HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-08-05; Planning Commission; Resolution 66141 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6614
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 AND ADDENDUM TO ALLOW FOR THE
DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY HOME,
6 AND FOR THE SUBDIVISION AND GRADING OF A
2.9-ACRE SITE INTO EIGHT LOTS (5 RESIDENTIAL AND 3
7 OPEN SPACE LOTS) ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF POINSETTIA LANE AT
8 THE WESTERNMOST TERMINUS OF LEMON LEAF DRIVE
9 WITHIN THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM AND LOCAL FACILITIES
10 MANAGEMENT ZONE 20.
CASE NAME: GPA 07-05/ZC 06-04/SP 203(C)/LCPA 06-
11 03/CT 06-15/CDP 06-22/HDP 06-05
CASE NO.: TABATA RANCH
13 WHEREAS, Noboru & Evelyn Tabata, "Developer/Owner," has filed a verified
14 application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as:
15 Parcel 1 A:
That portion of the east 264.14 feet of the west 1A of the
17 northeast % of the northeast % of Section 28, Township 12
south, Range 4 west, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in
18 the County of San Diego, State of California, according to
official plat thereof, lying northerly of the north line of the
south 15 acres of said west %;
20
Excepting from the above east 264.14 feet of said land, the
21 south 184.47 feet thereof;
22 Also excepting the east 28.00 feet and the north 30.00 feet
23 thereof;
24 Parcel IB:
25 The northerly 30.00 feet of the easterly 264.14 feet of the west
1A of the northeast % of the northeast % of Section 28,9/r 'ZD Township 12 south, Range 4 west, San Bernardino Base and
27 Meridian, in the County of San Diego, State of California,
according to United States Government Survey, together with
28 that portion of the easterly 28.00 feet of said west 1A lying
northerly of the northerly line of the southerly 15.00 acres of
said west 1A;
Excepting from said easterly 28.00 feet, the northerly 30.00 feet
2 and southerly 184.47 feet thereof;
3 Parcel 2:
4 The southerly 184.47 feet of that portion of the easterly 264.14
t- feet of the westerly 1A of the northeast % of the northeast 1A of
the Section 28, Township 12 south, Range 4 west, San
6 Bernardino Meridian, in the County of San Diego, State of
California, according to the official plat thereof, lying
7 northerly of the northerly line of the southerly 15 acres of said
west 1A\
o Excepting therefrom:
10 That portion of Section 28, Township 12 south, Range 4 west,
San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of
11 San Diego, California, described as follows:
12 Commencing at the northeast corner of said section; thence
13 south 00° 34' 18" west 111.22 feet along the east line of said
section, thence south 72° 47' 00" west 389.27 feet to the
14 beginning of a tangent curve concave southeasterly, having a
radius of 1651.00 feet; thence southwesterly along said curve
15 339.30 feet through a central angle of 11° 46' 30" to a point of
, f the easterly line of the land conveyed to Marvin and Margaret
Penelope Porter by deed recorded September 3, 1986 as
17 Document No. 86-385614 of official records, being the south
184.47 feet of the east 264.14 feet of the north 5 acres of the
18 west 1A of the northeast % of the northeast % of said section, a
radial line of said curve to said point bears north 28° 59' 30"
west; said point also being the point of beginning of this
20 description; thence continuing southwesterly along said curve
53.61 feet through central angle of 01° 51' 37" to a point on the
21 northerly line of the south 15.00 acres of the west Vi of said
northeast % of the northeast '/4; thence south 89° 03' 23" east
22 along said northerly line of 46.21 feet to said easterly line of the
land herein described; thence north 00° 32' 47" east along said
easterly line 27.50 feet to the point of beginning of this
24 description;
25 Parcel 3:
26 Lot 35, City of Carlsbad Tract No. CT 98-14-02, in the City of
27 Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according
to map thereof No. 14773, filed in the Office of the County
28 Recorder of San Diego County, April 29, 2004, and Certificate
of Correction recorded September 14, 2006 as Instrument No.
2006-0655516 of official records
PCRESONO. 6614 -2-
1 ("the Property"); and
2 WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and
3
Reporting Program and Addendum was prepared in conjunction with said project; and
4
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on August 5, 2009, hold a duly
5 noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
7 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
9 considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
10
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
11
Program and Addendum.
13 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
14 Commission as follows:
15 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
17 Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Exhibit
18 "MND," according to Exhibits "Notice of Intent (NOI)," and "Environmental
Impact Assessment Form - Initial Study (EIA)," and Addendum, Exhibit
"ADDM" attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following
20 findings:
21 Findings;
22 i. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
23 a. it has reviewed, analyzed, and considered Mitigated Negative Declaration and
24 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum for
TABATA RANCH - GPA 07-05/ZC 06-04/SP 203(C)/LCPA 06-03/CT 06-
25 15/CDP 06-22/HDP 06-05, the environmental impacts therein identified for this
project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of
2" the project; and
27 b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
28 Program and Addendum have been prepared in accordance with requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
PCRESONO. 6614 -3-
1
2
3
4
5~/
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission
Carlsbad; and
d. based on the EIA and comments thereon, there is no substantial
project will have a significant effect on the environment.
2. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on
of the City of
evidence the
the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed
to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the
degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on August 5, 2009, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Boddy, Dominguez, Douglas,
Nygaard, and Chairperson Montgomery
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Baker
ABSTAIN:
1 —
jm^^^fm ^rm^ .^V"^^^.
L'Heureux,
*mmmJL. * W^f^^^M ^^^
MARTETX B. MONTGOMERY JraJirperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
n
^O<?v(j ^
E)6N NBtl
Planning Director
PCRESONO. 6614 -4-
FiLECOPY
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME: Tabata Ranch
CASE NO: GPA 07-05/ZC 06-04/LCPA 06-03/CT 06-15/CDP 06-22/HDP 06-05
PROJECT LOCATION: North of Poinsettia Lane, south of Veronica Court, east of Lonicera
Street and west of Lemon Leaf Drive (APNs 214-630-20. 214-631-20. 214-631-21).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Demolition of an existing two-story single family dwelling, and
subdivision of a 2.9 acre site into 8 lots (5 residential and 3 open space lots) for future single-family
homes.
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 (CEQA) and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad.
As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the
environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant
before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would
occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the project
"as revised" may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative
Declaration will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad City Council.
A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008.
Comments from the public are invited. Pursuant to Section 15204 of the CEQA Guidelines, in reviewing
Mitigated Negative Declarations, persons and public agencies should focus on the proposed finding that
the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. If persons and public agencies believe
that the project may have a significant effect, they should: (1) identify the specific effect; (2) explain
why they believe the effect would occur; and (3) explain why they believe the effect would be
significant. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of the date of
this notice.
The proposed project and Mitigated Negative Declaration are subject to review and approval/adoption by
the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council. Additional public notices will be issued
when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Jason Goff in the
Planning Department at (760) 602-4643.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD
PUBLISH DATE
April 11, 2009-May 1.2009
April 11,2009
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 « (760) 602-4600 » FAX (760) 602-8559 ° www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME: Tabata Ranch
CASE NO: GPA 07-05/ZC 06-04/LCPA 06-03/CT 06-15/CDP 06-22/HDP 06-05
PROJECT LOCATION: North of Poinsettia Lane, south of Veronica Court, east of Lonicera Street,
and west of Lemon Leaf Drive (APNs 214-630-20. 214-631-20. 214-631-21).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Demolition of an existing two-story single family dwelling, and subdivision
of a 2.9 acre site into 8 lots (5 residential and 3 open space lots) for future single-family homes.
DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described
project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the
Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study
(EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as
follows:
IX! 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 the attached sheet have
been added to the project.
I I The proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment, but at least
one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. (Mitigated Negative Declaration applies only to the effects
that remained to be addressed).
I | Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT
be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is
required.
A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on file
in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008.
ADOPTED: [CLICK HERE date! pursuant to
[CLICK HERE Administrative Approval, PC/CC Resolution No., or C'C Ordinance No.1
ATTEST:
DON NEU
Planning Director
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - INITIAL STUDY
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: GPA 07-05/ZC 06-04/LCPA 06-03/CT 06-15/CDP 06-22/HDP 06-05
DATE: March 30. 2009
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Tabata Ranch
2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad
3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Jason Goff (760) 602-4643
4. PROJECT LOCATION: North of Poinsettia Lane, south of Veronica Court, east of Lonicera
Street, and west of Lemon Leaf Drive
5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: Noburu and Evelyn Tabata. P.O. Box 943.
Carlsbad. CA 92018-0943. :
6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RM (Residential Medium Density. 4-8 du/ac)
7. ZONING: L-C (Limited Control)
8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing
approval or participation agreements): None
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
The project site is located on the north side of Poinsettia Lane at the western terminus of Lemon
Leaf Drive and consists of three parcels totaling 2.9 acres in size. The site is presently developed
with a two-story single-family home and is surrounded on three sides by large single-family
homes, Poinsettia Lane to the south, and Lonicera Street to the west. The proposed project
requires a General Plan Amendment (GPA 07-05), Zone Change (ZC 06-04), and Local Coastal
Program Amendment (LCPA 06-03) to change the General Plan and Local Coastal Program Land
Use designations on the property from Residential Medium Density (RM, 4-8 du/ac) to
Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM, 0-4 du/ac), and to change the City Zoning and Local
Coastal Program Zoning designations on the property from Residential Density - Multiple (RD-
M) and Limited Control (L-C) to One-Family Residential (R-l). The project also requires a
Tentative Subdivision Map (CT 06-15), Coastal Development Permit (CDP 06-22), and Hillside
Development Permit (HDP 06-05) to demolish an existing home and allow for the subdivision of
the 2.9-acre site into 8 lots (5 residential and 3 open space lots) for future single-family homes.
Topographically, the site slopes from east to west with a change in elevation from a high of
approximately 305 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) in the northeast corner nearest Lemon Leaf
Drive to a low of approximately 250 ft. AMSL in the northwest corner nearest Lonicera Street.
Two of the five proposed residential lots will be accessed by way of Lemon Leaf Drive, and the
other three accessed by way of a new public street (Catalina Vista) connecting at Lonicera Drive.
GPA 07-05/ZC 06-04/LCPA 06-03/L, i 06-15/CDP 06-22/HDP 06-05
Tabata Ranch
The 2.9-acre project site is considered developed and consists primarily of maintained landscapes,
graded surfaces, and a single-family home. No native vegetation, natural drainage areas, or
wetland habitats exist onsite.
The project site is located in and is subject to the requirements of the Zone 20 Specific Plan
approved by the City Council in 1994. A Program EIR (PEIR) (EIR 90-03) was certified for the
Zone 20 Specific Plan. The Zone 20 PEIR analyzed and recommended mitigation measure to
reduce impacts to insignificant levels. The Zone 20 PEIR analyzed potential impacts to
agriculture, air quality, biology, circulation, land use, noise, pesticide residue, paleontology,
public facilities financing, soils/geology, and visual aesthetics that could result from the
development of the Specific Plan area. The PEIR is intended to be used in the review of
subsequent projects within Zone 20. The project incorporates the required Zone 20 PEIR
mitigation measures, and through the analysis of the required additional biological resources,
cultural resources, paleontological resources, geotechnical, Baseline Environmental Site
Assessment, hydrology, and storm water management plans, reports, and studies, a determination
has been made that no additional significant impacts beyond those identified and mitigated by the
PEIR will result from this project. The Zone 20 PEIR and additional technical studies are cited as
source documents for this environmental evaluation.
Rev. 01/02/07
GPA 07-05/ZC 06-04/LCPA 06-03/c i 06-15/CDP 06-22/HDP 06-05
Tabata Ranch
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 2\ Noise
Hazards/Hazardous Materials LJ Population and Housing
Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Mineral Resources
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Circulation
Utilities & Service Systems
Rev. 01/02/07
GPA 07-05/ZC 06-04/LCPA 06-03/c, 06-15/CDP 06-22/HDP 06-05
Tabata Ranch
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
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required.
Date
Planning Director's Signature Date
Rev. 01/02/07
GPA 07-05/ZC 06-04/LCPA 06-03/u i 06-15/CDP 06-22/HDP 06-05
Tabata Ranch
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. 08/02/07
GPA 07-05/ZC 06-04/LCPA 06-03/u. 06-15/CDP 06-22/HDP 06-05
Tabata Ranch
• 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. 08/02/07
GPA 07-05/ZC 06-04/LCPA 06-03/c * 06-15/CDP 06-22/HDP 06-05
Tabata Ranch
AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a State scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
a, c) No Impact. The property is situated on a southwesterly facing hill overlooking Poinsettia Lane, Lonicera
Drive and large single-family homes below. Unobstructed views of the ocean are 'available from this property.
However, no ocean views are currently available from the public right-of-way at Lemon Leaf Drive as result of the
existing single-family home and dense landscaping located at the end of the cul-de-sac. The view from Lemon Leaf
Drive will not change as a result of this project as the existing single-family home and landscaping will be removed
and replaced by two new single-family homes. Since the project site is not listed as a scenic vista in either the Local
Coastal Program or the General Plan, and development of the site is replacing like structures in kind, no substantial
adverse effect on any scenic vistas is assessed, and no substantial degradation of the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings is assessed.
b) No Impact. No trees or rock outcroppings will be impacted by the proposed project. No buildings, including
historic buildings, are located on or adjacent to the site. The area of proposed impact is not located within the view
shed of a State scenic highway or any State highway that is designated by the California Department of
Transportation as eligible for listing as a scenic highway. Therefore, no impact is assessed.
d) No Impact. The proposed single-family residential use is consistent with the surrounding single-family
residential uses and will be designed such that it does not contribute a significant amount of light or glare.
Therefore, no impact is assessed.
Rev. 01/02/07
GPA 07-05/ZC 06-04/LCPA 06-03/c, 06-15/CDP 06-22/HDP 06-05
Tabata Ranch
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
a-c) No Impact. The project site is located in an area which is subject to the requirements of the Zone 20 Specific
Plan approved by City Council in 1994. A Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) (EIR 90-03) was certified
for the Zone 20 Specific Plan. According to the PEIR, the project site does not contain Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The site is designated for single-family residential land-uses and is
not encumbered by any Williamson Act contracts. Given that the project site is surrounded by existing residential
development, the project would not result in other changes to the environment that would result in the conversion of
farmland to non-agricultural uses. Given the surrounding residential development and lack of existing or historical
agricultural infrastructure, it is unlikely that agricultural operations would be viable at this location. Development of
the site as proposed would not adversely affect agricultural resources. Therefore, no impact is assessed.
Rev. 01/02/07
GPA 07-05/ZC 06-04/LCPA 06-03/ci 06-15/CDP 06-22/HDP 06-05
Tabata Ranch
III. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied
upon to make the following determinations.) Would the
project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
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 particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM10). The periodic violations of
national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in
inland foothill areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to
improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality
Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San Diego Association of
Governments (SANDAG).
A Plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state-
mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other California non-attainment areas having
serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by
the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November 9th through 10th in 1994, and was forwarded to
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly
regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996.
The proposed project relates to the SIP and/or RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that are
incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city's and the
County's general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the project
presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that
the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact. As discussed below in Section IX - LANDUSE
AND PLANNING, a General Plan Amendment is included as part of this project, which is proposing to change the
General Plan Land Use designation on the property from Residential Medium Density (RM, 4-8 du/ac) to
Rev. 01/02/07
GPA 07-05/ZC 06-04/LCPA 06-03/u. 06-15/CDP 06-22/HDP 06-05
Tabata Ranch
Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM, 0-4 du/ac). The proposed redesignation of this property will result in
fewer dwelling units then was originally anticipated, and thus reduced impacts to regional air quality.
Section 15125(B) of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific
reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality
management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set
forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California
Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the
following:
• Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area?
• Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan?
The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is being
implemented. The project is consistent with 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. 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 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. The Pacific Rim Elementary School is located 0.27 miles to the northwest. As noted above, the
proposed single-family project would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or concentrations. Therefore, no
impact is assessed.
e) No Impact. The construction of the proposed project could generate fumes from the operation of construction
equipment, which may be considered objectionable by some people. Such exposure would be short-term or
transient. In addition, the number of people exposed to such transient impacts is not considered substantial.
10 Rev. 01/02/07
GPA 07-05/ZC 06-04/LCPA 06-03/L.i 06-15/CDP 06-22/HDP 06-05
Tabata Ranch
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
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?
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, c & f) No 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 2.9-acre project site consists of three parcels surrounded on all side by communities of single-family homes.
Most of the property is considered developed and consists of maintained landscapes, graded surfaces, and a single-
family residence. Only man-made cement lined drainages exist on site. According to the City of Carlsbad's HMP,
the site is identified as a Development Area, and is not located adjacent to or, near any Standards Area or
Existing/Proposed Hardline Preserve Areas.
11 Rev. 01/02/07
f
GPA 07-05/ZC 06-04/LCPA 06-03/Ci 06-15/CDP 06-22/HDP 06-05
Tabata Ranch
A biological study was prepared for the project site by e2M dated March 6, 2008. According to the report, the site
supports 0.9-acres of Disturbed/Graded Area, 0.1-acres of Developed/Paved Area, and 1.9-acres of Landscaped
Area. No native or wetland habitats or natural drainage areas were observed on the project site or within the
vicinity. Pursuant to the HMP, the developer will be conditioned as part of the project to pay in-lieu fees for impacts
to 0.9-acres of Disturbed Lands (Group-F Habitat). No mitigation is required for impacts to the landscaped and
developed/paved areas. Therefore, no impact is assessed.
d) No Impact. Construction of the proposed project is not expected to impede local wildlife movement or migratory
fish or wildlife movement. The subject site is not located within any of the HMP Core Focus Planning Areas, nor is
the site adjacent to or near any Standards Area or Existing/Proposed Hardline Preserve Areas. Therefore, no impact
is assessed.
e) No Impact. The City of Carlsbad has no adopted tree preservation policy or ordinance which would affect the
subject project. The subject project will not impact trees or other biological resources protected by such policy or
ordinance except as otherwise described in the sections above. No trees exist on the subject site, therefore no impact
is assessed.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi-
cance of an archeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique pale
ontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
a, b & d) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A Phase I Archaeological Assessment was
prepared for the site by Brian F. Smith & Associates (BFSA) on June 10, 2008. The evaluation program was
conducted in accordance with CEQA Section 15064.5 to determine the presence of any archaeological or historical
cultural resources that could be affected by the proposed project. Institutional records searches were requested from
the South Coastal Information Center (SCIS) and Museum of Man (MOM) to identify previously discovered
archeological sites in the project area, and a Sacred Lands File search was requested from the Native American
Heritage Commission (NAHC) to list potentially sacred or ceremonial sites or landforms on or near the project. Of
those searches, the MOM records search reported a prehistoric resource (W-4031) within the southwest portion of
the project boundary, which was also identified by the Zone 20 PEIR. A pedestrian field survey of the site was
conducted by BFSA on May 22, 2008, which failed to relocate W-4031, or produce any evidence of archeological
sites or culturally sensitive areas anywhere on the subject property. Additionally, in accordance with the Tribal
Consultation Guidelines for the State of California (California State Senate Bill 18, Chapter 905, Statutes of 2004),
the City of Carlsbad requested consultation with the San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians, Mesa Grande Band of
Mission Indians, Pala Band of Mission Indians, Kwaaymii Laguna Band of Mission Indians, Inaja Band of Mission
Indians, Rincon Band of Mission Indians, San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians, Santa Ysabel Band of Diegueno
12 Rev. 01/02/07
GPA 07-05/ZC 06-04/LCPA 06-03/c, 06-15/CDP 06-22/HDP 06-05
Tabata Ranch
Indians, and the Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee. Of those listed, the San Luis Rey Band of Mission
Indians requested a formal consultation with the City of Carlsbad, which was held on March 16, 2009. A request for
a formal pre-excavation agreement and use of tribal monitors in addition to archeological monitoring was required
to address any cultural resources that may be found given the Band's traditional territory.
Although the current investigation by BFSA did not identify any significant resources within the project boundaries,
it did indicate that past results of the archeological records searches and cultural resources studies within the
Carlsbad area indicate that there is a high potential for buried cultural deposits everywhere along the coastal plain.
Therefore, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15064.5(f), which requires
provisions for the identification and evaluation of accidentally discovered archeological resources; mitigation
measures have been added to the project requiring archaeological monitoring by both a qualified archaeologist and
tribal monitor(s) of the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians during the demolition of structures and all earth-
disturbing activities. In the event that any cultural resources, concentration of artifacts, or culturally modified soil
deposits are discovered within the project boundaries during construction activities, all work is to be halted near the
discovery and a qualified archeologist shall record and evaluate the discovery under CEQA. Through the
implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in the Phase I Archeological Assessment, along with the
requirements of tribal monitoring and a formal pre-excavation agreement with the San Luis Rey Band of Mission
Indians, impacts to any unforeseen or accidentally discovered cultural resources are reduced to a level of less than
significant.
c) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is located in an area which is subject
to the requirements of the Zone 20 Specific Plan approved by City Council in 1994. A Program Environmental
Impact Report (PEIR) (EIR 90-03) was certified for the Zone 20 Specific Plan. According to the PEIR, Eocene age
rocks of the Santiago Formation (35 to 54 millions years old) are known to contain significant fossils in the Carlsbad
area and represent a significant resource. Because this formation is found throughout the entire Zone 20 Specific
Plan area, there is a high potential for discovery of fossils during grading and construction activities. A
Geotechnical Update Report by Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc. (Job #01-364, August 2, 2006) and a
Paleontological Resource and Monitoring Assessment (June 10. 2008) by Brian F. Smith & Associates (BFSA) were
prepared, which analyzed the sites geologic condition and potential for impacts to paleontological resources. Both
reports substantiate the soil conditions identified in the Zone 20 Specific Plan PEIR. Therefore, as stated in the
paleontological assessment, because of the "high paleontological resource sensitivity" of the middle Eocene
Santiago Formation and the "moderate paleontological resource sensitivity" of the lower to middle Pleistocene
Lindavista Formation sediments present in the vicinity of the project site, paleontological monitoring of mass
grading and excavation (utility trenching, etc.) activities is necessary to mitigate any adverse impacts (loss or
destruction) to potential nonrenewable paleontological resources (i.e. fossils). A mitigation program which involves
the review of the grading plans and full time attendance of a paleontologist during grading operations, with the
authority to direct grading in order to salvage and curate resources, will mitigate impacts to a less than significant
level.
13 Rev. 01/02/07
GPA 07-05/ZC 06-04/LCPA 06-03/u. 06-15/CDP 06-22/HDP 06-05
Tabata Ranch
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction,
or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18
- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
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. Therefore, no impact is assessed.
a.ii.-a.iv. & c) Less Than Significant Impact. There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zones within the City
of Carlsbad and there is no other evidence of active or potentially active faults within the City. However, there are
several active faults throughout Southern California, and potential earthquakes resulting from these faults could
affect Carlsbad. A Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation was prepared by Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc.
(Job #01-364-P) on October 24, 2001 and was later updated in a Geotechnical Update Report and Grading Plan
Review} dated August 2, 2006. According to their report, the project site is a natural hillside underlain by
sedimentary bedrock units of the Eocene Age mantled by a thin soil cover of Topsoil/colluvium with some artificial
fill located in the southern portion of the site. Groundwater was not detected during any of the test excavations
performed onsite; no evidence of landslides or other forms of geologic slope instability were discovered; no faults or
14 Rev. 01/02/07
GPA 07-05/ZC 06-04/LCPA 06-03/C i 06-15/CDP 06-22/HDP 06-05
Tabata Ranch
significant shear zones were indicated on or near the proximity of the project site; and liquefaction or other ground
rupture failures are not anticipated. By following the recommendations contained within the referenced report, the
site is suitable for the proposed project and exposure of people or structures to geotechnical related hazards is
considered to be less than significant.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. During finish grading, exposure of soils could lead to an increased chance for
the erosion of soils from the site. However, such grading will follow best management practices for the control of
erosion, such as straw bale or sandbag barriers, silt fences, slope roughening, and outlet protection in exposed areas.
Finished grades will be promptly hydroseeded or otherwise protected as required per the adopted City Grading
Ordinance. If necessary, temporary slope cover such as jute matting or mulch will be applied to newly graded
slopes to reduce the potential for soil erosion or the loss of topsoil to a level that is considered to be less than
significant.
d) No Impact. According to the geotechnical report, onsite soils are considered to be very low in expansion
potential. The report indicates that the site is suitable to receive the proposed improvements. Therefore, no impact
is assessed.
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. Therefore, no impact is assessed.
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
15 Rev. 01/02/07
GPA 07-05/ZC 06-04/LCPA 06-03/C i 06-15/CDP 06-22/HDP 06-05
Tabata Ranch
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a-b) Less Than Significant Impact. Due to the subject properties prior agricultural use, and planned conversion to
residential development, the site was evaluated for agricultural chemicals and fuel hydrocarbons in surficial soils. A
Baseline Environmental Site Assessment was prepared for the project by Vinje & Middleton Engineering (VME),
dated November 4, 2008 (VME Job No. 08-350-H). VME's assessment of the soil identified residual concentrations
of Organochlorine pesticide compounds, DDT and breakdown metabolite DDE in 12 of 16 soil samples analyzed.
According to the conclusions of the report, maximum levels of both compounds (200 ug/kg DDT and 230 ug/kg
DDE) are below concentrations deemed to represent an exposure concern to future residents, and further evaluation
of the site for potentially harmful chlorinated pesticides is not warranted. The VME report includes
recommendations for the appropriate removal and disposal of nearly 3 cubic yards of petroleum hydrocarbon
impacted soil that was identified by soil sample SS-5; recommends a confirmation soil sample be analyzed by
laboratory to confirm the removal of fuel hydrocarbon impacted soil; and requires the submittal of an application to
the County of San Diego, Department of Environmental Health (DEH), Site Assessment & Mitigation Division
(SAM), Voluntary Assistance Program for report review, concurrence, and site closure letter on this project.
On December 8, 2008, the applicant submitted the VME prepared Baseline Environmental Site Assessment to the
County of San Diego, Department of Environmental Health (DEH), Site Assessment & Mitigation Division (SAM),
Voluntary Assistance Program for review and concurrence. In a letter (VOLUNTARY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
#H39733-001, Tabata Ranch Site, Lonicera Street, Carlsbad California 92008) dated December 31, 2008, the DEH
concurred with the findings of the VME Baseline Environmental Site Assessment, citing that the "in situ site soils
do not appear to pose a human health risk to future residents." By following the recommendations contained within
the referenced VME report, and compliance with the County's Voluntary Assistance Program, the site is suitable for
the proposed project, and exposure of people to hazardous materials is considered to be less than significant. A
condition requiring the implementation of the suggested recommendations will be added to the project.
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 than significant.
16 Rev. 01/02/07
f
GPA 07-05/ZC 06-04/LCPA 06-03/L. i 06-15/CDP 06-22/HDP 06-05
Tabata Ranch
c) No Impact. The nearest schools to the project site Pacific Rim Elementary, which is located approximately 0.27
miles to the northwest. 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.
Therefore, no impact is assessed.
e) No Impact. The subject site is located approximately 1.15 miles southwest of the McClellan-Palomar Airport
runway. Because the site is located well outside of the McClellan-Palomar Airport Area of Influence, it is
concluded that the site will not cause a safety hazard for people residing or working within the project area.
Therefore, no impact is assessed.
f) No Impact. No private airstrip exists within the vicinity of the subject site. Therefore, no impact is assessed.
g) No Impact. 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. Therefore, no impact is assessed.
h) No Impact. The proposed project site is surrounded by existing single-family development and Poinsettia Lane.
No open space or wildland fire risks exist within the vicinity of the project. As such, the project does not expose
people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. Therefore, no impact is
assessed.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant . Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
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?
17 Rev. 01/02/07
GPA 07-05/ZC 06-04/LCPA 06-03/C- * 06-15/CDP 06-22/HDP 06-05
Tabata Ranch
e) Create or contribute runoff water, which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation
map?
h) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures,
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
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. The proposed project, prior to the start of construction, will comply with all Federal,
State, and local permits including the Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) required under the County of San
18 Rev. 01/02/07
GPA 07-05/ZC 06-04/LCPA 06-03/L., 06-15/CDP 06-22/HDP 06-05
Tabata Ranch
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) No Impact. 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. Therefore, no impact is assessed.
c-f) Less Than Significant Impact. A Preliminary Hydrology Study and Preliminary Storm Water Management
Plan (SWMP) were prepared for the project by PASCO Engineering, both dated June 27, 2008. According to these
reports, the proposed project will slightly alter drainage patterns on the site to correct a minor drainage impact to the
Poinsettia Lane drainage system that was created with the development of the surrounding subdivision (CT 98-i 4).
The storm water discharge points will divert runoff from the existing condition; however, the ultimate discharge
points will remain the same. No streams or rivers are present on the site and therefore will not be affected. The total
post development runoff that is discharging from the site will not significantly exceed pre-development amounts,
and therefore will not cause substantial erosion or flooding. To address water quality for the project, Best
Management Practices (BMP's) will be implemented during construction activities and post-construction
development. Pollutants of concern are being addressed through site design, source control, and treatment control
BMP's. Landscaping of slopes, consisting of both native and non-native plants, will be utilized to reduce erosion.
Riprap placed in locations of storm drain outfalls will be used to reduce velocities. Treatment control BMP's, such
as landscaping and biofiltration swales will address water quality. Through these efforts, the project will not violate
any water quality standards, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality; will not substantially alter existing
drainage patterns causing substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding; and will not significantly impact the capacity of
stormwater drainage systems. Therefore, impacts are considered to be less than significant.
g-j) No Impact. The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area; and according to the City of
Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study. Catastrophic Dam Failure Inundation. Tsunami and
Seiche Hazard Zone Maps. September 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) Less Than Significant Impact. The construction phase of the project could result in increased erosion.
However, as a result of the NPDES requirements associated with the proposed project, no significant increase in
erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters will result from the project. Urban runoff from the proposed
development will be channeled into the appropriate storm water receptors to the maximum extent practicable as
indicated in the project's Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP). The greatest potential for short-term
Water quality impacts to the drainage basin would be expected during and immediately following the grading and
construction phases of the project, when cleared and graded areas are exposed to rain and storm water runoff.
Standard conditions require compliance with NPDES sediment control requirements during the construction phase
and implementation of the grading and construction BMPs for the project. Therefore, impacts are considered to be
less than significant.
1-p) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located approximately 1.3-miles east of the Pacific Ocean.
Storm water run-off will drain from the site and into the Batiquitos Lagoon and ultimately the Pacific Ocean by way
of an existing storm drain system. According to the California 2006 303(d) list published by the San Diego
Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Batiquitos Lagoon and Pacific Ocean (in the area of the Batiquitos
Lagoon) are not listed as impaired water bodies. However, to address water quality of the project, BMP's will be
implemented during construction activity and post construction development to attain water quality objectives. 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. Therefore, impacts are considered to be less than significant.
19 Rev. 01/02/07
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
GPA 07-05/ZC 06-04/LCPA 06-03/u. 06-15/CDP 06-22/HDP 06-05
Tabata Ranch
q) No Impact. The project will not result in the exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water
quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses. Please refer to the preceding responses. No impact assessed.
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
a-c) No Impact. The 2.9-acre infill site is presently developed with a large single-family ranch style home,
surrounded by existing single-family residential subdivisions. The project is proposing to subdivide the site into five
(5) single-family lots for the future development of detached single-family homes that are consistent in scale and
density with the surrounding community. Topographically, the site is sloping from east to west with a change in
elevation from a high of approximately 305 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) in the northeast corner nearest
Lemon Leaf Drive to a low of approximately 250 ft. AMSL in the northwest corner nearest Lonicera Street. The
General Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use designations for the site are both identified as Residential
Medium Density (RM). The RM designation anticipates single-family, two-family, and/or multiple-family
residential dwellings at 4 to 8 dwelling units per acre with a Growth Management Control Point (GMCP) of 6
dwelling units per acre. The project site has a net developable area of 2.17 acres. At the bottom of the RM density
range, the site would yield 8.68 dwelling units, at the GMCP, the site would yield 13.02 dwelling units, and at the
top of the RM density range, the site would yield 17.36 dwelling units. However, to develop the site at any one of
these densities requires a significant amount grading to the site that would violate the City's Hillside Development
regulations and Hillside Development Guidelines, and furthermore would require higher density residential product
types that would not be compatible with the existing surrounding single-family homes. Therefore, given the
topographic constraints of the site combined with the existing lower densities of the surrounding single-family
residential developments, the project applicant is proposing to develop only five (5) single-family lots. As such, the
resultant density is 2.3 dwelling units per acre, which is 3.68 dwelling units lower than the bottom of the RM density
range and is 8.02 dwelling units below the RM GMCP. To ensure that development of this infill site is compatible
with the existing surrounding residential land use densities, and to further reduce any potentially significant impacts
to hillsides as a result of excessive grading, the project is proposing a General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal
Program Amendment, and Zone Change to change the General Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use
designations on the property from RM to Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM, 0-4 du/ac), and to change the
City Zoning and Local Coastal Program Zoning designations on the property from Residential Density - Multiple
(RD-M) and Limited Control (L-C) to One-Family Residential (R-l). The proposed project density at 2.3 du/ac is
compatible with the proposed RLM (0-4 du/ac) land use designation. Therefore, the project does not physically
divide an established community or conflict with any existing or proposed land use plans or policies; and
furthermore as illustrated above in Section IV - Biological Resources, the project does not conflict with any habitat
conservation plans or natural community conservation plans of the City of Carlsbad. No impact is assessed.
20 Rev. 01/02/07
GPA 07-05/ZC 06-04/LCPA 06-03/u. 06-15/CDP 06-22/HDP 06-05
Tabata Ranch
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region
and the residents of the State?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan?
a-b) No Impact. There is no indication that the subject property contains any known mineral resources that would
be of future value to the region or the residents of the State. Therefore, no impact is assessed.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
UnJess
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
XI. NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels
in excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of
other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise
levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
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. An Acoustical Site Assessment (ISE Project #07-012)
was prepared on the project site by Investigative Science and Engineering, Inc. dated May 24, 2007. According to
the report, the primary noise source impacting the project site is from vehicular traffic on Poinsettia Lane. Poinsettia
21 Rev. 01/02/07
c
GPA 07-05/ZC 06-04/LCPA 06-03/c. 06-15/CDP 06-22/HDP 06-05
Tabata Ranch
Lane is identified in the City of Carlsbad General Plan as a Circulation Element major arterial, and is located
directly adjacent to the site along its southerly boundary. The report does not require any exterior mitigation since
all proposed noise sensitive areas will not exceed the City's 60 dBA CNEL exterior noise exposure threshold.
However, the report does indicate that areas within proposed Lots 3, 4, and 5 will exceed the CCR Title 24, Noise
Insulation Standards and will therefore need to be further analyzed under future building permits to demonstrate
compliance with the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. Therefore, prior to issuance of building permits for
future homes on Lots 3, 4, and 5, an interior noise analysis compliant with the California Code of Regulations
(CCR), Title 24, Noise Insulation Standards, is required in order to demonstrate that future architectural design
limits-interior noise to 45 dBA CNEL or less. As mitigated, the site is suitable for the proposed project and
exposure of people to noise related hazards is considered to be less than significant.
b & d) Less Than Significant Impact. The anticipated grading operation associated with the proposed single-
family dwellings will result in a temporary and minor increase in groundborne vibration and ambient noise levels.
However, following the conclusion of grading, ambient noise levels and vibrations are expected to return to pre-
existing levels and therefore impacts are considered to be less than significant.
c) No Impact. The project consists of five (5) single-family residential lots, which is consistent in use and intensity
as the surrounding residential development. As such, the project would not result in sustained ambient noise levels
which would exceed the established standards. No impact is assessed.
e) Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The subject site is located approximately 1.15
miles southwest of the McClellan-Palomar Airport runway. The project site is located well outside of the Airport
Influence Area, Flight Activity Zone, and/or the Runway Protection Zones that are established by the McClellan-
Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ACLUP). However, the site is located within the Noise Impact
Notification Area (NINA), which encompasses most of the City of Carlsbad. According to the ACLUP, much of the
noise in this area occurs on an irregular basis, and is often called single event noise. This type of noise, although not
generally considered to be a health or safety issue, may be a nuisance. Therefore, all residential projects located
within the NINA are required to record a notice that the property is subject to over flight, site, and sound of aircraft
operating from McClellan-Palomar Airport. A mitigation measure is included to reduce this impact to a level
considered to be less than significant.
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)?
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
a-c) No Impact. The project's size of five (5) single-family residential lots is consistent with the intensity of the
surrounding residential land uses. The project site and the area surrounding it are designated for residential
22 Rev. 01/02/07
GPA 07-05/ZC 06-04/LCPA 06-03/c,06-15/CDP 06-22/HDP 06-05
Tabata Ranch
development and were analyzed accordingly in the Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Plan and the Zone 20
Specific Plan EIR. As indicated above in Section IX., the density of the proposed development is consistent with
the proposed amended City of Carlsbad General Plan. The project will not displace people or existing housing, thus
necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, 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
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
a.i. - a.v.) No Impact. The project's size, consisting of five (5) single-family residential lots, 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.). The proposed project shall be subject to the conditions and facility service
level requirements within the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 20. Therefore, no significant public
service impacts will occur as a result of this project. No impact is assessed.
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
XIV. RECREATION
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
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?
23 Rev. 01/02/07
GPA 07-05/ZC 06-04/LCPA 06-03 A,, 06-15/CDP 06-22/HDP 06-05
Tabata Ranch
a-b) No Impact. The project's size, consisting of five (5) single-family residential lots, will not result in the
deterioration of existing neighborhood or regional parks or cause such parks to be expanded. The development of
this site is anticipated by the General Plan, and in accordance with the Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Plan
the project is conditioned to pay park-in-lieu fees to Park District 3. Therefore, no adverse physical effect on the
environment will occur as a result of this project. No impact is assessed.
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
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)?
a) Less Than Significant Impact. Five (5) lots for single family homes will generate 50 Average Daily Trips
(ADT), which is not substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. 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 will not cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of
the street system. Project associated impacts are therefore considered to be less than significant.
24 Rev. 01/02/07
GPA 07-05/ZC 06-04/LCPA 06-03/Ci 06-15/CDP 06-22/HDP 06-05
Tabata Ranch
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-C"
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 proposed amended
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. The project is located within an area conducive to public transportation, being in close proximity to
Poinsettia Lane and Aviara Parkway, both of which are major circulation element roadways. No impact is assessed.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially , Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated 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?
25 Rev. 01/02/07
GPA 07-05/ZC 06-04/LCPA 06-03/Ci 06-15/CDP 06-22/HDP 06-05
Tabata Ranch
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 20 LFMP anticipated that the project site would eventually 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 (2.3
dwelling units per acre) is less than what was originally anticipated (6 dwelling units per acre at the Growth
Management Control Point) for this site and thus will not result in an overall increase in the City's growth projection
in the SW 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 is assessed.
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
26 Rev. 01/02/07
GPA 07-05/ZC 06-04/LCPA 06-03/C i 06-15/CDP 06-22/HDP 06-05
Tabata Ranch
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
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 Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project will not degrade the
quality of the environment. The project site is considered an infill site surrounded on all sides by single-family
communities; it does not contain any fish or wildlife species; and is not identified by any habitat conservation plan
as containing a protected, rare or endangered plant or animal species. However, the project's required mitigation as
outlined in the Cultural Resources section will preclude any elimination of important examples of major periods of
California history or prehistory, thus reducing impacts to less than significant. Therefore, the project will not reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; will not threaten to eliminate or reduce the number of endangered plant and
animal species; and will not result in the elimination of any important examples of California history or prehistory.
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
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 less than significant level. 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,
27 Rev. 01/02/07
GPA 07-05/ZC 06-04/LCPA 06-03/Ci 06-15/CDP 06-22/HDP 06-05
Tabata Ranch
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.
28 Rev. 01/02/07
GPA 07-05/ZC 06-04/LCPA 06-03/Ci 06-15/CDP 06-22/HDP 06-05
Tabata Ranch
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 Program Environmental Impact Report for the Zone 20 Specific Plan (EIR 90-03).
Brian F. Mooney Associates. June 1992.
2. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for. McClellan Palomar Airport. Carlsbad. California. San Diego
County Regional Airport Authority, as amended October 4, 2004.
3. Carlsbad General Plan, City of Carlsbad Planning Department, dated March 1994.
4. City of Carlsbad Municipal Code. Title 21 Zoning. City of Carlsbad Planning Department, as updated.
5. Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad, City of Carlsbad Planning
Department, final approval dated November 2004.
6. Habitat Mapping and Quantification - Tabata Ranch Project. e2M (Engineering - Environmental
Management, Inc.), dated March 6, 2008.
7. Phase I Archaeological Assessment of the Tabata Ranch Development Project. (APNs 214-630-20, 214-
631-20. 214-631-21). City of Carlsbad. San Diego County. California. Brian F. Smith & Associates
(BFSA), June 10,2008.
8. Paleontological Resource and Monitoring Assessment. Tabata Ranch Development Project (APNs 214-
630-20. 214-631-20. 214-631-21). City of Carlsbad. San Diego County. California. Brian F. Smith &
Associates (BFSA), June 10, 2008.
9. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation. Proposed 4-Lot Subdivision Tabata Ranch off Camino De Las
Ondas and Lonicera Street (Job #01-364-P). Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc., October 24, 2001.
10. Geotechnical Update Report and Grading Plan Review. Proposed Tabata Ranch Subdivision. Lemon Leaf
Drive. Carlsbad. California (Job #01-364-P). Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc., August 2, 2006.
11. Baseline Environmental Site Assessment - Tabata Ranch (Job #08-350-H). Vinje & Middleton Engineering
(VME), November 4, 2008.
12. County of San Diego, Department of Environmental Health (DEH), Site Assessment & Mitigation Division
(SAM). Voluntary Assistance Program #H39733-001. Tabata Ranch Site, Lonicera Street. Carlsbad
California 92008. December 31. 2008.
13. Preliminary Hydrology Study for Tabata Ranch. Lemon Leaf Drive, Carlsbad. California, Pasco
Engineering, Inc., June 27, 2009. ,
14. Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan. Lemon Leaf Drive. Carlsbad. California. Pasco Engineering,
June 27, 2008.
15. . City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study. Catastrophic Dam Failure
Inundation. Tsunami and Seiche Hazard Zone Maps. City of Carlsbad Planning Department, September
1992.
16. Acoustical Site Assessment Tabata Ranch Residential Development. Carlsbad. California (ISE Project #07-
012). Investigative Science and Engineering, Inc., May 24, 2007.
29 Rev. 01/02/07
GPA 07-05/ZC 06-04/LCPA 06-03 A_1 06-15/CDP 06-22/HDP 06-05
Tabata Ranch
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
1. Archeological mitigation measures shall be implemented as follows:
a. Prior to demolition of any structures or issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first, the
developer shall enter into a pre-excavation agreement with a representative of the San Luis Rey Band
of Mission Indians. The purpose of this agreement will be to establish the requirement of tribal
monitoring and to formalize procedures for the treatment of Native American human remains and
burial, ceremonial, or cultural items that may be uncovered during any ground disturbance activities.
b. Prior to demolition of any structures or issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first, the
project developer shall retain the services of a qualified archeologist to monitor all ground disturbing
and demolition activities. The applicant shall provide verification that a qualified archeologist has
been retained, and verification shall be documented by a letter from the applicant and the archeologist
to the Planning Director.
c. A qualified archeologist shall be present at the pre-construction meeting to consult with the grading
and excavation contractors.
d. In the event that any cultural resources, concentration of artifacts, or culturally modified soil deposits
are discovered within the project area at any time during construction, the archeological monitor shall
be empowered to suspend work in the immediate area of the discovery until such time as a data
recovery plan can be developed and implemented.
e. The discovery of any resource shall be reported to the City of Carlsbad Planning Director prior to any
evaluation testing.
f. If any deposits are evaluated as significant under CEQA, mitigation may be required as recommended
by the qualified archeologist.
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.) The applicant shall provide verification that a qualified paleontologist has been retained,
and verification shall be documented by a letter from the applicant and the paleontologist to the
Planning Director.
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. Due to the small nature
of some fossils it may be necessary to collect matrix samples for processing through fine mesh screens.
e. Any fossils collected shall be prepared to the point of identification and properly curated before they
are donated to their final repository.
30 Rev. 01/02/07
GPA 07-05/ZC 06-04/LCPA 06-03/c i 06-15/CDP 06-22/HDP 06-05
Tabata Ranch
f. Prepared fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos, and maps, shall be deposited (as
a donation) in a non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the San Diego
Natural History Museum.
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 the issuance of building permits for any homes on Lots 3, 4, and 5, an interior noise analysis shall be
submitted to the Planning Director which demonstrates compliance with the City of Carlsbad Noise Guidelines
Manual and the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, Noise Insulation Standards.
31 Rev. 01/02/07
GPA 07-05/ZC 06-04/LCPA 06-03/C i 06-15/CDP 06-22/HDP 06-05
Tabata Ranch
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR
WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date S ^naure
32 • Rev. 01/02/07
CO
M—
O
Q)
D)
CO
CL-
IO &
9<oo
Q.
Q
I
CN
Cjl
to0
Q.Q
O
55
1too1-O
n
9too
Q.
O
^^Jotoo
0N
109
o
Q.
O
CD
D)
1
0•*-"
0"E
0
._
0'o"
Q.
CO
£
£
15
o
Q.
Q.
.,
0
co
co0
0.c
0
"c
co -oa: &
UJ CDm J5
i 11Z. o
UJ •-
r^ 2LJ- CD
$
CO0
33
COCD0
E
o'~
CJ) CD
.C
Ocre
re.are
o o»o :-~
CN E
o —CO JO
JZ Co 0
CD £^ c:s p
•• LLJ '5
:> < ^
<C Q O)Z _j c
t- < >O > o
LLJ O "g
O 0. CD
Ct: O. -cQ. < H
-I-JCO
-1— 1
JD
"CD
0
TJ
0
COCD0E
co
"CDO)
i
(-
oCD0
^
"w
32o0
o
T30c
O)
'to
T3c
CD
T3JD
"0
D.Eoo
^-*<.
8
CDo
i {"**
'c
D)'co
.£
M—o
"0
^CD
o•*— •
CO•sCDQ.
E
"ro
"c0E
S
c0
T30
'^3
0X3
>»
J2
0COco<
o-*^
"o0Q.CO0
1
$
j2
0
E0»
cr0
C3)
^'co
E
_co
3T1
b0
"*""*_co
M—
T3C
CD
73
0E0
Q.E"~~-a
CD
£
"5
•Q
0
"o.
Eo0
c00J2
COCD-C
0
DCOCD
0
E
co
S"
^»COo
T—
CN
Co
"80
CO
0T3O
O
CO0o
13
0CO
0Od
0
"5
D
'"CD t-
.!"?o
£
!c
-4— '
CO
m
coECD
Co
.i!!•= CD
"—
> CD
"a.
E
c
0 COC C
'•£ JO
.C
CO
-*-»O) cc a>
o E.° t'c coo Q-•=; <"•>a Q
D)c
O o~ >.
2>Mitigation Measure^ raO) *
CZ Q)
'E CD
C £
CO O)n" c°~ UJ
*Q
Cg
-2 £=
olC CDQ- -0
3ological mitigation measures shall be implemented as»/s:"§ =
(/) M —<u °
3 0>-£i Oo c2 §
CO CO
c '"I
CO O
Prior to demolition of any structures or issuance of aCO
D)
TJ *-•2 E
05 Q)
CO Q.grading permit, whichever occurs first, the developershall enter into a pre-excavation agreement with arepresentative of the San Luis Rey Band of MissionIndians. The purpose of this agreement will be toestablish the requirement of tribal monitoring and toformalize procedures for the treatment of NativeAmerican human remains and burial, ceremonial, orcultural items that may be uncovered during anyground disturbance activities.Prior to demolition of any structures or issuance of agrading permit, whichever occurs first, the projectdeveloper shall retain the services of a qualifiedarcheologist to monitor all ground disturbing anddemolition activities. The applicant shall provideverification that a qualified archeologist has been-0 retained, and verification shall be documented by aletter from the applicant and the archeologist to thePlanning Director.A qualified archeologist shall be present at the pre-construction meeting to consult with the grading ando excavation contractors.ro•a
73
= s-S
05 CO 'EIllc
oo "s•^ ^u ~2. ro F co.91 = cz c:
5 c
03 73 Ocub
•» 75 ® t""cno E o
c ,„ M
fc-SS $ E
& CL-Q c*«- C (/) Om O CO 'iSill I
o -c ui EQ. « CO o,y> (n co XQ) — c • —•- 0) fc °«.- t c o>
.
) O
CO
.> o .o
^lilf i>E 'd ?;..Ijsl8^°-s
0)
C Uo <".~ <D
O)
s^- "• C C rn ""t3 * <5 S S x
(D Q £ "Q.< 73
«l- 5 co >
111co o D
co
M—
O
CM
<Uo>
CO
Q.
1CO
Eo>K.
cg
T3 £co cit 0)
o> E> ^Q.
E
° </>c c:5 rooE
w
-«— >en cc 0•^ c°t
"F TO
0 £
^Q
O)c -'d m0 Q.
1^O•5•^Mitigation Measurei— M— m
In the event that any cultural resources, concentratiorof artifacts, or culturally modified soil deposits arediscovered within the project area at any time duringconstruction, the archeological monitor shall beempowered to suspend work in the immediate area othe discovery until such time as a data recovery plancan be developed and implemented.The discovery of any resource shall be reported to thiCity of Carlsbad Planning Director prior to anyevaluation testing.If any deposits are evaluated as significant underCEQA, mitigation may be required as recommendedby the qualified archeologist.~6 0 M-:
--. °>r-i1!._ 0c 0c c:
J5 D)
°-iS
•4-Jro'EM— i—O 0
(U °-
2 £ i5
i_ CO :=O ^ j2.'C 0) P
Q- .<" 0)
W ^ — 0
1 sl°i H - s |5|
§ B£l?!^§? IS, 1 g&^g
1 lffs|^H5 51 istsilI §J~i! ss^s ' lei ™:f sss!1 «§£iwg-«§:5.. §0 .^••s§oEfe
.2 -§"-§= cto-og-fe S£ ^^S^E-o
i la^iltj^sjs *•£ s-ia-»lS a-sl^Sl^la ^1 f1^1£l
! liliffif !l Hi Ii HS IfSfiliil fffiiliU /-» t^J -»— ' I— ^-^ "~ t - J ,|_» H— -^ ^11 O ^~ C. ^- ?\ ^-^ ^
'Mi 2o0C— cJO^oc =S5 01-n^O^3
| o^8ogiSS8 |lg ff|||8-
is.. >-0z3n3-croQ.ro0ro "ox •ruxlr^ro''-CCO D_T3OQ-D-Q.COQ.£!Q. <O0 <-D.bfc.Eo.O
SI
^° "n ro -Q <->Q- ii
oi
T3
5JraTD
XIcra
•Q
S "S "S3 -g =(/> CO cra x) —
CU 73 0)
E rara =z
.§-§'§§
••"* C~ '~ra CD p ra.s1:-- ^ E— c -: tE •- o o^ <u o •£to -° .en ™
3 = !c CD
n of Headings:ject, ongoing, cumulative.Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particPlans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column wplementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, tArea for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for othidix P..2 2 ? c E " fe•55 a. ~ o - <n Q.
i " a £ « 1 <•J2 a, ~ S «= 2 7o a 5 o -c E 'x >, ° s: 01 CD Q
UJ K E W > U. K.
co
M—
O
oo
Q)
O)TO
Q_
1CO
E0cr:
cg
•o ^
E 0
0 E
"5.
E
co
C c
^
D)"c
C 0sila^ *iC_ ^^
D)C
'>- 02 o.
'c i_
0
^Mitigation MeasureWhen fossils are discovered, the paleontologist (orpaleontologicai monitor) shall recover them. In mostcases this fossil salvage can be completed in a shortperiod of time. However, some fossil specimens (suchas a complete large mammal skeleton) may require anextended salvage period. In these instances thepaleontologist (or paleontologicai monitor) shall beallowed to temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading toallow recovery of fossil remains in a timely manner.Due to the small nature of some fossils it may benecessary to collect matrix samples for processingthrough fine mesh screens.-^j Any fossils collected shall be prepared to the point ofidentification and properly curated before they aredonated to their final repository.0
0
'c
0
Q.
0
0
O
_0
j/f
(/)
(/)
£
T3
CO
Q.
0
CL
., •notes, photos, and maps, shall be deposited (as adonation) in a non-profit institution with a researchinterest in the materials, such as the San Diego NaturalHistory Museum.A final summary report shall be completed that outlinesthe results of the mitigation program. This report shallinclude discussions of the methods used, stratigraphicd)section(s) exposed, fossils collected, and significanceof recovered fossils.c
'cf—
CO
Q.
«» ***—0) O
•C *•.+- 0
0 °H c
!_ COo ^•c in
D. .<£.
-o
c .*;
o E
E wO 0
>,=C COco sz
!_ W
It0 CO
Q-CDO) Wc o
73 C
L_
?|
0 —O c:c. TOro^ inen
— c
0 COr~
0 -•*-• co
o j2°C O0. _J
CO
J_p
**—O) u>
;g E
'5 0
-Q Q.Planning Director which demonstrates compliance withty of Carlsbad Noise Guidelines Manual and theQ) <• '^J= U
*- 0o -C
§-0
w co0E ^
2 co"
c "o .co —i m
0
'o
Z
CM
JL)
P
Oo,
c:O
3
D)
£-8M— 1—O TO
ll
U CO
CO CE--Bo jo
"co <nO £
T3Cra
T)
111(/) 01 'cas "o —
<D -rj <U
^1-°_ CO=
III!CJ> ^ C c
c •— o o
^ ^ .« •—
o '5 •"_ ^
"C r- "D ^3ra c S C:°- § "c oro •= d) t"•p E ouD) O
^ « ' raisil
£c^§d) o ra ^
75 c ^ ™
c o 3O *- c/)Q. « ra(/)(/)(!>o> •- p•- <u c
&3§
ll.§>°<r c *=; </>
a) T- c E 2> o .o c rofo *-- fo a) In
llflf
C C <j<U Q en
•isflf
0> II ,| Cp
O *i W 2 ^ Q^
oz-i
ii 2o> •=a>.
<0 D.
O £ gj fl) QS (n> &. a:
EXHIBIT "ADDM"
ADDENDUM TO THE
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR
TABATA RANCH
GPA 07-05/ZC 06-04/SP 203(C)/LCPA 06-03/CT 06-15/CDP 06-22/HDP 06-05
The purpose of this Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration is to include Specific Plan
Amendment 203(C) as part of the project description for the Tabata Ranch project, and to state the
determination that this revision does not create any new significant environmental effects, that none of the
conditions contained in Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have occurred,
and that a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration is not required.
Subsequent to the circulation of the Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (April 11, 2009), it was determined that an amendment to
the Zone 20 Specific Plan was necessary in order to reflect the proposed land use change from Residential
Medium (RM, 4-8 du/ac) to Residential Low-Medium (RLM, 0-4 du/ac). This revision is not considered
substantial or significant as it relates to the environmental effects associated with the project or the
conditions contained in Section 15162 of CEQA. The Specific Plan Amendment does not create any new
significant environmental effects, nor does it cause any of the conditions contained in Section 15162 of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to occur, and a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
is not required.
Date: Don Neu
Planning Director