Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-07-15; Planning Commission; Resolution 66011 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6601 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 4 AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE 6 TO SUBDIVIDE A 10.16 ACRE SITE INTO 26 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND ONE OPEN SPACE LOT ON PROPERTY 7 GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST END OF CAMINO HILLS DRIVE ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF EL 8 CAMINO REAL IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT 9 ZONE 24. CASE NAME: TAB ATA 10 10 CASE NO.: GPA 06-04/LCPA 06-02/ZC 06-03/CT 06-137 SUP 06-08/HDP 07-037 CDP 06-19 11 WHEREAS, the Tabata Family, "Developer/Owner," has filed a verified 13 application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as 14 Parcels 1 & 2 of Parcel Map 2481 (County TM9612-1), in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California Rec. 15 March 21, 1974 in the Office of the County Recorder of said -, s- San Diego County 17 ("the Property"); and 18 WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and 19 Reporting Program was prepared in conjunction with said project; and 20 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 15th day of July, 2009, hold a 21 duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 22 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 factors *)f\relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting 27 Program. 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 RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Exhibit 4 "MND," according to Exhibits "Notice of Intent (NOI)," and "Environmental r Impact Assessment Form - Initial Study (EIA)," attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings and subject to following conditions: 6 Findings: 7 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:8 a. it has reviewed, analyzed, and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the TAB ATA 10 - GPA 10 06-04, LCPA 06-02, ZC 06-03, CT 06-13, SUP 06-08, CDP 06-19 and HDP 07- 03, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and 12 b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting 13 Program has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental 14 Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of , s Carlsbad; and 17 d. based on the EIA and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. 18 Conditions: 20 1 • Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the TABATA 10 - GPA 06- 04, LCPA 06-02, ZC 06-03, CT 06-13, SUP 06-08, CDP 06-19 and HDP 07-03 Project 21 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PCRESONO. 6601 -2- 1 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning 2 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on July 15, 2009, by the following vote, to 3 wit: 4 ~ AYES: Commissioners Baker, Boddy, Dominguez, Douglas, L'Heureux, Nygaard, and Chairperson Montgomery 6 NOES: 7 ABSENT: 10 11 12 ABSTAIN: MARTELLB. MONTGOMERY, Qfflrperson 13 CARLSBAD PLANNING COMM^ION 14 „ATTEST: 15 Q.X.16 17 DON NEU 18 Planning Director 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PCRESONO. 6601 -3- City of Carlsbad CASE NAME: CASE NO: PROJECT LOCATION: Planning Department NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A /*? MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION [£' FEB 2009 \ "5- Planning DepartmentTabatalO \<& Gjy°f. Yv* CarfsoaclGPA 06-047 LCPA 06-027 ZC 06-037 CT 06-137 SUP 06-WCDP 06- ^ 19/HDP 07-03 : ^SPeZV^} At the north-east end of Camino Hills Drive and the west side of El Camino Real PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of a General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Tract Map, Special Use Permit, Coastal Development Permit and Hillside Development Permit to subdivide and grade a 10.16 acre site located at the northeast end of Camino Hills Drive into 26 single family residential lots and one open space lot. Single-family residences are not proposed for development at this time. The GPA is proposed to rectify a previous mapping error by re-designating the southwest one-third of the property from Open Space (OS) to Residential Low Medium (RLM) and the ZC will change the zoning of the entire property from Limited Control (LC) to One-Family Residential (R-l). An LCP amendment is required to reflect the new RLM designation and R-l zone on the LCP Land Use Plan and Zoning Maps respectively. 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 and 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 Corey Funk in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4645. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD PUBLISH DATE January 16. 2009 - February 15, 2009 January 16.2009 vy- \S-.3 \ S]Xj !l\}!il'.'// 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 •:www.ci.carisbad.ca.us \m ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - INITIAL STUDY (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: GPA 06-047 LCPA 06-027 ZC 06-03/ CT 06-137 SUP 06-087 CDP 06-19/HDP 07-03 DATE: December 22. 2008 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Tabata 10 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Corey Funk. (760) 602-4645 4. PROJECT LOCATION: At the north-east end of Camino Hills Drive and the west side of El Camino Real 5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: Tabata Family. P.O. Box 679, Carlsbad. CA 92018 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RLM - Residential Low-Medium Density (0-4 du/ac) / OS - Open Space 7. ZONING: L-C (Limited Control) 8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): California Coastal Commission (For LCPA) 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: The Tabata 10 project is located on a 10.16-acre site in the northwest quadrant of the City of Carlsbad, at the north end of Camino Hills Drive and on the west side of El Camino Real. The project includes a proposal to subdivide and grade the site into 26 single family residential lots and one open space lot. Dwelling units are not proposed with this project. The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment (GPA 06-04), a Zone Change (ZC 06- 03), and a Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 06-02) to change the General Plan Land Use designation from Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM) and Open Space (OS) to only RLM, and to change the zoning designation from Limited Control (L-C) to One-Family Residential (R-l). The application also includes a Tentative Subdivision Map (CT 06-13), Site Development Plan (SDP 06-08), Coastal Development Permit (CDP 06-19), and Hillside Development Permit (HDP 07-03), to allow for the subdivision and grading of the project site. The OS General Plan Land Use designation on part of the project property (APN 212-050-33) is the result of a mapping error that occurred during the 1992 Open Space & Conservation Resource Management Plan mapping process and 1994 Carlsbad General Plan update. The area within the boundary of the OS designation on APN 212-050-33 consists of disturbed habitat, which was used for agriculture, and irrigated exotic landscaping. No sensitive habitat has been found in this area. The OS General Plan Designation on APN 212-050-33 does not belong, and it should have GPA 06-04/ LCPA 06-02/ ZC 06-03/ CT 06-13/ SUP 06-08/ CDP 06-19/HDP 07-03 Tabata 10 been designated on APN 212-050-46, which was dedicated to the City by the adjacent Camino Hills Mobile Home Park for open space purposes. A subsequent project, GPA 05-12/ LCPA 05-087 ZC 05-11 - HMP Hardline GPA, correctly applied a General Plan Open Space land use designation, Zoning Open Space zoning designation, and corresponding Local Coastal Program land use and zoning designations to the Camino Hills Mobile Home Park open space parcel: APN 212-050-46. The remaining task needed to rectify the mapping error will be accomplished by the current project, GPA 06-04, which will remove the incorrectly applied OS General Plan designation from the Tabata 10 parcel, APN 212-050-33. The purpose of the L-C zoning on the subject property is to provide an interim zone where planning for future land uses has not been completed. Upon the preparation of specific plans for development, the L-C zoning would be replaced with zoning which implements the underlying General Plan designation. As such, R-l zoning is proposed by the project, which will implement the RLM General Plan land use designation. The project proposes to develop 26 single-family lots consistent with the RLM and R-l designations. Though not proposed at this time, a future project will develop single-family residences on the lots. Additionally, proposed single-family development on the project property is compatible with the existing single-family residences on surrounding properties. The site is surrounded by a grove of Eucalyptus trees and existing single family homes on the north, and single-family homes on the south and west sides of the property. Adjacent property on the east side of El Camino Real is primarily vacant including, the parcel across El Camino Real to the north east which is zoned C-L Local Shopping Center. The site slopes gradually downhill to the north-east toward a low point adjacent to El Camino Real, with the exception of a small knoll on the north end adjacent to Camino Hills Drive. Manufactured slopes exist on the south and west sides of the property. An existing single family house is located on top of the knoll. The gradually sloping majority of the property has been previously used for agriculture for over 70 years. Access to the site will be provided by Camino Hills Drive. The project includes the demolition of the single family house, extension of public streets from Camino Hills Drive southward which will create a "grid-like" layout, and re-grading the site to develop 26 single family residential lots and a contoured and landscaped sound berm on the proposed open space lot along El Camino Real. Rev. 11/17/08 GPA 06-04/ LCPA 06-021ZC 06-03/ CT 06-13/ SUP 06-08/ CDP 06-19/HDP 07-03 Tabata 10 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 /\ Biological Resources X Cultural Resources Geology/Soils X Noise Hazards/Hazardous Materials LJ Population and Housing Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources X, Mandatory Findings of Significance Public Services Recreation Transportation/Circulation Utilities & Service Systems Rev. 11/17/08 GPA 06-047 LCPA 06-027 ZC 06-037 CT 06-137 SUP 06-087 CDP 06-19/HDP 07-03 Tabata 10 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or litigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. \l i? Date Planning Director's Signature Date Rev. 11/17/08 GPA 06-04/ LCPA 06-027 ZC 06-03/ CT 06-13/ SUP 06-08/ CDP 06-19/HDP 07-03 Tabata 10 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. 11/17/08 GPA 06-04/ LCPA 06-02/ ZC 06-03/ CT 06-13/ SUP 06-08/ CDP 06-19/HDP 07-03 Tabata 10 • 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. 11/17/08 GPA 06-04/ LCPA 06-027 ZC 06-037 CT 06-137 SUP 06-087 CDP 06-197HDP 07-03 Tabata 10 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? a, c - d) Less than Significant Impact. Since El Camino Real is a City designated Scenic Corridor, the proposed project is subject to and designed to comply with the City's El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards. The project lots are setback a minimum of 95' from El Camino Real and development is separated from the road with a heavily landscaped and contoured berm. The berm and landscaping will create a visual buffer between the homes and views from El Camino Real, and is designed to blend with existing topography adjacent to the site. The proposed grading design and compliance of the homes with corridor height and grading standards adequately mitigates any potential visual project impacts to the El Camino Real scenic corridor. As the property and roadway are in a topographic depression, no distant scenic vistas are visible from the roadway in the direction of the site, therefore the project will not significantly impact or obstruct public views of scenic vistas such as a lagoon, valley or backcountry. Though the existing open nature of the site will be changed by the project; the perimeter project landscaping and berm along El Camino Real will blend the site with its neighboring surroundings and mitigate any potential aesthetic impacts. All existing landscaping on the south and west slopes will be preserved. Though the current use of the site produces no light glare, the proposed use is consistent with the adjacent uses and will only produce light and glare in a comparable manner to its neighbors, and as such, the increase in light and glare will not contribute a significant amount of light or glare or create a significant impact. b) No Impact. No trees or rock outcroppings will be impacted by the proposed project. No historic buildings are located in or adjacent to the site. The area of proposed impact is not located within the viewshed of a State scenic highway or any State highway that is designated by CalTrans as eligible for listing as a scenic highway. No impact is assessed. Rev. 11/17/08 GPA 06-04/ LCPA 06-021ZC 06-03/ CT 06-13/ SUP 06-08/ CDP 06-19/HDP 07-03 Tabata 10 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 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? a) Less than Significant Impact. It is estimated that the project site has previously been used for agriculture for approximately 70 years, though all agricultural activity has ceased within the last few years (Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc., 04/27/06). Though previously used for agriculture, the project site is not designated as prime agricultural land in the Local Coastal Program (LCP) and is not identified on Map X as agricultural land subject to the LCP Agricultural Conversion Mitigation Fee. The project site not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (California State Department of Conservation, June 1990); therefore, the project will not impact important agricultural resources. The project is subject to the disturbed/agriculture fee in the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan. b) No Impact. The existing and proposed General Plan designation is Residential Low-Medium (RLM), which anticipates low to medium density residential development (0 to 4 du/ac). The project proposes single family residential at a density of 3.03 dwelling units per acre, consistent with the General Plan. The subject site is not encumbered by a Williamson Act contract. c) No Impact. The subject property is an infill site which is no longer farmed and is substantially surrounded by existing urban development. No changes proposed by the project will impact other farms or result in additional farmland conversion in the area as none are adjacent. Rev. 11/17/08 GPA 06-047 LCPA 06-02/ ZC 06-037 CT 06-137 SUP 06-087 CDP 06-197HDP 07-03 Tabata 10 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 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? 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 paniculate 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 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. The proposed residential subdivision is consistent with the Carlsbad RLM General Plan land use designation. 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 Rev. 11/17/08 GPA 06-047 LCPA 06-02/ ZC 06-03/ CT 06-13/ SUP 06-08/ CDP 06-19/HDP 07-03 Tabata 10 management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the following: • Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area? • Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan? The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is being implemented. The project is consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan and 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. Such emissions would be minimized through standard construction measures such as the use of properly tuned equipment and watering the site for dust control. The future development of the 26 lots with single family residences will generate long term emissions. However, 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) Less Than Significant Impact. The air basin is currently in a state non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine particulates. The proposed project when fully developed with residences 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) 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 residences 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. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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? 10 Rev. 11/17/08 GPA 06-04/ LCPA 06-021 ZC 06-03/ CT 06-13/ SUP 06-08/ CDP 06-19/HDP 07-03 Tabata 10 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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, filling, 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? a & b) Less than significant Impact. The City of Carlsbad has an adopted Habitat Management Plan (HMP), which is a comprehensive, citywide, program to identify how the City, in cooperation with the federal and state wildlife agencies, can preserve the diversity of habitat and protect sensitive biological resources within the City while allowing for additional development consistent with the City's General Plan and its Growth Management Plan. In so doing, the Plan is intended to lead to citywide permits and authorization for the incidental take of sensitive species in conjunction with private development projects, public projects, and other activities, which are consistent with the Plan. As discussed in the subsequent passages, the project does not conflict with any of the provisions of the HMP. The 10.16-acre project site is primarily undeveloped with the exception of an existing single family home, and the majority of the property has previously been used for agriculture. Manufactured slopes on the south and west sides of the property are landscaped and irrigated. The property is surrounded by detached single-family homes to the north, west and south, and El Camino Real to the east. According to the HMP, the site is identified as a Development Area, and is not located adjacent to any Standards Areas or Existing or Proposed Hardline Preserve Areas. A Habitat Mapping Report of the project site was prepared by Dossey & Associates on October 1, 2007 (revised December 10, 2008). According to the report, the following habitat types exist on site and in the off-site area of expansion for Camino Hills Drive: disturbed (7.7 acres), non-native grassland (0.9 acres), eucalyptus woodland (0.3 acres), developed (1.2 acres) and landscaped (<0.04 acres). Just over 1 acre of mature landscaped area will remain in place, and no native species were found on site. According to the HMP, non-native grassland is a Group E habitat and may be mitigated by an in-lieu fee. The non-native grassland on site is intermixed with a majority of exotic species and provides only minimal habitat value. According to the HMP, disturbed, eucalyptus and agricultural lands are group F Habitat which do not have a preservation requirement and may be mitigated by an in-lieu fee as 11 Rev. 11/17/08 GPA 06-04/ LCPA 06-021ZC 06-03/ CT 06-13/ SUP 06-08/ CDP 06-19/HDP 07-03 Tabata 10 well. The developer, in accordance with the provisions of the HMP, is conditioned as part of the project to pay in- lieu fees for impacts to 0.9-acres of Group-E Habitat and 8.0 acres of Group F Habitat. Sensitive Plant Species According to the Habitat Mapping Report, no narrow endemic or other sensitive plant species listed by the HMP were observed onsite. A site survey of sensitive plant species listed in the HMP with a potential for occurrence on the project site was prepared. None of the species listed were identified on the site. The report states that there is no potential for the occurrence of narrow endemics on the property. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant. Sensitive Wildlife Species According to the Habitat Mapping Report, no sensitive wildlife species listed by the HMP were observed onsite. Construction of the proposed project is not expected to significantly impede local wildlife because the subject area has not been identified by the HMP as a connectivity link or Core Area to be preserved. d) Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The project is consistent with the City of Carlsbad HMP, and is also not part of the HMP Core and Linkage Areas. Since the property is not connected with other significant open space areas in the City and is an infill development project surrounded by development on all sides, the project does not interfere significantly with the movement of wildlife species on the ground. According to the Habitat Mapping Report, the expansion area of Camino Hills Drive for the project is identified as Eucalyptus woodland. Birds protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) may nest in the landscaping (trees and shrubs) currently located on the project site. The MBTA prohibits acts that result in the "take" of most nongame native bird species and their nests. Specifically, "take" includes actions that result in direct mortality, removal of an active nest (where eggs or young are present), or disturbance of the adult birds that results in abandonment of the nest. Should construction occur during the bird breeding season of February 15 through August 30, significant impacts could occur to nesting sites. If construction occurs during breeding season, then standard wildlife nursery site protection methods shall be implemented through a mitigation measure, which will reduce potential impacts to nesting birds below a level of significance. In compliance with the MBTA, this mitigation measure requires a qualified biologist to conduct a focused survey for bird nests within 72 hours of grading or other construction activities. If active nests are found, a buffer zone shall be established to protect the nest site until juveniles have fledged and nesting is complete. c, e-f) No Impact. The above Habitat Mapping Report does not identify any wetlands or wetland habitat on site. No tributary areas were identified on site. The City of Carlsbad has no adopted tree preservation policy or ordinance which would affect the subject project. The subject project will not significantly impact trees or other biological resources protected by such policy or ordinance except as otherwise described above. As stated above, the project does not conflict with the HMP. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated 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? 12- Rev. 11/17/08 GPA 06-047 LCPA 06-02/ ZC 06-03/ CT 06-13/ SUP 06-087 CDP 06-19/HDP 07-03 Tabata 10 c)Directly ontological feature? or indirectly resource or destroy site or Potentially Significant Impact a unique pale unique geologic Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? a, b & d) No Impact. The City of Carlsbad Historic Resources Inventory identified no historic structures on the project site. A cultural resources survey was completed for the proposed project (Brian F. Smith and Associates, April 20, 2006) in order to identify potential prehistoric and historic resources on the subject property. An archeological pedestrian survey of the site and an institutional records search by the South Coastal Information Center (SCIS) at San Diego State University (SDSU) were performed in accordance with CEQA Sec. 15064.5 criteria, and no cultural resources were found within the project boundaries. Given the absence of previously recorded cultural resources and the native field survey, no additional cultural resource work was recommended c) Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. According to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, the soils on the site contain Tertiary Santiago Formation, which are known to produce fossils. The Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01) also indicates this soil type may contain fossils. The project requires significant remedial grading excavation (up to 10 feet of cut) in some portions of the site, and removal of this material has the potential to adversely impact scientifically significant paleontological resources. If paleontological resources are unearthed, then standard recovery methods shall be implemented. A mitigation program which involves review of the grading plans, attendance of a paleontologist at grading meetings and during the grading operation with the authority to direct grading operations to salvage resources, and curation of the resources will mitigate the impacts to a less than significant level. 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 13 Rev. 11/17/08 GPA 06-04/ LCPA 06-021ZC 06-037 CT 06-13/ SUP 06-08/ CDP 06-19/HDP 07-03 Tabata 10 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 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 Section 1802.3.2 of the California Building Code (2007), 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? a. i.) No 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. a. ii.) Less than Significant Impact. A geotechnical investigation of the project site was prepared by Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc. (June 23, 2006) to provide subsurface information and geotechnical recommendations specific to the proposed Tabata 10 residential subdivision. 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, the closest of these is the Rose Canyon Fault located 6.6 miles to the west, and these potential faults could affect Carlsbad. 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 in the region, will be applied to the future units constructed on the proposed lots. Conditions of project approval require that the project incorporate all recommendations in the Geotechnical Investigation into the design of the project. a. iii.) Less than Significant Impact. According to the geotechnical investigation, much of the property is occupied by undifferentiated fill/alluvial soil, which would be susceptible to seismic shaking, liquefaction and related ground failures; however proper remedial grading and re-compaction techniques, as proposed by the project, will reduce this impact to less than significant. The geotechnical investigation states that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided that the recommendations included in the report are incorporated into the design and construction phases of the project. The recommendations will be incorporated into the project conditions of approval. a. iv.) No Impact. According to the project Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc., June 23, 2006), the existing fill slopes on the south and east perimeter of the property show no evidence of instability or landslide risk. b) No Impact. The topography of the site is considered relatively flat with elevations ranging from approximately 87 feet above mean sea level (msl) in the north corner of the site to approximately 166 feet msl at the south corner of the site. 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 measures will avoid substantial soil erosion and loss of topsoil impacts. 14 Rev. 11/17/08 GPA 06-04/ LCPA 06-02/ ZC 06-03/ CT 06-13/ SUP 06-08/ CDP 06-19/HDP 07-03 Tabata 10 c & d) Less than Significant Impact. The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation indicates that existing undifferentiated fill/alluvial soil will require removal and re-compaction according to the recommendations in the report. On-site soils are generally very low to high in expansion potential and recommendations for foundation design and construction are presented in the report. The report indicates that development of the property appears to be feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint, provided the recommendations presented in the report are properly incorporated into the design and construction of the project. These recommendations are part of the project conditions of approval and will reduce this impact to less than significant. e) 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. 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 15 Rev. 11/17/08 GPA 06-04/ LCPA 06-021ZC 06-03/ CT 06-13/ SUP 06-08/ CDP 06-19/HDP 07-03 Tabata 10 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 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? a-b) Less Than Significant Impact. Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments were prepared for the project property (Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc., April 27 and November 6, 2006). The Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment identified a 200-gallon fuel storage tank and pesticide use during the past agricultural activites as potential concerns, and recommended soil samples. The Phase II Environmental Site Assessment performed this soil analysis and found no detectable concentrations of pesticides, gasoline or diesel. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment recommends that the existing house be analyzed for asbestos and lead based paint prior to demolition, which will be incorporated into the conditions of approval. By following the recommendations contained within the referenced report, the site is suitable for the proposed project, and exposure of people to hazardous materials is considered to be less than significant. The project also involves grading operations and construction activity for the future development of single-family homes. During the construction phases of the proposed project, construction equipment and materials typically associated with land development (i.e. petroleum products, paint, oils and solvents) will be transported and used onsite. Upon completion of construction of the project, some use of hazardous cleaning products on the site may occur. Other than during this construction phase, the project will not routinely utilize hazardous substances or materials. All transport, handling, use, and disposal of any cleaning substances will comply with all federal, state, and local laws regulating the management and use of such materials. No extraordinary risk of accidental explosion or the release of hazardous substances is anticipated with construction, development, and implementation or operation of the proposed project. It is concluded that the routine amount of hazardous materials utilized during the construction period is not significant, and therefore the impact to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials is considered to be less that significant. c) No Impact. The nearest schools to the site are Kelly Elementary School, located approximately 1.4 miles to the northwest, and the proposed new high school, located approximately 0.7 miles to the north. Because the site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, no significant impact is anticipated. d) No Impact. The subject property is not included on any lists or registry of sites containing hazardous materials. No impact is assessed. e) No Impact. The subject site is located approximately 1 mile north of the McClellan-Palomar Airport. Because the site is located outside of the McClellan-Palomar Airport Area of Influence and furthermore is not located within any Flight Activity Area or Runway Protection Zone, it is concluded that the site will not cause a safety hazard for people residing within the project area. No impact is assessed. 0 No Impact. No private airstrip exists within the vicinity of the subject project. No impact is assessed. g) No Impact. The proposed project involves development of an undeveloped parcel. The project is located directly adjacent to Camino Hills Drive and El Camino Real. Neither construction nor the operation of the proposed project facilities will significantly affect, block, or interfere with traffic on public streets, including any streets that would be used for an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No emergency response or evacuation plan directs evacuees through the project site, and no improvements are proposed by the project in any area which would physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. 16 Rev. 11/17/08 GPA 06-04/ LCPA 06-02/ ZC 06-03/ CT 06-13/ SUP 06-08/ CDP 06-19/HDP 07-03 Tabata 10 h) No Impact. The project is not adjacent to open space or natural habitat, and is not located in an area that will expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. As such, no fire suppression plans are required for this project and no impact is assessed. 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? 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D 17 Rev. 11/17/08 GPA 06-04/ LCPA 06-02/ ZC 06-03/ CT 06-13/ SUP 06-08/ CDP 06-19/HDP 07-03 Tabata 10 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? k) Increase erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. 1) Increase 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? m) Change receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? n) Increase any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? o) Increase impervious surfaces and associated runoff? p) Impact aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat. q) Result in the exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? a) Less Than Significant Impact. Federal, state and local agencies have established goals and objectives for storm water quality in the region. Prior to the start of construction, the proposed project will comply with all federal, state and local permits including the Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) required under the County of San Diego Watershed Protection, Storm Water Management, and Discharge Control Ordinance (WPO) (Section 67.871), the City of Carlsbad's Standard Urban Storm Water Management Plan (SUSMP), and the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The project will develop and implement specific erosion control and best management practices to protect downstream water quality. These plans will ensure that acceptable water quality standards will be maintained both during construction as well as post- development. b) Less Than Significant Impact. Ground water is projected to be at a depth of at least 32 feet. The project does not propose to directly draw any groundwater; instead it will be served via existing public water distribution lines within the public right-of-way adjacent to the site. Existing water lines will adequately serve the project's water demands. Rainwater infiltration is needed to provide adequate groundwater recharge. Therefore, the project incorporates Low Impact Development (LID) design features, which promote infiltration of storm water run-off by proposing to minimize impervious surface areas, directing run-off to landscaped swales and proposed "Filterra" infiltration systems, and serves as a treatment BMP to attain water quality objectives. The project will not significantly deplete groundwater supplies or quality. Therefore, impacts are considered to be less than significant. c) No Impact. There are no streams or rivers within or adjacent to the site. Therefore, no impact is assessed. d - 0 Less than Significant Impact. The Hydrology Study, dated May. 13, 2008 and Storm Water Management Plan, dated April 30, 2008, for the Tabata 10 project indicate that the proposed drainage design does not adversely affect surrounding properties and the storm drain system adequately drains the proposed project in a 100-year storm event. Construction of the proposed project improvements is required by law to comply with all federal, state and 18 Rev. 11/17/08 GPA 06-04/ LCPA 06-021ZC 06-03/ CT 06-13/ SUP 06-08/ CDP 06-19/HDP 07-03 Tabata 10 local water quality regulations, including the Clean Water Act and associated NPDES regulations and temporary impacts associated with the construction operation will be mitigated. The total post development runoff discharging from the site will not significantly exceed the pre-development amounts. The project incorporates Low Impact Development (LID) design features, which promote infiltration of storm water run-off by proposing to minimize impervious surface areas, directing run-off to landscaped swales and proposed "Filterra" infiltration systems, and serves as a treatment BMP to attain water quality objectives. Therefore, the project will not violate any water quality standards, deplete groundwater supplies or quality, substantially alter existing drainage patterns, cause substantial erosion or flooding, or significantly impact the capacity of stormwater drainage systems. g-j) No Impact. The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according to Flood Insurance Rate Map, Map No. 06Q73C0768 F. Effective Date June 19, 1997; and according to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study. Catastrophic Dam Failure Inundation, Tsunami and Seiche Hazard Zone Maps. November 1992. the project site is not located within an area affected by tsunami, seiche, or mudflow, nor is the site located within a Catastrophic Dam Failure Inundation Area. Therefore, no impact is assessed. k - n) Less than Significant Impact. The Hydrology Study, dated May 13, 2008 and Storm Water Management Plan, dated April 30, 2008, for the Tabata 10 project indicates that Standard Storm Water Permanent Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be incorporated into the project design to address water quality for the project. BMPs will be implemented during construction and post construction phases, which specifically address sediments, nutrients, trash and debris, oxygen demanding substances, oil and grease, bacteria and viruses, and pesticides. As discussed in the sections above, the project will not significantly increase pollutant discharges and will not alter the water quality of the receiving surface waters, and the amount of discharge and velocity of run-off will not significantly exceed pre-development levels. The project incorporates Low Impact Development (LID) design features, which promote infiltration of storm water run-off by proposing to minimize impervious surface areas, directing run-off to landscaped swales areas and proposed "Filterra" infiltration systems, and serves as a treatment BMP to attain water quality objectives. As a result of these project design features, there will be less than significant impact to water quality, site erosion, and pollutant discharge, and no receiving water quality will be adversely affected through implementation of the proposed project. o) Less than Significant Impact. The project will result in an increase in impervious surfaces due to construction of the roadway and 26 future residences with associated hardscape. However, over 36% of the site will remain as pervious landacape areas and slopes. According to the Hydrology Study and Storm Water Management Plan for the Tabata 10 project, the post-development increase in runoff flow from 27.43cfs to 34.14cfs will not significantly impact the Carlsbad storm drain system. p) No Impact. Runoff from the site will not impact aquatic, wetland or riparian habitat as none of these habitat types exists on the site or in the vicinity of the site. q) No Impact. The project will not result in the exceedence of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses. Please refer to the preceding responses. 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact X 19 Rev. 11/17/08 GPA 06-04/ LCPA 06-021 ZC 06-03/ CT 06-13/ SUP 06-08/ CDP 06-19/HDP 07-03 Tabata 10 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? a-c) No Impact. The project involves subdivision of the site into 26 residential lots for the construction of detached single-family dwelling units, which are consistent with the surrounding land uses. The site does not physically divide an established community, nor does the proposed project conflict with any existing or proposed land use plans or policies, or habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans of the City of Carlsbad. The project is consistent with both the City of Carlsbad General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use designations, as both are identified as RLM (Residential Low-Medium Density). RLM anticipates single-family dwellings at 0 to 4 dwelling units per acre. The project is constructing at a density of 3.03 dwelling units per acre, which is within the RLM density range. Therefore, no impact is assessed. 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 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? a-b) No Impact. There are not any known significant mineral resources within the site or immediate vicinity. 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? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 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? 20 Rev. 11/17/08 GPA 06-047 LCPA 06-02/ ZC 06-037 CT 06-137 SUP 06-087 CDP 06-19/HDP 07-03 Tabata 10 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 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? a) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Based on the findings of the Acoustical Site Assessment prepared for the project, future exterior noise levels surrounding the project would not exceed the City threshold of 60 dBA Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). Thus, aside from the proposed sound berm, no exterior mitigation would be required. Future interior noise levels within the project could potentially exceed the City threshold of 45 dBA CNEL due to noise from traffic on El Camino Real. Thus, interior noise mitigation, i.e. specialized door and window treatments, would be required for a future home on Lot #1 as recommended by the Acoustical Site Assessment. Consistent with this assessment, the project will be conditioned to provide an interior noise study prior to issuance of building permits in order to demonstrate that the architectural design would limit interior noise levels to 45 dBA CNEL. This will mitigate the impact to a level of less than significant. b & d) Less Than Significant Impact. The anticipated grading operation associated with the proposed single- family lots will result in a temporary and minor increase in groundborne vibration and ambient noise levels. Following the conclusion of grading, ambient noise levels and vibrations are expected to return to pre-existing levels. c) No Impact. The project consists of 26 single-family lots, which are consistent in use and intensity with the surrounding residential development. As such, the project would not result in sustained ambient noise levels that would exceed the established standards. No impact assessed. e) No Impact. The subject site is located approximately 1 mile north of the McClellan-Palomar Airport. Because the site is located outside of the Airport Area of Influence and furthermore is not located within any Flight Activity Area, Runway Protection Zone or noise contour lines, it is concluded that subdividing the site into 26 single-family lots and locating future homes at this site will not cause a noise impacts for people residing within the project area. No impact is assessed. f) No Impact. No private airstrip exists within the vicinity of the subject project. No impact is assessed. 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)? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 21 Rev. 11/17/08 GPA 06-04/ LCPA 06-02/ ZC 06-037 CT 06-137 SUP 06-087 CDP 06-19/HDP 07-03 Tabata 10 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? a-c) No Impact. The project will allow for the development of 26 single-family dwelling units, which is consistent with the intensity of the surrounding land uses. The property in the immediate vicinity, including the project site, is designated for RLM (0-4 du/ac) residential low medium density development and was analyzed in the City's Growth Management Plan accordingly. The density of the proposed development (3.03 du/ac) is consistent with the City of Carlsbad General Plan and Growth Management Plan. One single family home will be demolished; however, it is owned and occupied by the Tabata family, who is developing the project. Therefore, the project will not displace substantial numbers of people and no impact is assessed. 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 Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact a. i - v) No Impact. The project's size of 26 single-family lots for the future development of detached single- family residences is consistent with the General Plan and therefore will not effect the provision and availability of public facilities (fire protection, police protection; schools, parks, libraries, etc.). Through the Carlsbad Growth Management Plan and Zone 24 Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP), the impacts of development on public services were analyzed and the project has been designed and/or conditioned to provide adequate public services to meet the needs of development. The project will be conditioned to comply with the Zone 24 LFMP performance standards to ensure that adequate public facilities and services are provided prior to or concurrent with the development. Since single family residential development was anticipated and analyzed by the General Plan and Zone 24 LFMP for this site, no public service impacts will occur as a result of this project. 22 Rev. 11/17/08 GPA 06-04/ LCPA 06-02/ ZC 06-03/ CT 06-13/ SUP 06-08/ CDP 06-19/HDP 07-03 TabatalO XIV. RECREATION Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 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? a-b) No Impact. The project's size of 26 single-family lots for the future development of detached single-family residences will not result in the deterioration of existing neighborhood or regional parks or cause such parks to be expanded. The General Plan and Growth Management Plan anticipated single family residential development at this site, and the North-west Quadrant park district, which the project is within, currently maintains a surplus of park acreage for its population level, so no adverse physical effects on the recreation facilities will occur. 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 No Impact Impact 23 Rev. 11/17/08 GPA 06-04/ LCPA 06-02/ ZC 06-03/ CT 06-13/ SUP 06-08/ CDP 06-19/HDP 07-03 Tabata 10 a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project, when fully developed with residences, will generate 260 Average Daily Trips (ADT) and 21 AM / 26 PM peak hour trips. This traffic will utilize El Camino Real. Existing traffic in the summer of 2008 on this arterial at the monitored road segments nearest to the project site are 23,717 ADT (Mid- Block Link No. 7 between Tamarack Ave. and Kelly Dr.) and 37.735ADT (Mid-Block Link No. 8 between Faraday Ave. and Palomar Airport Rd.). Existing summer of 2008 peak hour level of service at the arterial intersections impacted by the project are LOS A for AM and LOS C for PM (intersection of El Camino Real and Cannon Rd.), and LOS A for AM and PM (intersection of El Camino Real and College Rd.). The design capacity of the arterial road affected by the proposed project is 40,000 + vehicles per day. The project traffic would represent less than 0.11% and 0.065% of the existing traffic volume and the design capacity respectively. While the increase in traffic from the proposed project may be slightly noticeable, the street system has been designed and sized to accommodate traffic from the project and cumulative development in the City of Carlsbad. The proposed project would not, therefore, cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. The impacts from the proposed project are, therefore, less than significant. b) 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 one highway segment in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The existing LOS on these designated roads and highway in Carlsbad is: LOS Rancho Santa Fe Road "A-D" El Camino Real "A-D" Palomar Airport Road "A-D" SR 78 "F" 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 highway 78 is currently operating at or better than the acceptable standard LOS. 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 highway 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 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, 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 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. f) No Impact. The proposed project is not requesting a parking variance. Additionally, the project would comply with the City's parking requirements to ensure an adequate parking supply. No impact assessed. g) No Impact. Bike racks are not necessary for single-family residential projects. The project includes the installation of a bus stop on El Camino Real and a pedestrian path linking Camino Hills Drive to El Camino Real, which will provide pedestrian access from the project (and neighboring area) to the bus stop. As such, the project supports alternative modes of transportation and no impact is assessed. 24 Rev. 11/17/08 GPA 06-04/ LCPA 06-02/ ZC 06-03/ CT 06-13/ SUP 06-08/ CDP 06-19/HDP 07-03 Tabata 10 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 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? 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 24 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 will increase the demand for these facilities; however, the proposed density (3.03 dwelling units per acre) is less than originally anticipated (3.2 dwelling units per acre) for this site and thus will not result in an overall increase in the City's growth projection in the NW quadrant. Therefore, the project does not create development that will result in a significant need to expand or construct new water facilities/supplies, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage facilities. No impact assessed. 25 Rev. 11/17/08 GPA 06-047 LCPA 06-02/ZC 06-037 CT 06-137 SUP 06-087 CDP 06-19/HDP 07-03 Tabata 10 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 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? a) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Due to project impacts to Eucalyptus woodland found on site, if construction were to occur during bird breeding season, impacts to nesting sites for birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act could be significant. A mitigation measure which requires an inspection by a biologist prior to grading for nest sites, and a buffer if nest sites are found will reduce this impact to less than significant. The site does have the potential to contain subsurface cultural resources. A mitigation program which involves review of the grading plans, attendance of a paleontologist monitor at grading meetings and during the grading operation with the authority to direct grading operations to salvage resources, and curation of the resources will mitigate the impacts to a less than significant level.. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The 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. However, the 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 roadways will function at acceptable levels of service in the short-term and at build-out. The project is consistent 26 Rev. 11/17/08 GPA 06-04/ LCPA 06-027 ZC 06-03/ CT 06-13/ SUP 06-08/ CDP 06-19/HDP 07-03 Tabata 10 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) Less than Significant Impact. Based upon the fact that future development of the site will comply with all City standards, the project will not result in any direct or indirect substantial adverse environmental effects on human beings. However, the project site is located in an area where human beings are exposed to significant levels of noise generated by traffic on the surrounding streets. As discussed above, any potential impacts from noise can be mitigated to a level less than significant. Those mitigation measures will be incorporated as conditions of project approval. Development of the site and structures will be required to comply with all applicable Federal, State, Regional and City regulations, which will ensure that development of the site will not result in adverse impacts on human beings, either directly or indirectly. XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects 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. 27 Rev. 11/17/08 GPA 06-04/ LCPA 06-02/ ZC 06-03/ CT 06-13/ SUP 06-08/ CDP 06-19/HDP 07-03 Tabata 10 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. Carlsbad General Plan, City of Carlsbad Planning Department, dated March 1994. 3. City of Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 21 Zoning, City of Carlsbad Planning Department, as updated. 4. Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad, City of Carlsbad Planning Department, final approval dated November 2004. 5. Historic Resource Inventory. City of Carlsbad. April 16. 1991. 6. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for McClellan Palomar Airport. Carlsbad. California. San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, as amended October 4, 2004. 7. Zone 24 Local Facility Management Plan Amendment and Finance Plan. Hofman Planning Associates, July 1993. 8. City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study. Catastrophic Dam Failure Inundation. Tsunami and Seiche Hazard Zone Maps. November 1992 9. Flood Insurance Rate Map. Map No. 06073C0768 F. June 19, 1997. 10. Phase I ESA Report. 2311 Camino Hills Drive. Carlsbad. California. Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc., April 27, 2006. 11. Phase II Baseline Environmental Site Assessment. Tabata Farms. 2311 Camino Hills Drive. Carlsbad. California. 92008. Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc., November 6, 2006. 12. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation. Proposed 26-lot subdivision. Camino Hills Drive. Carlsbad. California. Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc., June 23, 2006. 13. Results of an Archeological Survey for the Tabata Development Project (APNs 212-050-32 & 33), Brian F. Smith and Associates, April 20, 2006. 14. Acoustical Site Assessment. Tabata TPM Residential Development - Carlsbad. CA. Investigative Science and Engineering, Inc., July 26, 2007 (Revised). 15. Storm Water Management Plan. Tabata 10 Acre 26 lot Subdivision. Pasco Engineering, April 30, 2008 (Revised). 16. Hydrology Study, Tabata 10 Acre 26 lot Subdivision. Pasco Engineering, May 13, 2008 (Revised). 17. Habitat Mapping Report. Tabata 10 Project. Dossey & Associates, October 1, 2007. 28 Rev. 12/13/07 GPA 06-04/ LCPA 06-02/ ZC 06-03/ CT 06-13/ SUP 06-08/ CDP 06-19/HDP 07-03 Tabata 10 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) 1. If construction must be conducted during the breeding season of birds listed by the MBTA, February 15 through August 30, a qualified biologist shall conduct a focused survey for bird nests not more than 72 hours prior to commencement of vegetation clearing activities. If active nests are found, the City's construction contractor shall cease construction within an appropriate buffer zone of 500 feet around the nest site, as determined by the project biologist. A temporary habitat fence shall be installed at the 500 foot buffer around the nest site and no encroachment shall be allowed until juveniles have fledged and the nesting cycle is complete, as verified by the biologist. Crews will be briefed with the requirements, consequences and enforcement of the MBTA prior to construction activities. 2. Paleontological mitigation measures shall be implemented as follows: a. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the project developer shall retain a qualified paleontologist to carry out the mitigation program outlined here. (A qualified paleontologist is defined as an individual with a MS or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology that is familiar with paleontological procedures and techniques.) b. A qualified paleontologist shall be present at a pre-construction meeting to consult with the grading and excavation contractors. c. A paleontological monitor shall be onsite at all times during mass grading and excavation activities, including utility trenching, etc. (A paleontological monitor is defined as an individual who has experience in the collection and salvage of fossil materials. The paleontological monitor shall work under the direction of a qualified paleontologist.) d. When fossils are discovered, the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall recover them. In most cases this fossil salvage can be completed in a short period of time. However, some fossil specimens (such as a complete large mammal skeleton) may require an extended salvage period. In these instances the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall be allowed to temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely manner. Because of the potential for the recovering of small fossil remains, such as isolated mammal teeth, it may be necessary to set up a screen-washing operation on the site. e. Fossil remains collected during the monitoring and salvage portion of the mitigation program shall be cleaned, repaired, sorted, and cataloged. f. Prepared fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos, and maps, shall be deposited (as a donation) in a scientific institution with permanent paleontological collections such as the San Diego Natural History Museum. Donation of the fossils shall be accompanied by financial support for initial specimen storage. g. A final summary report shall be completed that outlines the results of the mitigation program. This report shall include discussions of the methods used, stratigraphic section(s) exposed, fossils collected, and significance of recovered fossils. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall submit a supplemental interior acoustical analysis from the acoustical consultant stating that the architectural plans have been designed in compliance with the recommendations stated in the acoustical report. 29 Rev. 12/13/07 OPA 06-W LCPA Q6-02/ ZC 0(5-03^ CT C6-13/ SUP Q6-08/ CDP 06-1 S>/l IDP 07-03 Tabflli 34 APPLICANT CONCURRRNCC WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WJTH THE ADDITION DP THESE MEASl JRFS TO THE PHQJT-CT. Dnic 30 Rev. I2/I3/07 CO M—o CD O)03 Q_ 00^_ CDO O ^^CO 0 CO0 0N CNCD CDO ,-j- 0_ O ^_ S CDO <CL O co CD O D.Q I a5 1 CDO CO Q-01 Q UJ O CD --«= COo Z o LU Q_ =! => U_ CO 04—*COO) E o "*""* 0 E0 c •s0'o1 Q. W ^ •«- "co sa. Q.^c H—O cg coO 0 £ o•4-J 0^ — CO "co CO 1- S Q 73-CD "co OQ.i_8c 20 ^c/>£~3 (/)CO0 E g '-«— 'COD) E "co -1— ' 0 Ec •• 2 < 0 < ^ D)Z _j ci- <c >0 > om O =5 O a ^a: a. ^ Q- < h- .«_»CO1^" foo"uc § CO0 c ~ "coro E o CO0 a•*-* .ZJ. o0 o T30 01 W CCO 730-*— •0 Q. Eoo < 0oc COo L|™ 'cD) 'wc~ ^—O "0 0) cts 2 "CCOa. E "CO r~ronmei•> c0 730 H— "c073 >• .O AssemO•4—f 7J 0Q. 0 _^."ti5 (o "r~0 E(D 13 d) D)C'Co.«— I 'co E _w -•-»b0+~t := ^ l^__ 73C CO 73" ^c:0 E0 Q. E ' 73 CO Tf~ > ^730 "5. Eoo c00_Q (A CO 0 ^1SB9LUCo cp" 00o CN co tj0 073O O 0 0W0 C£ o JD 13 .5?o £ .52 £ CO ^bo (0 COE0a: co*g ID -2 ;— "^ '§ E^ 0"5. E c 0 </>C c5 coo Q; CO O) CC 011j— CD (Ds Q D) 'C Q) S CL l1^Mitigation Measure•o wc -* ro o • o>> £ C > Q.'E .y tD E IX Prior to removal or damage of any active nests or any treepruning or removal operations during the prime nesting season,that being from March 15 to May 30, a certified biologist shallsurvey the trees to determine if there are any active nests within500 feet of the area of tree removal or pruning. If any activenests are located within 500 feet, no tree pruning or removaloperations can occur until the nests are vacated or until the endof the prime breeding season, whichever occurs later. Inaddition, prior to any tree removal or pruning operationsproposed outside of the prime nesting season but within theperiod of January 15 to August 31, a confirmation is requiredfrom a certified biologist that no disturbance to active nests ornesting activities would occur. Documentation from the certifiedbiologist consistent with these requirements shall be submittedto the Planning Director for review and approval. A note to thiseffect shall be placed on the construction or grading plans.o </,E .* (0 o •o)§ £ C > Q.'E .y to E o_Paleontological mitigation measures shall beimplemented as follows:a. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the projectdeveloper shall retain a qualified paleontologistto carry out the mitigation program outlinedhere. (A qualified paleontologist is defined asan individual with a MS or Ph.D. in paleontologyor geology that is familiar with paleontologicalprocedures and techniques.)iu.c 'o Ji £ | 0t "5. 3C • (/).£ "D TO a) TO ES "0 ^ w 5 =TO ro TO -C -o D)a> <D '^a ro Ew ±= en TO C c i|t CD _ OO) t yj '" ^ 5 c 8 « -C « °» " oc: w1 «.(0 t— • £ 0) >3 ' Q. **• ' i 11 E 0) CD Explanation of Headings:Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particularmitigation measure.<uJD is columplais showCOTO<1) .E "o C^ | 5 §>?.« roE-oc^a) ro II PlaShow oo CM 0) O) 03 Q_RemarksVerifiedmplementationIS MonitoringDepartmentO) -Mitigation Measurebe present at ahehtotractors.ll bcoS .qualified paleontologisbgrading and excavation cono >oo o LLCOW a; Q. .i-o>ro E -° -0 0(0 C -J=03 ro P3 ofo E| ro | w ro || '5 I II — to•o -S» ro s <Dce Q.Q. < DEC. ro3 " LU -s 1 w a.o a>.2.0o^o,O. .5 II 0 .CO co CO 0) O)COQ_ CO l_ro E0on o 0 "£h= 0 1 »"5. E c 0 COc c5 roOE CO OT'Cc 0 '£ E2 t='c n>o Q- S Q O) o *" 'E i^o ^Mitigation MeasureCO •5 0'o.oo 'I D) O ro _co" 'coCO T3 COCL CL pertinent field notes, photos, and maps, shallbe deposited (as a donation) in a scientificinstitution with permanent paleontologicalcollections such as the San Diego NaturalHistory Museum. Donation of the fossils shallbe accompanied by financial support for initial1 specimen storage.A final summary report shall be completed that outlines theresults of the mitigation program. This report shall includediscussions of the methods used, stratigraphic section(s)exposed, fossils collected, and significance of recovered fossils.oz T3Cro OT 'Ec JO a o•^ Q.| Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall submitj/> "a.0Q D)C•~ '5 00 c?~!'§^ 0 CD Q-a supplemental interior acoustical analysis from the acousticalconsultant stating that the architectural plans have been| designed in compliance with the recommendations stated in the| acoustical report."O Io> <uJI o I o 2 c0) ro E0) T3 ro ro-o 2> o|5 .21 I <n illc o <o 2 <n D> I «.l ro I (UQ.a. Qa: o'•eroQ. (0 o £ S IoQ. Se ro d53 "c E E <i> c OS Q. 4-T Q.O a)0) Q ro<u E- ;n roE-o_ _^ 51 mc J?Q. o