OPEN SPACE (OS), AND A 11 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, COASTAL 12 DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, AND 13 SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO SUBDIVIDE AND GRADE A 14.4 ACRE SITE INTO 2 RESIDENTIAL LOTS FOR 53 14 CONDOMINIUM UNITS, 1 DRIVEWAY LOT, AND 1 OPEN SPACE LOT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON 15 THE WEST SIDE OF EL CAMINO REAL AND NORTH OF 16 DOVE LANE WITHIN THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND LOCAL FACILITIES 17 MANAGEMENT ZONE 21. CASE NAME: LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER 18 TOWNHOMES CASE NO.: GPA 04-10/LCPA 04-09/ZC 04-06/CT 04-08/ 19 SDP 04-05/HDP 04-04/CDP 04-17/CP 04-037 20 SUP 04-07 21 WHEREAS, Marker La Costa LLC, "Developer," has filed a verified 22 application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Noreen Levatino, "Owner," 23 . .. .described as 24 All that portion of the west half of the northeast Quarter of 25 Section 26, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State 2" of California, being more particularly described in certificate 27 of compliance record June 16,1989 as file No. 89-317343 28 ("the Property"); and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with 2 said project; and 3 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 5th day of April 2006, hold a 4 - duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 5 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony 7 and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and Q considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors 9 relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 10 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning 11 Commission as follows: 13 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 14 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative 1-* Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Exhibit "ND," 16 according to Exhibits "NOI" dated December 8, 2005, and "PII" dated November 30, 2005, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the 17 following findings: 18 Findings; 1Q 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: 20 A. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and 21 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER TOWNHOMES -GPA 04-10, ZC 04-06, LCPA 04-09, CT 04-08, 22 SDP 04-05, HDP 04-04, CDP 04-17, CP 04-03 and SUP 04-07 the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the project; and 24 B. the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting 25 Program has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental 2" Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and 27 C. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of 28 Carlsbad; and PC RESO NO. 6054 -2- D. based on the El A Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Conditions; 1. The applicant shall implement or cause the implementation of the La Costa Village , Center Townhomes Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 6 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning 7 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of April 2006, by the o following vote, to wit: 9 AYES: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, 10 Dominguez, Heineman, Segall, and Whitton 11 NOES: 12 ABSENT: 13 ABSTAIN: 14" 15 16 MARTELL B. MONTG<fMERY, (Mrperson 17 CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 18 n ATTES 20 21 //DO^NEU istant Planning Director 22 '" ~ 23 24 25 26 27 28 PC RESO NO. 6054 -3- City of Carlsbad Planning Department NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: La Costa Village Center Townhomes CASE NO: GPA 04-10. ZC 04-06. LCPA 04-09. CT 04-08. SDP 04-05. HDP 04-04. SUP 04-07. CDP 04-17. and CP 04-03 PROJECT LOCATION: APN: 215-050-73. West Of El Camino Real And North Of Dove Lane PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Project consists of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Local Coastal Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Permit, Hillside Development Permit, Special Use Permit, Coastal Development Permit, and Condominium Permit to approve fifty-three (53) air-space condominiums on a 14.4 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 30 days of the date of this notice. The proposed project and Mitigated Negative Declaration are subject to review and approval/adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council. Additional public notices will be issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Jessica Galloway in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4631. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD December 8. 2005 though January 7. 2006 PUBLISH DATE December 8. 2005 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: GPA 04-10. ZC 04-06. LCPA 04-09. CT 04-08. SDP 04-05. HDP 04-04. SUP 04-07. CDP 04-17. and CP 04-03 DATE: November 30. 2005 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: La Costa Village Center Townhomes 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Jessica Galloway. 760-602-4631 4. PROJECT LOCATION: West of El Camino Real and north of Dove Lane 5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: Marker La Costa. LLC. 427 South Cedros Avenue. Suite 201. Solana Beach. CA 92075 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RM - Residential Medium Density (4-8 du/ac) 7. ZONING: L-C 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: Fifty-three (53) condominium units, attached in clusters of 2, 3. 4. and 5-plex buildings, located in the southern most portion of the 14.4-acre parcel (APN 215-050-73). The proposed tentative map (CT 04-08) divides the parcel into 4 lots. Lots 1 and 2 are designated for the 53 dwelling units and Lot 3 is created for the driveways. Lot 4 consists 9-acres (75-percent of the project area), that is proposed to be designated open space and will be held in a conservation easement. The site requires 5,120 cubic yards per acre of earthwork to accommodate development pursuant to the standards outlined in the City's Habitat Management Plan (HMP). Policy 7-14.1 of the HMP permits a maximum of 25% development clustered on the southern portion of the subject property. The HMP also states that buffer widths may be reduced and /or additional impacts may be allowed to the extent necessary to obtain site access, and/or to accommodate Circulation Road 1 Rev. 07/03/02 improvements as identified in the certified Local Coastal Program (LCP). Impacts to Coastal Sage Scrub include 3 acres for the proposed development and 1.6 acres resulting from the site's access and the widening of El Camino Real. These impacts meet the terms set by the HMP regarding CSS. The proposed development preserves .7 of the 1.2 acres (58%) of Southern Maritime Chaparral and .02 of the .03 acres of Water of the US. The impacts will be mitigated per the Carlsbad HMP. Surrounding land uses include commercial development to the south, residential to the east and west, and major circulation element roads immediately east and north of the property. Rev. 07/03/02 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. | | Aesthetics | I Agricultural Resources Air Quality /\ Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils [XI Noise Hazards/Hazardous Materials LI Population and Housing Hydrology/Water Quality [ | Public Services [ | Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources | I Mandatory Findings of Significance Recreation Transportation/Circulation Utilities & Service Systems Rev. 07/03/02 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) D I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed 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. il- S- xJPfanner Signature Date 7 Planning Director's Signature Date Rev. 07/03/02 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. • A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. • "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. • "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. • "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly adverse. • Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but 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 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 been discussed or mitigated in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for 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. 6 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 Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact D D Kl D D D D D El 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 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, 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 (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D n D D n D n 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 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D D D D D D D 10 Rev. 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 Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D D a 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? 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 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D D D D D D D 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 in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? 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 Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D D D D D D D D 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 Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact n n n n n n n n n n n n 14 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact No Impact D D D D D D D D D XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects 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. 15 Rev. 07/03/02 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. AESTHETICS—Would the project: a-d) No Impact (a-d). Perimeter project landscaping, a landscaped 50' setback off of El Camino Real, the dedicated open space area and restricted building heights will adequately mitigate any potential visual project impacts to the El Camino Real scenic corridor. Since El Camino Real is a City designated Community Theme Corridor, the proposed project is designed to comply with the City's El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards. The proposed use is consistent with the adjacent uses and will be designed so that it does not contribute a significant amount of light or glare. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES—Would the project: a-c) 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 proposed project is consistent with the City of Carlsbad General Plan. The subject site is zoned Limited Control (L-C) and is not subject to a 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 General Plan land use designation is Residential Medium (RM), which anticipates medium density residential development (4 to 8 du/ac). The Habitat Management Plan (HMP) requires the development to be concentrated on 25% of the project site. Therefore, the project is prosing an amendment to the General Plan land use designations from RM to Residential Medium-High (RMH) and open space (OS). According to aerial photography, the site was used for agriculture between 1928 and 1953, cleared of vegetation in 1960, and appeared to be vacant with native vegetation from 1967 to 1998. Given the surrounding residential and commercial development and lack of existing agricultural infrastructure, it is unlikely that an agricultural operation would be viable at this location. III. 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 o/one (O3), and a state non-attainment area for paniculate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM10). 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? 16 Rev. 07/03/02 The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is being implemented. The project is consistent with the growth assumptions of the City's General Plan and the RAQS. Therefore, the project is consistent with the regional air quality plan and will in no way conflict or obstruct implementation of the regional plan. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is in the City of Oceanside. Data available for this monitoring site through April, 2002 indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (one day in both 2000 and 2001) and one day in 2001 for the federal 8-hour average for ozone and one day for the 24-hour state standard for suspended particulates in 1996. No violations of any other air quality standards have been recorded recently. If there is grading associated with the project, 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. Other than the project air emissions associated with gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled, this 53 unit residential project will not generate any other air pollutants. No sensitive receptors (schools or hospitals) exist within the immediate vicinity of the project site, therefore potential exposure of sensitive receptors to project air emissions is not considered a significant impact. 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? 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? 0 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 17 Rev. 07/03/02 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The Carlsbad HMP, Section 7-14-1, page D-120, paragraph 1 identifies "specific habitat protection standards" for the "Levatino" property, which states: Maximum 25% development clustered on the southern portion of the property. Buffer widths may be reduced and/or additional impacts may be allowed to the extent necessary to obtain site access, and/or to accommodate Circulation Road improvements as identified in the certified LCP. The proposed project is for a residential development and improvement of El Camino Real. The impacts have been designed to be consistent with the City of Carlsbad HMP and with a letter that was issued by the California Coastal Commission on December 16, 2003. The HMP and the letter indicate that the project may develop 25% of the site not including the improvements proposed for the Major City Circulation Element roadway, El Camino Real, or the access required to the site. The letter acknowledge the difficulties associated with gaining access to the site and the required buffer widths may be reduced and/or additional impacts may be allowed to the extent necessary to obtain site access, and to accommodate circulation road improvements. The HMP requires a 100-foot wetland buffer and a 20-foot buffer for all native habitats other than riparian and wetland habitats between preserved habitats and development. The project is providing a 20-foot buffer between the development and the preserve habitat. The proposed development would impact approximately 3.4 of 14.4 acres on the site, which represents approximately 23.6% of the site. The following table summarizes the impacts to vegetation types presented in the Dudek (2005) biological technical report. 18 Rev. 07/03/02 POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO EXISTING HABITAT TYPES AND LAND COVERS (ACRES) HABITAT Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh Coastal Sage Scrub Disturbed Coastal Sage Scrub Coyote Brush Scrub Developed Disturbed Wetlands Disturbed Habitat Southern Maritime Chaparral Waters of the U.S. (unvegetated) TOTAL EXISTING ACREAGE* 0.01 7.0 2.7 2.8 0.4 0.01 0.3 1.2 0.03 14.4 IMPACTS FROM SITE ACCESS AND EL CAMINO REAL WIDENING 0.0 0.6 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.8 UPLAND BUFFER AREA** 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 IMPACTS FROM PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 0.0 1.9 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.01 3.4 PROPOSED OPEN SPACE 0.01 4.1 0.9 2.3 0.3 0.01 0.1 0.7 0.02 8.4 Acreage may not total exactly due to rounding. Upland buffer widths include a 20-foot zone around the edge of the development. This area is not considered an impact requiring mitigation but cannot be used for mitigation. Sensitive Plants Species The proposed project, including site access and El Camino Real widening, will result in impacts to approximately 295 individuals of Del Mar Mesa sand aster and approximately 20 individuals of NuttalFs scrub oak. Most of the impacts to these species result from either the site access road or the widening of El Camino Real. The Del Mar Mesa sand aster and the Nuttall's scrub oak are both listed as City of Carlsbad HMP narrow endemic species and require specific conservation. The City of Carlsbad HMP requires conservation of the Del Mar Mesa sand aster species at 100% within the conserved areas and at 80% for other populations found in the City. Due to the preservation within open space of 84% of the population, (1,539 individuals out of the total number of 1,834) impacts to Del Mar Mesa sand aster onsite are not considered significant. It is anticipated that all or almost all of the 20 individuals of Nuttall's scrub oak will be impacted by the proposed development or roads. The number of individuals located onsite is not especially large and the few scattered individuals would be considered a minor population that would be subject to the conservation requirement in the HMP. Off-site mitigation for the impacts to southern maritime chaparral will include 12 (20 x 60%) individuals of this species, thus the impacts to Nuttall's scrub oak are not considered significant. Salvage and relocation of the Nuttall's scrub oak is not required but may take place prior to grading activities to assist in meeting the overall goals of the City of Carlsbad HMP. Conservation of the 84% of the Del Mar Mesa sand aster will result in a less than significant impact to sensitive plant species. Sensitive Wildlife Species The impacts to the Levatino property result in an open space area that totals 8.4 acres. The federally-listed threatened California gnatcatcher likely uses the entire 14.4 acre site. Loss of approximately 5.2 acres of its preferred habitat (including the El Camino Real improvements and site access) may preclude the long term existence of the gnatcatcher onsite. Because the 25% development footprint is concentrated in the southern portion of the property near other development areas and the open space is near to additional open space, it is equally likely that the gnatcatcher may maintain its territory onsite and if additional acreage is needed it might use the offsite preserved areas. The remaining habitat onsite is very high quality, diverse, and includes more 19 Rev. 07/03/02 mesic areas which may be needed during drier and hotter periods of the year. In summary, the likelihood of the continued presence of this species onsite upon development of the site cannot be predicted. The project will be condition to mitigate for all impacted habitats, in compliance with the City of Carlsbad HMP prior to Final Map or grading permits or whichever occurs first. Upland habitat [Coastal Sage Scrub (including all sub-associations), and Southern Maritime Chaparral] mitigation requires a "no net loss standard" and will typically consist of creation of the habitat being impacted (or substantial restoration where allowed) at a ratio of at least 1:1 as provided in the HMP. Substantial restoration of the highly degraded areas (where effective functions of the habitat type have been lost) may be substituted for creation subject to the consultation and occurrence of USFWS, CDFG, and City of Carlsbad. The remaining mitigation requirement will be satisfied through the purchases of a mitigation bank. Impacts to the unvegetated Waters of the U.S. shall be satisfied through the purchase in a suitable mitigation bank due to lack of restoration opportunities onsite, and the project is not impacting vegetative wetlands. The impacts to the unvegetative Waters of the U.S. will require permits and coordination with U.S. Army Corps. Of Engineers, the CDFG, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION REQUIREMENT (ACRES) HABITAT Coastal Sage Scrub - including all sub-associations Southern Maritime Chaparral Waters of the U.S. (unvegetated) EXISTING ACREAGE 12.5 1.2 0.03 IMPACTS FROM SITE ACCESS AND EL CAMINO REAL WIDENING 1.5 0 0 IMPACTS FROM PROPOSED PROJECT 2.9 0.5 0.01 TOTAL IMPACTS 4.4 .5 .01 IMPACTS FROM PROPOSED PROJECT 2.9 0.5 0.01 MITIGATION RATIO 2:1* 3:1* 3:1 MITIGATION REQUIREMENT 8.8 1.5 0.03 * Creation or substantial restoration will account for at least 1:1 of the mitigation. Other Mitigation Measures or Requirements If any of the responsible resource agencies prohibit grading operations during the summer grading period in order to protect endangered or rare species or sensitive environmental resources, then grading activities may be allowed during the winter by a coastal development permit or permit amendment, provided that appropriate best management practices (BMPs) are incorporated to limit potential adverse impacts from winter grading activities. If grading is necessary than a breeding/nesting bird survey shall be conducted prior to construction activities if they are to occur during the nesting season (February 15-August 31). Nests that are detected within the proposed impact areas will be avoided until nesting is completed. A buffer zone will be established around any identified nests in coordination with the monitoring biologist. To assist in meeting the goals of the HMP for covered species, salvage of the NuttalPs scrub oak may be conducted prior to grading impacts in coordination with the monitoring biologist. The salvage roots/plants may be used as part of the mitigation as required and outlined above. If on-site salvage and relocation is not biologically viable or practicable, then off-site preservation of 12 individuals of Nuttall's scrub oak will occur within preserved off-site southern maritime chaparral. The open space area will need to be protected by a conservation easement and an endowment will need to be established for management monitoring and reporting of the area in perpetuity. Title to the open space parcel will need to be transferred to an appropriate land trust entity. The conditioned mitigation will result in a less than significant impact to biological resources. 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? 20 Rev. 07/03/02 No Impact. The above biological study provides a focused, current and detailed project level analysis of site- specific biological impacts and provides refined project level mitigation measures. g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? No Impact. The above biological study 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 Technical Report and Impact Analysis for the Levatino Property, City of Carlsbad, California" prepared by Dudek & Associates, Inc., dated February 2004 and Revised May 2005 (Dudek 2005). V. CULTURAL RESOURCES—Would the project: Please see "RECON Report Results for La Costa Village Townhomes (RECON Number 3906A)" prepared by RECON, dated October 16,2003. a-d) No Impact. The "RECON Report Results for La Costa Village Townhomes (RECON Number 3906A)" report concludes that even though a small amount of cultural materials were identified on site, those items are not considered significant; therefore, no further work is necessary for the property. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS—Would the project: Reference "Update Geotechnical Investigation, La Costa Village Center Townhomes, Levatino Property, Carlsbad, CA" prepared by Geocon Incorporated, revised March 9,2004. 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 "Update Geotechnical Investigation, La Costa Village Center Townhomes, Levatino Property, Carlsbad, CA" 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 Geocon Incorporated, dated March 9, 2004. 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 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. Those slopes will be properly landscaped and irrigated. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 21 Rev. 07/03/02 No Impact. The site is underlain by shallow topsoil, alluvium/colluvium, and Terrace Deposits over Tertiary-age Santiago Formation. Topsoil and alluvium/colluvium 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. 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, or expansive soils. 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. VI. 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. This project does not require fire suppression zones for protection from wildland fires. However, multiple family dwelling units are required to be fully sprinkled. The site is consistent with the McClellan Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan. VII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY—Would the project: Please reference the Drainage Study and the Stormwater Management Plan prepared by Hunsaker & Associates, dated September 29,2004. 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 offsite detention basin. Drainage currently flows to this basin. The amount of runoff entering the 30" drainpipe that collects flows from the basin will actually decrease. This decrease, which will occur for 100 and 10-year storm events, is due to proposed modifications to the 36 inch riser within the basin. All onsite storm drains are designed to accept a 100-year storm event. Since all runoff will either flow through grass swales or enter the detention basin before discharging off-site, pollutants within the runoff will be adequately treated. The detention basin provides a means for settling suspended solids before entering the public storm drain. Soil infiltration within the basin aids in pollutant removal. Also, lawn areas and vegetation within the basin absorb pollutants through their roots. 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. VIII. 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. 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 Habitat Management Plan (HMP) requires the development to be concentrated on the southern 25% of the project site. Therefore, the project is proposing an amendment to the General Plan land use designations from RM to Residential Medium-High (RMH) and open space (OS). The project is 22 Rev. 07/03/02 providing 53 dwelling units. If the project were to be developed over the entire 13.6 developable acres the project would yield 4 du/ac, within the anticipated range of the RM land use designation. The project is included within the City of Carlsbad's HMP as a standards area. Through negotiations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, California Department of Fish and Game, and the City of Carlsbad, the proposed project is within the predetermined maximum allowable impacts for this particular property. The project does not conflict with any applicable plans or policies. IX. 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. X. NOISE—Would the project: Please reference the "Acoustical Site Assessment, La Costa Village Townhomes-Carlsbad, CA, ISE Report #00-042", prepared by Investigative Science and Engineering, Inc., dated April 15,2004. a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The traffic noise levels from El Camino Real 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 El Camino Real; therefore, these units will require mitigation. The proposed ground level mitigation plan consists of a combination often-foot-high berm and six-foot-high clear sound barriers around the southern and eastern portion of the project site. The second floor balcony areas of Buildings 8 through 12 will require eight-foot- high wall/glass barriers to properly mitigate for the future El Camino Real noise levels. With incorporation of the mitigation measurers the potential noise impacts are reduces to below a level of significance. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? Less than Significant Impact. The anticipated grading operation associated with the proposed tentative map would result in a temporary and minor increase in groundborne 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) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less than Significant Impact. Other than traffic generated noise, typical grading/ subdivision/ residential land uses do not generate a substantial amount of noise. With regard to temporary or periodic increase in noise levels, the only potential increase in noise would be from construction activity associated with the development of the project. The City incorporates standard regulations on all project construction activity to ensure that noise and other potential impacts to surrounding properties are not significant. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in a substantial permanent or temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project is not within the 60 dBA CNEL influence area of McClellan-Palomar Airport and associated industrial uses. The above acoustical assessment states that no aircraft noise mitigation would be required for this project. 23 Rev. 07/03/02 XL POPULATION AND HOUSING—Would the project: a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact. The 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 is consistent with the City of Carlsbad General Plan. The GP land use designation is RM, which anticipates medium density residential development (4 to 8 du/ac). The Habitat Management Plan (HMP) requires the development to be concentrated on the southern 25% of the project site. Therefore, the project is proposing an amendment to the General Plan land use designation from RM to Residential Medium-High (RMH) and Open Space (OS). The project is providing 53 dwelling units. If 53 units were to be developed over the entire 13.6 developable acres the project would yield 4 du/ac, which is within the anticipated range of the RM General Plan land use designation. No major infrastructure facilities are proposed for extension to serve the project. a) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? b) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The project site is currently vacant therefore no existing housing or people will be displaced. XII. PUBLIC SERVICES—Would the project: a) No Impact. Redesignating the subject property's zoning from Limited Control to Residential Density Multiple and Open Space to provide for 53 single-family, attached townhomes will not effect the provision and availability of public facilities (fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, libraries, etc.). The proposed project shall be subject to the conditions and facility service level requirements within the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 21, therefore no significant public service impacts will occur. XIII. RECREATION—Would the project: a-b) No Impact. The project's size of 53 dwelling units will not result in the deterioration of existing neighborhood or regional parks or cause such parks to be expanded, so no adverse physical effect on the environment will occur. On-site recreational opportunities are available in the form of a 6,400 square foot recreation area that includes a swimming pool, spa, pool deck and barbeque areas. Other recreational options include an overlook seating area, patio areas, interior courtyards between the buildings and a walking trail that meanders around the perimeter of the project. These recreational facilities will not have an adverse physical effect on the environment. XIV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC—Would the project: Please reference the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan, 2004. 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 424 Average Daily Trips (ADT), which is not substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. This traffic will utilize the following roadways Dove Lane and El Camino Real. Existing traffic on El Camino Real is 27,000 - 49,000 ADT (2003). 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 and is consistent with the General Plan. 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. 24 Rev. 07/03/02 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. The Congestion Management Program's (CMP) acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard is "E", or LOS "F" if that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (e.g., SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS "F" in 1990). Accordingly, all designated roads and highways are currently operating at or better than the acceptable standard LOS. Note that the buildout ADT projections are based on the full implementation of the region's general and community plans. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan and, therefore, its traffic was used in modeling the buildout projections. Achievement of the CMP acceptable Level of Service (LOS) "E" standard assumes implementation of the adopted CMP strategies. Based on the design capacity(ies) of the designated roads and highways and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at acceptable level(s) of service in the short- term and at buildout. All corridors and intersections in the vicinity of the proposed project would operate at acceptable levels of service and no significant circulation or traffic impacts would be caused by the additional ADT. Anticipating growth in the area, the Zone 21 LFMP identified the major improvements necessary to deal with such growth. 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. Adequate emergency access from the project site shall be provided with an entry point on Dove Lane and one emergency-only access point at El Camino Real located in the southeastern portion of the development. 0 Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. 122 parking spaces are required. The project is proposing 106-garaged spaces for residents and 16 open spaces for visitors. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)? No Impact. The proposed project complies with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. The project will be located proximate to a major roadway (El Camino Real), employment opportunities (nearby business parks and commercial centers), and alternative transportation (bus transit and bicycle and pedestrian access). 25 Rev. 07/03/02 Traffic Impact Analysis- La Costa Village Center Townhomes. Carlsbad. California. Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers, February 26, 2004. XV. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS—Would the project: a-g) No Impact. The proposed residential development will be required to comply with all Regional Water Quality Control Board Requirements. In addition, the Zone 21 LFMP anticipated that the project site would be developed with a residential use and wastewater treatment facilities were planned and designed to accommodate future residential uses on the site. All public facilities, including water 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 development on the site will increase the demand for these facilities. However, the proposed density would not result in an overall increase in the City's growth projection in the SE quadrant. 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. XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE—Would the project: 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 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? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation is Incorporated -The proposed project's required mitigation, as outlined in the Biological Resources section of this report, will preclude any possible degrading of the environment or substantial reductions of habitat and wildlife species. Cumulative impacts to sensitive plant and wildlife species within the MHCP Subarea would occur through the proposed project, in absence of the implementation of the HMP, and specifically the adjacent preserve system. However, the implementation of the HMP provides mitigation for these cumulative impacts because the plan has anticipated region-wide impacts and has adopted a preserve system that mitigates for these impacts. The Project is consistent with the MCHP guidelines and the regional planning efforts in the City of Carlsbad. Therefore, there will be no cumulative impacts to sensitive uplands, and plant and wildlife species. 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. The proposed project does not eliminate important examples of major periods of California history. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) Less Than Significant Impact. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projects regional growth for the greater San Diego area, and local general plan land use policies are incorporated into SANDAG projections. Based upon those projections, region-wide standards, including storm water quality control, air quality standards, habitat conservation, congestion management standards, etc., are established to reduce the cumulative impacts of development in the region. All of the City's development standards and regulations are consistent with the region wide standards. The City's standards and regulations, including grading standards, water quality and drainage standards, traffic standards, habitat and cultural resource protection regulations, and public facility standards, ensure that development within the City will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact. There are two regional issues that development within the City of Carlsbad has the potential to have a cumulatively considerable impact on. 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 projections in the General Plan, that these designated 26 Rev. 07/03/02 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 that future development of the site will comply with City standards, the project will not result in any direct or indirect substantial adverse environmental effects on human beings. 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. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994. 2. City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad. December 1999. 3. Comprehensive Land Use Plan McClellan-Palomar Airport Carlsbad. California. SANDAG, April 1994. 4. Biological Resources Technical Report and Impact Analysis for the Levatino Property. Dudek & Associates, Inc. February 2004 (Revised May 2005). 5. City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study. November 1992. 6. RECON Report Results for La Costa Village Townhomes (RECON #3906A). RECON, October 16, 2003. 7. Traffic Impact Analysis- La Costa Village Center Townhomes. Carlsbad. California. Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers, February 26, 2004. 8. Update Geotechnical Investigation. La Costa Village Center Townhomes. Levatino Property. Carlsbad. CA. GEOCON Incorporated, revised March 9,2004. 9. Acoustical Site Assessment. La Costa Village Townhomes - Carlsbad. CA. ISE Report #00-042. Investigative Science and Engineering, Inc., revised April 15,2004. 27 Rev. 07/03/02 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE') BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The project approval shall be conditioned as follows: 1. Temporary habitat protection fencing shall be installed to protect the habitat during grading and construction. A City-approved biologist shall establish the limits of the sensitive habitat in the field prior to grading and the biologist shall verify in writing that the habitat protection fence has been appropriately placed and is adequately functioning during site grading 2. Once grading and construction is completed, the temporary fence shall be removed and a permanent fence to prevent access to conserved areas by domesticated animals (specifically cats), to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, shall be placed in an approved location. 3. Prior to final map recordation or issuance of grading permit, whichever occurs first, all necessary agency permits shall be issued and a revegetation plan shall be approved by the USFWS, CDFG, and City of Carlsbad. The California Coastal Commission, in the HMP requires that there be no net loss of these plant species within the coastal zone. Thus, substantial restoration enhancement or creation must account for at least l:lof the mitigation. The remaining mitigation requirement must be satisfied through the purchase of credits within a suitable mitigation bank. HABITAT Coastal Sage Scrub - including all sub- associations Southern Maritime Chaparral EXISTING ACREAGE* 12.5 1.2 IMPACTS FROM SITE ACCESS AND EL CAMINO REAL WIDENING 1.5 0 IMPACTS FROM PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (ACRES) 2.9 0.5 MITIGATION RATIO 2:1 3:1 MITIGATION REQUIREMENT (ACRES) 8.8 1.5 4. Prior to final map recordation or issuance of grading permit, whichever occurs first, mitigation for the impacts to the unvegetated Waters of the U.S. shall be satisfied through the purchase of .03 acres within a suitable mitigation bank. HABITAT Waters of the U.S. (Unvegetative) EXISTING ACREAGE* 0.03 IMPACTS FROM SITE ACCESS AND EL CAMINO REAL WIDENING 0 IMPACTS FROM PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (ACRES) 0.01 MITIGATION RATIO 3:1 MITIGATION REQUIREMENT (ACRES) 0.03 4. Construction noise that could affect migratory songbirds and other species associated with the sensitive habitat area shall be avoided. In order to ensure compliance, grading shall be avoided during the bird nesting season (February 15-August 31). If a grading permit is required, this restriction can be waived by the City of Carlsbad, with concurrence from the Wildlife Agencies (USF&W, CDF&G), upon completion of a breeding/nesting bird Survey in accordance to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. If nests are present, no grading or removal of habitat may take place within 200 feet of active nesting sites during the nesting/breeding season (mid-February through mid-July). A buffer zone will be established around any identified nests in coordination with the monitoring biologist. 5. If a grading permit is required, all grading activities are prohibited from (February 1st for gnatcatcher or March 1st for vireo) to (September 15th for gnatcatcher or October 1st for vireo). Grading activities are therefore, allowed during a portion of the "rainy season". All erosion control and revegetation measures must be fully implemented prior to the grading prohibition period. Any extensions must receive written approval of the City Engineer and the responsible wildlife agencies (California Department of Fish and Game/United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 28 Rev. 07/03/02 6. Prior to grading activities and in coordination with a monitoring biologist salvage of the Nuttall's scrub oak may be implemented according to the "Biological Resources Technical Report and Impact analysis for the Levatino Property, City of Carlsbad" (Dudek, 2005), conducted prior to grading impacts. 7. Prior to recordation of the final map or prior to issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first, the Developer shall take the following actions to the satisfaction of the Planning Director in relation to the open space lot(s) which are being conserved for natural habitat in conformance with the city's Habitat Management Plan: a. Select a conservation entity, subject to approval by the City, that possesses qualifications to manage the open space lot(s) for conservation purposes. b. Prepare a Property Analysis Record (PAR) or other method acceptable to the City for estimating the costs of management and monitoring of the open space lot(s) in perpetuity. c. Based on the results of the PAR, provide a non-wasting endowment or other financial mechanism acceptable to the Planning Director and conservation entity, if any, in an amount sufficient for management and monitoring of the open space lot(s) in perpetuity. The Conservation Easement shall provide that the non-wasting endowment shall transfer to the City if the City accepts the Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate fee title to the open space lot(s). d. Record a Conservation Easement over the open space Iot(s) which includes an Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate fee title to the open space lot(s) in favor of the City. e. Prepare a permanent preserve management plan for the City's approval that will ensure adequate management, including preparation of the PAR and provision of the endowment, of the open space lot(s) in perpetuity. 8. The landscape plan shall utilize only indigenous, native species adjacent to the sensitive habitat area in order to prevent invasive/noxious species from invading the sensitive habitat. No invasive/noxious species shall be allowed within the project's plant palette. The landscape plan plant palette shall be reviewed by the project biologist and the project biologist shall certify in writing, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, that the plant palette is appropriate and meets this standard prior to approval of the landscape plan by the city of Carlsbad. 9. All project lighting shall be directed away from and shall be shielded from the sensitive habitat to prevent light pollution on the sensitive habitat. 10. Surface drainage from development-related hardscape surfaces shall be processed onsite, and no discharge of materials (other the clean water) shall be directed in the sensitive habitat area. NOISE The project approval shall be conditioned as follows: 1. The proposed ground level noise mitigation plan consists of a combination of ten-foot-high and six-foot-high barriers around the southern and eastern portion of the project site. The second floor balcony areas of Buildings 8 through 12 will require eight-foot-high wall/glass barriers to properly mitigate for the future El Camino Real noise levels. This will reduce the noise levels to below the City's 60 dBA threshold. 2. The project shall complete an interior noise analysis, compliant with the CCR, Title 24, Noise Insulation Standards, prior to the issuance of building permits for future homes to demonstrate that the proposed architectural design would limit interior noise to 45 dBA CNEL or less. 3. Prior to the recordation of the Final Map, the developer shall prepare and record a notice that this property may be subject to noise impacts from El Camino Real, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney. 4. Prior to the recordation of the Final Map, the developer shall prepare and record a notice that this property is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating from McClellan-Palomar Airport, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney. 29 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 y 31 Rev. 07/03/02 1 PROJECT NAME: La Costa Village Center Townhomes APPROVAL DATE: December 2. 2005 FILE NUMBERS: GPA 04-10. ZC 04-06. LCPA 04-09. CT 04-08. SDP 04-05. HDP 04-04. SUP 04-07. CDP 04-17. and CP 04-03 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). m O Sm 2 5 H O O soz o2 ooImO to TJ0) (OCD O^u Mitigation Measure Temporary habitat protection fencing shall be installed to protect the habitat during grading and construction. A City-approved biologist shall establish the limits of the sensitive habitat in the field prior to grading and the biologist shall verify in writing that the habitat protection fence has been appropriately placed and is adequately functioning during site grading Once grading and construction is completed, the temporary fence shall be removed and a permanent fence, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, shall be placed in an approved location. Prior to final map recordation or issuance of grading permit, whichever occurs first, all necessary agency permits shall be issued and a revegetation plan shall be approved by the USFWS, CDFG, and City of Carlsbad. The California Coastal Commission, in the HMP requires that there be no net loss of these plant species within the coastal zone. Thus, substantial restoration enhancement or creation must account for at least 1 : 1 of the mitigation. The remaining mitigation requirement must be satisfied through the purchase of credits within a suitable mitigation bank (See EIA part II for acreages) Prior to final map recordation or issuance of grading permit, whichever occurs first, mitigation for the impacts to the unvegetated Waters of the U.S. shall be satisfied through the purchase of .03 acres within a suitable mitigation bank. (See EIA part 1 1 for acreages) Monitoring Type Project Project Project Project Monitoring Department Planning Department Planning Department Planning Department Planning Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. 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. Mitigation Measure Construction noise that could affect migratory songbirds and other species associated with the sensitive habitat area shall be avoided. In order to ensure compliance, grading shall be avoided during the bird nesting season (February 15-August 31). If a grading permit is required, this restriction can be waived by the City of Carlsbad, with concurrence from the Wildlife Agencies (USF&W, CDF&G), upon completion of a breeding/nesting bird survey in accordance to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. If nests are present, no grading or removal of habitat may take place within 200 feet of active nesting sites during the nesting/breeding season (mid-February through mid-July). A buffer zone will be established around any identified nests in coordination with the monitoring biologist. If a grading permit is required, all grading activities are prohibited from (February 1st for gnatcatcher or March 1st for vireo) to (September 15th for gnatcatcher or October 1st for vireo). Grading activities are therefore, allowed during a portion of the "rainy season". All erosion control and revegetation measures must be fully implemented prior to the grading prohibition period. Any extensions must receive written approval of the City Engineer and the responsible wildlife agencies (California Department of Fish and Game/United States Fish and Wildlife Service). Prior to grading activities and in coordination with a monitoring biologist salvage of the Nuttall's scrub oak may be implemented according to the "Biological Resources Technical Report and Impact analysis for the Levatino Property, City of Carlsbad" (Dudek, 2005), conducted prior to grading impacts. Monitoring type Project Project Project Monitoring Department Planning Department Planning Department Planning Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks m O 5m 2 O> O2 zO OXmO to (Q<D ros, 4*. 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. Mitigation Measure Prior to recordation of the final map or prior to issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first, the Developer shall take the following actions to the satisfaction of the Planning Director in relation to the open space lot(s) which are being conserved for natural habitat in conformance with the city's Habitat Management Plan: a. Select a conservation entity, subject to approval by the City, that possesses qualifications to manage the open space lot(s) for conservation purposes. b. Prepare a Property Analysis Record (PAR) or other method acceptable to the City for estimating the costs of management and monitoring of the open space lot(s) in perpetuity. c. Based on the results of the PAR, provide a non- wasting endowment or other financial mechanism acceptable to the Planning Director and conservation entity, if any, in an amount sufficient for management and monitoring of the open space lot(s) in perpetuity. The Conservation Easement shall provide that the non-wasting endowment shall transfer to the City if the City accepts the Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate fee title to the open space lot(s). d. Record a Conservation Easement over the open space lot(s) which includes an Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate fee title to the open space lot(s) in favor of the City. e. Prepare a permanent preserve management plan for the City's approval that will ensure adequate management, including preparation of the PAR and provision of the endowment, of the open space lot(s) in perpetuity. Monitoring Type Project Monitoring Department Planning Department Shown on Plans Verified implementation Remarks* mz 55o m d §6 32 zooXmo TJ0)(Q <D W O 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. Mitigation Measure The landscape plan shall utilize only indigenous, native species adjacent to the sensitive habitat area in order to prevent invasive/noxious species from invading the sensitive habitat. No invasive/noxious species shall be allowed within the project's plant palette. The landscape plan plant palette shall be reviewed by the project biologist and the project biologist shall certify in writing, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, that the plant palette is appropriate and meets this standard prior to approval of the landscape plan by the city of Carlsbad. All project lighting shall be directed away from and shall be shielded from the sensitive habitat to prevent light pollution on the sensitive habitat. Surface drainage from development-related hardscape surfaces shall be processed onsite, and no discharge of materials (other the clean water) shall be directed in the sensitive habitat area. The proposed ground level noise mitigation plan consists of a combination of ten-foot-high and six-foot-high barriers around the southern and eastern portion of the project site. The second floor balcony areas of Buildings 8 through 12 will require eight-foot-high wall/glass barriers to properly mitigate for the future El Camino Real noise levels. This will reduce the noise levels to below the City's 60 dBA threshold. The project shall complete an interior noise analysis, compliant with the CCR, Title 24, Noise Insulation Standards, prior to the issuance of building permits for future homes to demonstrate that the proposed architectural design would limit interior noise to 45 dBA CNEL or less. Prior to the recordation of the Final Map, the developer shall prepare and record a notice that this property may be subject to noise impacts from El Camino Real, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney. Prior to the recordation of the Final Map, the developer shall prepare and record a notice that this property is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating from McClellan- Palomar Airport, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney. Monitoring Type Project Project Project Project Project Project Project Monitoring Department Planning Department Planning Department Planning Department Planning Department Planning Department Planning Department Planning Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation • Remarks m O Sm >i- 3 H IO O O O OXmO TJto(Q(D 2,^ 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. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife 6010 Hidden Valley Road Carlsbad, California 92011 (760)431-9440 FAX (760) 431-5902 + 9618 California Department of Fish & Game Office South Coast Region 4949 Viewridge Avenue San Diego, California 92123 (858) 467-4201 FAX (858) 467-4299 In Reply Refer To: FWS/CDFG-SDG-4706.1 Ms. Jessica Galloway City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 JAN 1 0 2006 Re: Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the La Costa Village Center Townhomes Project (SCH# 2005121062) Dear Ms. Galloway: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the Department of Fish and Game (Department), collectively the "Wildlife Agencies," have reviewed the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and supporting documentation for the La Costa Village Center Townhomes Project, which we received on December 12,2005. The comments provided herein are based on the information provided in the MND; information provided during our November 7, 2004, meeting with the City of Carlsbad (City) and project applicant; our project files; the Wildlife Agencies' knowledge of sensitive and declining vegetation communities in San Diego County; and our participation in regional conservation planning efforts. The primary concern and mandate of the Service is the protection of public fish and wildlife resources and their habitats. The Service has legal responsibility for the welfare of migratory birds, anadromous fish, and endangered animals and plants occurring in the United States. The Service is also responsible for administering the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The Service issued an Incidental Take Permit pursuant to the Act for the City's Habitat Management Plan (December 1999, as amended; HMP). The Department is a Trustee Agency and a Responsible Agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, sections 15386 and 15381, respectively. The Department is responsible for the conservation, protection, and management of the state's biological resources, including rare, threatened, and endangered plant and animal species, pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act and other sections of the Fish and Game Code. The Department also administers the Natural Community Conservation Planning program (NCCP) in which the City is a participant through the implementation of its HMP. The Department finds that the project would not be de minimis in its effects on fish and wildlife per section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. The 14.4-acre project site (aka the Levatino property in the City's HMP) is located adjacent to the northwest corner of the intersection of El Camino Real and Dove Lane in the Poinsettia / TAKE PRIDED IN^M ERICA Ms. Jessica Galloway (FWS/CDFG-SDG-4706.1) 2 of 4 Aviara Management Unit of the Open Space Management Plan for the HMP, within the Coastal Zone. In the context of the HMP and the City's Growth Management Plan, the property is located in the Local Facilities Management Zone 21 in the south-central portion of Focal Planning Core Area 6,and is designated as a Standards Area (i.e., subject to specific standards articulated in Addendum 2 to the HMP). The project site supports 7.0 acres of coastal sage scrub (CSS), 2.7 acres of disturbed CSS, 2.8 acres coyote brush scrub (CBS), 1.2 acres of southern maritime chaparral (SMaC), 0.1 acre of coastal freshwater marsh, 0.03 acre of waters of the U.S., 0.01 acre of disturbed wetland, 0.4 acre of developed area (roads), and 0.3 acre of disturbed habitat (denuded area). The site also supports the following: coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica, gnatcatcher), Del Mar sand aster (Corethrogyne filaginifolia var. linifolia, 1,834 individuals), a narrow endemic species, and Nuttall's scrub oak (Quercus dumosa, 20 individuals). These are covered species under the HMP; however, the coverage of Del Mar sand aster is contingent upon funding for the management of conserved areas. The project would result in the following losses: 2.9 acres of CSS; 1.8 acres of disturbed CSS; 0.5 acres of CBS; 0.5 acre of SMaC; 0.01 acre of waters of the U.S.; 0.1 acre of developed area; 0.2 acre of disturbed habitat; 295 individuals of Del Mar sand aster (i.e., 16 percent of the total number on site); and all or almost all of the Nuttall's scrub oak. The proposed construction footprint of the 53 condominiums would occupy 3.4 acres, which is less than the 25 percent (i.e., 3.6 acres) developable area of the project site per the HMP. The proposed impacts from site access and widening of El Camino Real would be 1.6 acres which would extend the total impacts beyond the 25 percent developable area; however, the HMP allows additional impacts to obtain site access and/or to accommodate circulation road improvements as identified in the City's Local Coastal Plan. Impacts resulting from the widening of El Camino Real will be mitigated by the project applicant pursuant to the requirements of the HMP. Also consistent with the standards outlined in the HMP, the proposed development would occur within the southern portion of the project site in order to retain a connection at the northern tip of the property to off-site habitat that is part of a linkage within the HMP. The Wildlife Agencies offer our following recommendations and comments to assist the City in minimizing and mitigating project impacts to biological resources, and to assure that the project is consistent with ongoing regional habitat conservation planning efforts. 1. We are concerned that impacts to Nuttall's scrub oak, a species covered by the HMP, are not mitigated. The HMP requires the conservation of 100 percent of the major populations and approximately 60 percent of small populations of Nuttall's scrub oak within the City; the population on site qualifies as the latter. While we recognize 60 percent avoidance would place significant constraints on this project, we do not believe that fact eliminates the need to mitigate impacts to Nuttall's scrub oak. The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) accompanying the MND states, "it is anticipated that mitigation for the impacts to [SMaC] will include locations of this species, thus the impacts to Nuttall's scrub oak are not considered significant." Since the proposed project would remove all or almost all of the Nuttall's scrub oak on the project site, we recommend specifically that the final MND require that the SMaC off-site mitigation support at least 12 (i.e., 20 x .60) Ms. Jessica Galloway (FWS/CDFG-SDG-4706.1) 3 of 4 individual plants of Nuttall's scrub oak. 2. Based on our review of the site plans, it appears that all the project-related fuel modification zones, landscaping, and land to be occupied by best management practices are included in the calculation of acreage losses. If they are not, the final MND should add them to the acreage of impact and modify the mitigation requirements accordingly. 3. The EIA (page 28) states, "substantial restoration enhancement or creation must account for at least 1:1 of the mitigation. The remaining mitigation requirement may be satisfied through the purchase of credits within a suitable mitigation bank" (underline added). The HMP prohibits on-site preservation as mitigation for impacts within the Coastal Zone. Therefore, the final MND should require the "remaining mitigation requirement" to be satisfied through the purchase of credits within a suitable mitigation bank (i.e., change the "may to "must"). 4. The developer is required to a) record a conservation easement over the 8.4 acres of proposed open space, select a conservation entity, b) prepare a Property Analysis Record (PAR) or similar analysis to estimate the costs of in-perpetuity management and monitoring of the open space, c) provide a non-wasting endowment or other financial mechanism based on the PAR sufficient to cover the costs of in-perpetuity management and monitoring of the open space, and d) prepare an interim management plan to be implemented "until such time as a permanent preserve management plan is prepared and approved by the City" (underline added). We recommend that the final MND clarify who will prepare the permanent preserve management plan (i.e., not the City) and stipulate that the permanent plan be prepared and approved prior to issuance of the grading permit, and that its implementation will begin upon its approval. 5. The project includes the installation of permanent five-foot tall tubular steel fencing between the development and the open space. We recommend that the spaces between the tubes by sufficiently narrow to prevent domestic cats from getting through them. 6. Consistent with the HMP, the proposed mitigation prohibits the use of invasive species in the project landscaping and requires that the project biologist certify in writing that the plant palette is appropriate. The plant palette we reviewed contains at least one invasive species (Schinus molle) listed in Table 12 - Invasive Exotic Plants - in the HMP. The HMP specifically prohibits the use of species listed hi Table 12. There are two other species in the plant palette (Myoporum pacificum and M. parvifolium) that are non-native and invasive although only their close relative (M. laetum) is specifically called out in Table 12 of the HMP. Please ensure that all such plants are removed from the plant palette. 7. The mitigation measures in the EIA prohibit grading or removal of habitat within 200 feet of active avian nests. We recommend that the buffer for active gnatcatcher nests be at least 300 feet, or 200 feet from the edge of occupied habitat. Ms. Jessica Galloway (FWS/CDFG-SDG-4706.1)4 of 4 8. The HMP (page D-80) prohibits a net loss of more than 10 percent of the CSS and SMaC within Zone 21. The final MND should demonstrate that the proposed project would meet this standard. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this MND. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Ben Prater (Service) at (760) 431-9440 ext 310 or Libby Lucas (Department) at (858) 467-4230. Sincerely, Thertse O'Rot Assistant Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service si Mulligan Deputy Regional Manager California Department of Fish and Game cc: Ellen Lirley, California Coastal Commission State Clearinghouse