Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-12-06; Planning Commission; Resolution 62071 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6207 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION 4 MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO SUBDIVIDE A 1.1-ACRE PROPERTY INTO THREE SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS GENERALLY LOCATED 6 BETWEEN EUCALYPTUS LANE AND EL CAMINO REAL IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. 7 CASE NAME: CHEHADE MINOR SUBDIVISION CASE NO.: SUP 05-12/CDP 05-49/HDP 05-10/PCD 05-038 9 WHEREAS, Khaled Chehade, Trustee, "Developer," has filed a verified 10 application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Khaled Chehade Family 11 Trust, "Owner," described as 12 A portion of Lot I of Rancho Agua Hedionda, in the City of 13 Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 823 filed in the Office of the County 14 Recorder of San Diego County, November 16,1896. ^ Also being Parcel B of City of Carlsbad Certificate of ,g Compliance for Adjustment Plat No. 03-17, recorded January 21,2005, as Doc. No. 2005-0054768 17 ("the Property"); and 18 WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, which includes a Mitigation 2Q Monitoring and Reporting Program, was prepared in conjunction with said project; and 21 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 6th day of December, 2006, 22 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 23 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony 24 and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and 25 considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors26 27 relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 28 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 2 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning 3 Commission hereby ADOPTS the Mitigated Negative Declaration, according to Exhibits "NOI" dated October 5, 2006, and "ND" dated December 6, 2006, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findings; 6 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: 7 a. It has reviewed, analyzed, and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration for 8 Chehade Minor Subdivision - SUP 05-12/CDP 05-49/HDP 05-10/PCD 05-03, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project, and any comments thereon prior to APPROVING the project. 10 b. The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad. 13 c. The Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad. 14 d. Based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PCRESONO. 6207 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 6th day of December, 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Segall, and Whitton ABSENT: Commissioner Cardosa ABSTAIN: MARTELL B. MONTfOMERYMMairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION DONNEU Assistant Planning Director PC RESO NO. 6207 -3- City of Carlsbad Planning Department MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: Chehade Minor Subdivision CASE NO: CDP 05-49/SUP 05-12/HDP 05-10/PCD 05-03/MS 05-10 PROJECT LOCATION: The project is located between Eucalyptus Lane and El Camino Real. The Assessor's Parcel Number of the project location is 208-040-12. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A three-lot, detached single-family home subdivision proposed on 1.134 vacant acres. Two of the lots are panhandle lots. The project involves only the subdivision of land; any future home construction is subject to separate approval. 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, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows: [X] 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. I I The proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. (Mitigated Negative Declaration applies only to the effects that remained to be addressed). I I Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. ADOPTED: December 6, 2006, pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 6207 DONNEU Assistant Planning Director 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us FILE COPY City of Carlsbad Planning Department CASE NAME: CASE NO: NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHEHADE MINOR SUBDIVISION CDP 05-49/SUP 05-12/HDP 05-10/PCD 05-03/MS 05-10 PROJECT LOCATION: The project is located on a vacant lot between Eucalyptus Lane and El Camino Real. The project site is adjacent to single-family homes. The Assessor's Parcel Number of the project location is 208-040-12. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project would subdivide 1.134 vacant acres into three single- family home lots. Each lot would have an area of at least 10,000 square feet, and two lots would be panhandle lots. The project includes a minor amount of off-site grading to facilitate improvements along the project's El Camino Real frontage. The project would result only in the subdivision of land; construction of homes on the lots approved as part of this project would be subject to separate approval. 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 Planning Commission. A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of the date of this notice. The proposed project and Mitigated Negative Declaration are subject to review and approval/adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission. Additional public notices will be issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Scott Donnell in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4618. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD October 5. 2006 through October 25. 2006 PUBLISH DATE October 5. 2006 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • wwv\dsriu39rte|3Hid3ca.us ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - INITIAL STUDY (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CDP 05-49/SUP 05-12/HDP 05-10/PCD 05-03/MS 05-10 DATE: September 27. 2006 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Chehade Minor Subdivision 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad. 1635 Faraday Avenue. Carlsbad. CA 92008 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Scott Donnell. (760) 602-4618 4. PROJECT LOCATION: The project is located between Eucalyptus Lane and El Camino Real. The Assessor's Parcel Number is 208-040-12. 5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: Khaled Chehade. Trustee. 1362 Sugarbush Drive. Vista. CA 92084 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RLM (Residential Low Medium Density. 0-4 du/ac 7. ZONING: R-A-10.000 (Residential Agriculture, minimum 10.000 square foot lot size) 8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): None 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: Description: A three-lot, detached single-family home subdivision is proposed on 1.134 vacant acres. Each of three lots has an area of at least 10.000 square feet, and two of the lots are panhandle lots. The project includes a minor amount of off-site grading to facilitate improvements along the project's El Camino Real frontage. The project would only subdivide the land and does not include an application for approval of any homes: nevertheless, this assessment analyzes the environmental impacts associated with the construction and occupancy of three homes. Environmental setting: The vacant project site rises about 26 feet from its south end along Eucalyptus Lane to its north end just above El Camino Real. From the high point, the property drops steeply at a road cut along El Camino Real. The project site, containing mainly disturbed vegetation dominated by non-native plant species, has no sensitive plants or animals. Surrounding land uses: Vacant land exists to the north (separated from the project site by El Camino Real), and single-family homes are to the south, east, and west. A mobile home park is also located to the west. Based on its mostly urban surroundings, the project can be characterized as infill development. Rev. 02/22/06 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 Agricultural Resources Air Quality I I Biological Resources Cultural Resources [X] Geology/Soils lXl Noise Hazards/Hazardous Materials d Population and Housing Hydrology/Water Quality | 1 Public Services | ] Recreation I | Transportation/Circulation | Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Mandatory Findings of Significance I I Utilities & Service Systems Rev. 02/22/06 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) I | I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. |/\l 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 | I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I | I find that the proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. | I I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. Date Planning Director's Signature Date Rev. 02/22/06 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 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-Initial Study", 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. 02/22/06 • 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-Initial Study 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 after each related set of questions. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant. Rev. 02/22/06 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? Potentially Significant Impact D Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact n D n n n a) - d) No impact. Project grading complies with the El Camino Real Corridor development standards. El Camino Real, the prime arterial the project site abuts, is not a State scenic highway and the project site contains no scenic resources. By removing the nearly vertical, eroding cut slope along El Camino Real and replacing it with a gentler, landscaped slope, the project should actually improve the visual character of the area. The project would not generate substantial light and glare as development on it would consist of three single family homes, which is consistent with surrounding development. Home construction would occur consistent with city standards, including the El Camino Real Corridor development standards. 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D D Rev. 02/22/06 c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, I I which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? a)-c) No impact. Farming of the project site is not presently occurring nor does it appear to have occurred in the past six years. The project is adjacent to residential development, except across El Camino Real, where active farming does occur. The active farming occurs on an area the General Plan designates for future development. The project site is classified as "urban and built-up land" according to a state Department of Conservation Important Farmland map dated 2002. Both the general plan and zoning ordinance designate the site for residential, not agricultural, purposes. 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? 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D D D D D Rev. 02/22/06 a) No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a state non-attainment area for ozone (O3) and for participate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM|0). 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 9* 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 Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the following: • Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area? • Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan? The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is being implemented. The project, including future development of homes on the three lots, is consistent with the general plan and in turn the regional air quality plan and will in no way conflict or obstruct implementation of the regional plan. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is at Camp Pendleton. Data available for this monitoring site from 2000 through December 2004 indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (a total of 10 days during the 5-year period). No other violations of any air quality standards have been recorded during the 5-year time period. The project would involve minimal short-term emissions associated with grading and construction of subdivision improvements and future homes. 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 would 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. Rev. 02/22/06 . Less Than Significant Impact. The air basin is currently in a state 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 and the three homes that would be built on project lots, 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) No impact. As noted above, the proposed would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or concentrations. In addition, there are no sensitive receptors (e.g., schools or hospitals) located in the vicinity of the project. No impact is assessed. e) No Impact. The construction of the proposed project and future homes 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? 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact Rev. 02/22/06 f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat I I Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? a)-e) No impact. A general biological survey was performed on-site and included the area for all on-site and off-site grading. The biological resources on-site and off-site include one habitat type: ruderal, or disturbed, habitat. No state or federally listed plant or animal species were observed on-site. No sensitive plant or animal species have the potential to occur on-site due to the lack of habitat. 0 No impact. The project is consistent with the City's Habitat Management Plan (HMP) in that the document identifies the project site as "development area" and not within any hardline or standards area. Further, development of habitat classified as "disturbed" is subject to payment of an in-lieu mitigation fee per HMP Table 11. Impacts to disturbed land are not considered significant to local, state, and federal agencies. The project will be conditioned to pay this fee. Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 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 pale- ontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? a)-d) No impact. The 1.13 acre site is disturbed and overlain with artificial fill. There are no structures on the property, and it appears the site was farmed in the past. Based on its urban surroundings, the project can be characterized as infill development. The site contains no unique paleontological or geological feature or resource. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D 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: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 10 Rev. 02/22/06 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 oh expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact No Imi D D D D D D D D D 11 Rev. 02/22/06 Less than significant impact. Based on the geotechnical evaluation prepared for the project by GeoTek, Incorporated in 2005, the project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no active or potentially active fault is known to exist at the site. The Rose Canyon Fault approximately 6.4 miles from the project site is considered to present the highest risk to generate ground shaking. a) ii Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. The project geotechnical evaluation indicates the project site could be subject to a maximum magnitude 6.9 earthquake. However, the evaluation notes that the project site is suitable for the proposed subdivision and future anticipated home construction, subject to compliance with evaluation recommendations. A mitigation measure requires the project and any future home proposals to comply with the recommendations contained in the geotechnical evaluation. a) iii Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. The liquefaction potential on the site is considered to be low due to the relatively dense nature of the subsurface materials and lack of a shallow water table. However, the project geotechnical evaluation notes that the fill materials which overlay the site and slopewash-like materials below existing grades are considered potentially compressible and that onsite soils have a low to medium expansion potential. The geotechnical evaluation notes that onsite soils are considered suitable for reuse as compacted fill, subject to evaluation recommendations. A mitigation measure requires the project and any future homes to comply with the recommendations contained in the geotechnical evaluation. a) iv. No impact. The geotechnical evaluation reveals no propensity for landslides. Although the project geotechnical report does not identify it as unstable, the existing cut slope on the project site's north boundary would be regraded and contoured. The property features no hillside areas and is not in an area that the General Plan Environmental Impact Report identifies as landslide-prone. b) Less than significant impact. The site is disturbed with non-native vegetation cover. Slight project-related erosion could occur through the removal of stabilizing vegetation and exposure of credible materials onsite, as well as construction of graded pads, driveways, and other improvements. The project would affect only 1.13 acres and would employ Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction as required by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and the City's Grading Ordinance. Operation of the project would not involve activities that might cause soil erosion. Furthermore, replacement of the steep, eroded road cut with a 2:1 slope along the project's El Camino Real frontage will improve erosion control. c) Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. The project geotechnical evaluation notes that the fill materials which overlay the site and slopewash-like materials below existing grades are considered potentially compressible and that onsite soils have a low to medium expansion potential. A mitigation measure requires the project to comply with the recommendations contained in the evaluation. d) Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. According to the project geotechnical evaluation, soils on the project site have a low to medium expansion potential. However, the evaluation notes that the project site is suitable for development if developed in accordance with the recommendations of the evaluation. A mitigation measure requires the project to comply with the recommendations contained in the evaluation. e) No impact. The project is proposed to be connected to the available sewer system in Eucalyptus Lane. 12 Rev. 02/22/06 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D D D D D 13 Rev. 02/22/06 a)-c) No impact. The project would create lots for future construction of three single-family homes. Neither project construction nor the future residential use would create or result in risks associated with hazardous materials, substances, or wastes. d) No impact. The project site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites pursuant to the Government Code Section cited. e)-f) No impact. The project is outside the Flight Activity Zone and Influence Area of McClellan-Palomar Airport. The project proposes no features that would interfere with airport operations. The project is not in the vicinity of a private airstrip. g) No impact. The project would not interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plans as it would not interfere with street circulation. h) Less than significant impact. The project is not adjacent to any wildland areas. The project is within the vicinity of a large farming area (which the General Plan designates for development) and open space area across El Camino Real from the project site and about 500-feet north of the floodplain of Agua Hedionda Creek. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (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) 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? d) 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D D D D 14 Rev. 02/22/06 e) 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? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) 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? h) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) 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? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Potentially Significant Impact D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D D D D D n 15 Rev. 02/22/06 a) Less than significant impact. During construction, bare earthen surfaces may accumulate fuels or other pollutants that may be transported with storm water run-off, thereby degrading downstream water quality. Temporary impacts to water quality would result from activities such as clearing and grading, stockpiling of soils and materials, concrete pouring, painting, and asphalt surfacing. Pollutants generated during construction include soils, debris, other materials generated during clearing, fuels and other fluids associated with the equipment used for construction, paints, other hazardous materials, concrete slurries, and asphalt materials. Water quality is impacted when these pollutants are washed off-site by storm water or non-storm water. Construction of the proposed project is subject to the requirements of erosion control in the City's Grading Ordinance and would comply with the Clean Water Act. Conformance with the Clean Water Act is established through implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's (SWRCB) NPDES General Permit No. CAS000002. In general, the SWPPP regulates water quantity and quality by requiring the use of BMPs and a Monitoring Program Plan. Conformance with the SWPPP would reduce water quality impacts during project construction activities to less than significant levels. Compliance with NPDES standards will also require preparation of a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) to address long-term, post construction pollutant control associated with the occupancy of homes on the project lots. b) No impact. The project does not propose any features that would deplete or interfere with ground water supplies or recharge. Water service for future homes and landscaping would be provided from imported water supplies, not groundwater. Further, no groundwater was encountered in exploratory excavations for the project geotechnical report and none is known to be present. c)-d) Less than significant impact. Project grading and improvements would not substantially alter existing site drainage patterns. Drainage patterns of the proposed project would essentially remain the same as currently exists. Development of the project would increase the volume and rate of surface run-off by creating impermeable surfaces on-site. This increase would not contribute enough volume to cause any flooding. e) Less than significant impact. Considering the small area that the project site comprises, it would not contribute substantial sources of pollutant run-off, nor would it provide significant sources of pollutant run-off from impervious surfaces to the existing water drainage system. f) No impact. The proposed project does not include any other features that would substantially degrade water quality. g)-0 No impact. The property is outside the 100-year flood hazard area, would not place any structures within this area, and would not expose people or structures to flooding, including due to dam failure. J>No impact. Inundation by seiche or tsunami is considered to be very low due to the project site's distance from and elevation above an open body of water. Mudflows are unlikely to pose a threat due to a lack of steep slopes and hillside areas in the project vicinity. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? I I I I h>/| 16 Rev. 02/22/06 nb) 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? a)-c) No impact. The project would be built on a vacant lot in developed area of the City. The project, and the future construction of homes that would occur on the project's three lots, is consistent with all relevant land use documents, including density and land use provisions of the General Plan and Local Coastal Program. Proposed project lot size and dimensions and other design aspects are also consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and El Camino Real Corridor Development standards. The project will be conditioned to pay appropriate fee requirements consistent with the Habitat Management 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact n a No impact. There are no mineral resources identified on the project site or vicinity. XL 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D Less Than Significant No Impact Impact n n n n 17 Rev. 02/22/06 d) A substantial temporary or periodic 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact n n 18 Rev. 02/22/06 a) Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. According to the General Plan, roadway noise is the most extensive noise problem in Carlsbad. The General Plan Noise Element establishes 60 dBA and 45 dBA as the maximum acceptable exterior and interior noise levels for residences, respectively, where outside the noise influence of McClellan-Palomar Airport. According to the project noise study, acceptable noise levels would be exceeded on the proposed parcel (Parcel 3) closest El Camino Real under different scenarios. Based on existing traffic volumes, mitigation will be necessary to ensure interior noise levels of a two story house comply with city standards. Upon widening of El Camion Real and increase of traffic to buildout flows, mitigation will be necessary to ensure acceptable interior noise levels for a single or two story home on Parcel 3 and an acceptable exterior noise level for Parcel 3. Mitigation to achieve a suitable exterior noise level would require adequate outdoor recreation (back yard) area exists on the side of the home opposite El Camino Real. A mitigation measure requires compliance with the provisions of the noise study recommendations under widening of El Camino Real/buildout conditions. b) No impact. The project will not produce excessive groundbourne vibration or noise. It is not expected that blasting would be needed to construct the project. Traffic on El Camino Real would not produce excessive vibration sufficient to disturb project residents. c) No impact. Consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and surrounding existing development, the project would create three lots for future single-family home construction. d) Less than significant impact. Residents in the project vicinity will experience temporary increases in noise due to project construction and future home construction. However, construction hours are regulated by City Municipal Code Chapter 8.48. e)-f) No impact. The project property is outside the Airport Influence Area of McClellan-Palomar Airport, which is located approximately two miles south of the project site. As such, construction workers and future residents on project lots will not be subject to excessive noise. The project is within the Noise Impact Notification Area of McClellan-Palomar, meaning that residents may be subject to nuisance noise and aircraft overflight. There are no private airstrips in the project vicinity. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly I I I I I I 1ST] (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? 19 Rev. 02/22/06 c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?n n No impact. The project, which would create three single family home lots on a vacant property slightly more than one acre, is consistent with the land use and density limitations of the General Plan and is located in a developed area. Infrastructure already is in place to serve the project. 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? Potentially Significant Impact n nn n n Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D n No impact. The provisions of public facilities within the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP), including fire & police protection, parks, libraries and other public facilities, have been planned to accommodate projected growth, including growth that would be realized through construction of the project. Because the project will not exceed the total growth projections anticipated within the Zone I LFMP, all public facilities will be adequate to serve the future residential development on the site. Therefore, the project will not result in substantial adverse impacts to or result in the need for additional government facilities. XIV. RECREATION Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 20 Rev. 02/22/06 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? 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? D a)-b) No impact. Use of parks by residents of the three homes that could be built on the proposed project lots would be minimal if any. The project includes no recreational facility construction or expansion that might impact the physical 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)? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D D D D D D D 21 Rev. 02/22/06 a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will generate 30 Average Daily Trips (ADT) upon completion of one home on each of the three lots. To gain access, project traffic will utilize Eucalyptus Lane and Crestview Drive, both local streets, and El Camino Real, the adjacent prime arterial street. Existing traffic on El Camino Real in the project vicinity varies from 27,031 ADT (2005) to 36,694 ADT (2005) and the 2005 peak hour level of service at the nearest arterial intersection (El Camino Real and Cannon Road) impacted by the project is LOS "D". The design capacity of the arterial road affected by the proposed project is 40,000 or more vehicles per day. The project traffic would represent very negligible increases of the existing traffic volume and the design capacity respectively. The street system has been designed and sized to accommodate traffic from the project and cumulative development in the City of Carlsbad. The proposed project would not, therefore, cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. The impacts from the proposed project are, therefore, less than significant. b) 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. c) 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) No Impact. All project circulation improvements will be designed and constructed to City standards; and, therefore, would not result in design hazards. The two proposed panhandle lots are required by the Zoning Ordinance to have driveways adequate to accommodate public service vehicles and space for future residents' vehicles to exit onto Eucalyptus Lane in a forward direction. 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) No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and Police Departments. No impact assessed. 22 Rev. 02/22/06 0 No Impact. The proposed project is not requesting a parking variance. Additionally, the project would comply with the City's parking requirements to ensure an adequate parking supply. No impact assessed. No Impact. The project is along El Camino Real, which is served by public transportation. The project does not interfere with any existing or planned bus turnouts and bicycle racks would not be required of a small, residential subdivision. Project grading and improvements allow for future installation of a sidewalk along the project's El Camino Real frontage. 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? 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D D n D D D 23 Rev. 02/22/06 a) Less than significant impact. Future construction of three homes on the project's lots would be constructed and operated in accordance with the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board wastewater treatment requirements. As determined from City of Carlsbad Engineering Standards, the three homes that could be built on the project's three lots would generate approximately 660 gallons per day (GPD) of waste, or 220 GPD per residence. This addition of this waste would not significantly impact the existing sewer system in the region. Impacts would be less than significant. b) No impact. The project would tie into an existing sewer line located in adjacent Eucalyptus Lane. The project would not result in the need for new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities. According to the 2003 Sewer Master Plan, the sewer interceptor serving the project is adequate to accommodate ultimate flows and adequate capacity exists to accommodate sewage flows from Carlsbad at the Encina Wastewater Treatment Plant through at least 2015. In September 2006, the City Planning Commission recommended approval of "Phase V Expansion" plans that would ensure adequate wastewater capacity at the treatment plant through 2025. c) No impact. The amount of stormwater generated by the project would not be substantial, nor would the project create a need for new or expanded facilities. d) No impact. The City's 2005 Urban Water Management Plan indicates sufficient water resources exist to supply the Carlsbad Municipal Water District Service area (of which the project is a part) through the year 2020. e) No impact. The City's 2003 Sewer Master Plan Update indicates adequate capacity exists at the Encina Wastewater Treatment Plant to accommodate Carlsbad sewage flows through at least 2015. See also b) above. f)-g) No impact. Waste generated by future residential construction on the project site is not expected to exceed landfill capacity and would be handled according to the City's waste disposal requirements, which are in compliance with all applicable laws. Less Than Significant No Impact Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 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? n 24 Rev. 02/22/06 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 substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact D No Impact n a)-c) No impact. As evidenced by this assessment, the project, nor the future construction of three single-family homes on project lots, do not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, impacts that are cumulatively considerable, or environmental effects that will substantially affect human beings either directly or indirectly. XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects 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. 25 Rev. 02/22/06 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. El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards. City of Carlsbad Planning Department. Adopted by City Council Resolution 7642 on August 7, 1984. 3. San Diego County Important Farmland 2002. California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. 4. Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 1. City of Carlsbad Planning Department. Adopted by City Council Resolution 9221 on September 1, 1987. 5. Geotechnical Evaluation for Proposed Residential Subdivision APN 208-040-03 Eucalyptus Avenue. Carlsbad. California. GeoTek, Inc. April 4, 2005. 6. City of Carlsbad Interactive G1S Map. Flood Hazard Zone layer. Accessed September 13,2006. 7. Biological Technical Report for Chehade Property in the City of Carlsbad (APN 208-040-03). RC Biological Consulting, Inc. Revised May 2006. 8. External Acoustical Study of the Three Parcels Adjacent El Camino Real in Carlsbad. California. Dr. Penzes & Associates. October 10, 2005. 9. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. McClellan-Palomar Airport. Carlsbad. California. San Diego County Regional Airport Authority. Originally adopted April 22, 1994. Amended October 4, 2004. 10. 2005 Urban Water Management Plan. City of Carlsbad. Adopted by Carlsbad Municipal Water District Board of Director's Resolution 1266 on December 13, 2005. 11. Sewer Master Plan Update. City of Carlsbad. March 2003. 12. Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad. City of Carlsbad. Final Approval November, 2004. 26 Rev. 02/22/06 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained in the External Acoustical Study of the Three Parcels Adjacent El Camino Real in Carlsbad. California, prepared by Dr. Penzes & Associates, dated October 10, 2005, and on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department. Specifically, the applicant shall institute the recommendations for mitigation for a house on proposed Parcel 3 based on a widened El Camino Real. Further, for the house on proposed Parcel 3 and in compliance with the recommendations, sufficient yard area shall be provided on the south side of the house, opposite El Camino Real, to provide an outdoor recreation area with a minimum depth of 20 feet. Compliance with the recommendations shall be demonstrated on construction plans and documents, as determined necessary by the City, prior to issuance of a building permit for the residence on proposed Parcel 3. A copy of the above referenced noise study shall be submitted as part of the building plan check for the residence on proposed Parcel3. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Evaluation for Proposed Residential Subdivision APN 208-040-03 Eucalyptus Avenue. Carlsbad. California, prepared by GeoTek, Inc., dated April 4, 2005, and on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department. The applicant shall also comply with any subsequent amendments to the geotechnical evaluation. Compliance with the recommendations shall be demonstrated on construction plans and documents, as determined necessary by the City, prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, as appropriate and as determined by the City. A copy of the above referenced geotechnical evaluation and any subsequent amendments shall be submitted as part of the grading plan check for the project and as part of the building plan check for any house proposed on the project. 27 Rev. 02/22/06 3. APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature 28 Rev. 02/22/06 PROJECT NAME: Chehade Minor Subdivsion APPROVAL DATE: December 6. 2006 FILE NUMBERS: SUP 05-12/CDP 05-49/HDP 05-10/PCD 05-03 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). Mitigation Measure Monitoring Type Monitoring Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained in the External Acoustical Study of the Three Parcels Adjacent El Camino Real in Carlsbad. California. prepared by Dr. Penzes & Associates, dated October 10, 2005, and on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department. Specifically, the applicant shall institute the recommendations for mitigation for a house on proposed Parcel 3 based on a widened El Camino Real. Further, for the house on proposed Parcel 3 and in compliance with the recommendations, sufficient yard area shall be provided on the south side of the house, opposite El Camino Real, to provide an outdoor recreation area with a minimum depth of 20 feet. Compliance with the recommendations shall be demonstrated on construction plans and documents, as determined necessary by the City, prior to issuance of a building permit for the residence on proposed Parcel 3. A copy of the above referenced noise study shall be submitted as part of the building plan check for the residence on proposed Parcel 3. Project (Building Permit) Building Department, Planning Department Chehade Minor Subdivision SUP 05-12/CDP 05-49/HDP 05-10/PCD 05-03 Page 2 of 2 Mitigation Measure Monitoring Type Monitoring Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks 2. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Evaluation for Proposed Residential Subdivision APN 208-040-03 Eucalyptus Avenue. Carlsbad. California, prepared by GeoTek, Inc., dated April 4, 2005, and on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department. The applicant shall also comply with any subsequent amendments to the geotechnical evaluation. Compliance with the recommendations shall be demonstrated on construction plans and documents, as determined necessary by the City, prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, as appropriate and as determined by the City. A copy of the above referenced geotechnical evaluation and any subsequent amendments shall be submitted as part of the grading plan check for the project and as part of the building plan check for any house proposed on the project. Project (Building or Grading Permit) Building Department, Engineering Department, Planning Department 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.