Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-04-07; Planning Commission; Resolution 66811 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6681 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 4 AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION 6 FROM RESIDENTIAL LOW-MEDIUM (RLM) TO > RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM (RM), RLM, AND OPEN SPACE 7 (OS); A ZONE CHANGE FROM LIMITED CONTROL (L-C) TO RESIDENTIAL DENSITY-MULTIPLE (RD-M), SINGLE- 8 FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-l), AND OPEN SPACE (OS); A 9 LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING 10 DESIGNATIONS; A SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE ZONE 20 SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE AND H ZONING DESIGNATIONS; AND TO ALLOW FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF A 20.27-ACRE SITE INTO TWO (2) 12 RESIDENTIAL LOTS, TWO (2) OPEN SPACE LOTS, AND 13 ONE (1) PRIVATE STREET LOT; AND THE GRADING AND DEVELOPMENT OF THIRTY SEVEN (37) DETACHED AIR- 14 SPACED CONDOMINIUM ONE-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF 15 AVIARA PARKWAY, SOUTH OF CORTE ORCHIDIA, EAST 16 OF TOWHEE LANE, AND WEST OF BLACK RAIL ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 20. 17 CASE NAME: MUROYA SUBDIVISION CASE NO.: GPA 06-09/ZC 06-08/SP 203(D)/LCPA 06- 18 09/CT 06-27/CP 06-19/CDP 06-32/HDP 06- 10/HMP 07-02 20 WHEREAS, Taylor Morrison of CA, LLC, "Developer," has filed a verified 21 application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Muroya Family Trust, 22 "Owner," described as 23 The East One-Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest 24 Quarter, Section 27, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, 25 County of San Diego, State of California, According to United States Government Survey26 27 ("the Property"); and 28 WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on April 7, 2010, hold a duly noticed 2 public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 3 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony 4 <- and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and g considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors 7 relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting o Program. 9 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning 10 Commission as follows: 11 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 13 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative 14 Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program , Exhibit "MND," according to Exhibits "Notice of Intent (NOI)," and "Environmental * 5 Impact Assessment Form - Initial Study (EIA)," attached hereto and made a part , f hereof, based on the following findings: 17 Findings; 18 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: 19 a. it has reviewed, analyzed, and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and 20 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Muroya Subdivision - GPA 06-09, ZC 06-08, SP 203(D), LCPA 06-09, CT 06-27, CP 06-19, CDP 06-32, 21 HDP 06-10, and HMP 07-02, and the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of 22 the project; and 23 b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting 24 Program has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection 25 Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and o* f-\c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of 27 Carlsbad; and 28 d. based on the EIA and comments thereon, the Planning Commission, finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. PCRESONO. 6681 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on 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. Conditions: 1 . Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the Muroya Subdivision - Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, GPA 06-09/ ZC 06-08/SP 203(D)/LCPA 06-09/CT 06-27/CP 06-19/CDP 06-32/HDP 06-10/HMP 07-02 Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on April 7, 2010, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Douglas, Commissioners Baker, L'Heureux, and Nygaard NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Montgomery and Schumacher ABSTAIN: C^I^Ty 7^§b^ FARRAJSaiaOUGLAS, cSsSon CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: \^L\ / (OAl DONNEU Planning Director PCRESONO. 6681 -3- Dominguez, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - INITIAL STUDY CASE NO: GPA 06-09/ZC 06-08/SP 203D/ LCPA 06-09/CT 06-27/ CP 06-19/CDP 06-32/HDP 06-10/HMPP 07-02 DATE: February 11.2010 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: MUROYA SUBDIVISION 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Dan Halverson - (760) 602-4631 4. PROJECT LOCATION: North of Aviara Parkway, south of Corte Orchidia. east of Towee Lane, and west of Black Rail Road (APN 215-040-03). 5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: Muroya Family Trust. P.O. Box 131016. Carlsbad. CA 92012 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RLM (Residential Low-Medium Density. 0-4 du/ac) 7. ZONING: L-C (Limited Control) 8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): Coastal Commission 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: The proposed project involves a General Plan Amendment (GPA), Zone Change (ZC), Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA), Specific Plan Amendment (SPA), Tentative Tract Map (CT), Condominium Permit (CP), Coastal Development Permit (CDP), Hillside Development Permit (HDP), Habitat Management Plan Permit (HMPP) to allow for the subdivision and development of a 20.27 acre parcel (APN 215-040-03) located north of Aviara Parkway, south of Corte Orchidia, east of Towee Lane, and west of Black Rail Road. The Parcel will be subdivided into five (5) separate lots. Lot 1 is approximately 6.3 acres in size and will contain 37 detached condominium units clustered in the northern and eastern portions of the lot. Lot 2 is 0.9 acres in size and is the site of the owners existing residence which will remain on this parcel. Lot 3 and 4 are 1.6 acres and 9.8 acres in size and will be open space lots (lot 3 as a buffer zone and lot 4 as open space habitat). Lot 5 is a 0.7 acre size lot which will be developed as private road for common access to the 37 detached condominium units. The current General Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use designation for the entire site is RLM (Residential Low-Medium Density, 0-4 dwelling units per acre) with the Local Coastal Program and Zoning classification as L-C (Limited Control). The General Plan Amendment and LCPA will change the two (2) proposed open space lots 3 and 4 from RLM to OS (Open Space), the proposed residential lot land the proposed private street lot 5 from RLM to RM (Residential Medium Density, 4-8 dwelling units per acre), with lot 2 remaining RLM . Zoning will also be amended to correspond with the associated General Plan Land Use Amendments. The zoning for GPA 09-09/ZC 06-08/SP 203D/ LCPA 06-09/CT 06-277 CP 06-19/CDP 06-32/HDP 06-10/HMPP 07-02 Muroya Subdivision the open space lots (3&4) will change from L-C to OS (Open Space), the zoning for the residential lots (1&5) will change from L-C to RD-M (Residential Density - Medium), and lot 2 will change from L-C to Single Family Residential (R-l). The site currently has a single-family structure in the southeast corner of the lot, while the north and northeast section of the lot is presently used for agricultural production. The southwest section of the lot is predominantly occupied by natural vegetated hillsides and canyons. Topographically, the site is sloping downward from east to west. The northeast section, the agricultural section, is a flat pad and then slopes steeply down to the south and west property lines. A 150-ft wide SDG&E easement bisects the site diagonally in a northwest/southeast direction. Surrounding land uses include single-family residential to the north on Courte Orchidia, open space and single-family residential to the south, single-family and vacant lots to the east across Black Rail Road, and single-family homes to the west off Towee Lane. The project site is located in an area that 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 indentified, analyzed, and recommended mitigation to reduce potential significant 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, Phase I & II Environmental, hydrology, and storm water management plans, reports, and studies, a determination has been made that with the implementation of additional mitigation measures, no additional significant impacts will result from this project. The Zone 20 PEIR and additional technical studies are cited as source documents for this environmental evaluation. Rev. 10/02/09 GPA 09-09/ZC 06-08/SP 203D/ LCPA 06-09/CT 06-277 CP 06-19/CDP 06-32/HDP 06-10/HMPP 07-02 Muroya Subdivision 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 2\j Biological Resources /\| Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Hazards/Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Mandatory Findings of Significance XI Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Circulation Utilities & Service Systems Rev. 10/02/09 GPA 09-09/ZC 06-08/SP 203D/ LCPA 06-09/CT 06-27/ CP 06-19/CDP 06-32/HDP 06-10/HMPP 07-02 Muroya Subdivision 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. - l\ - /Q Planner Signature Date Planning Director's Signature Date Rev. 10/02/09 GPA 09-09/ZC 06-08/SP 203D/ LCPA 06-09/CT 06-27/ CP 06-19/CDP 06-32/HDP 06-10/HMPP 07-02 Muroya Subdivision 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. 10/02/09 GPA 09-09/ZC 06-08/SP 203D/ LCPA 06-09/CT 06-27/ CP 06-19/CDP 06-32/HDP 06-10/HMPP 07-02 Muroya Subdivision • 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. 10/02/09 GPA 09-09/ZC 06-08/SP 203D/ LCPA 06-09/CT 06-27/ CP 06-19/CDP 06-32/HDP 06-10/HMPP 07-02 Muroya Subdivision Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant No Impact Impact I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? a, c) Less than Significant Impact. The subject site is located along the west side of Black Rail Road, with obstructed ocean views, due to dense vegetation on site, available to the west and southwest and canyon views to the east. There are no public scenic vistas available from the site or across the site. The project is subject to various site design, architectural, and landscaping standards contained within the Zone 20 Specific Plan, City of Carlsbad Council Policy No. 44 (Neighborhood Architectural Design Guidelines), City of Carlsbad Council Policy No. 66 (Livable Neighborhoods), as well as the Planned Development and Hillside Development Chapters of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. All of these are designed to reduce visual impacts. b) No Impact. No trees or rock outcroppings will be impacted by the proposed project. The existing residence was built in the 70's and as such is less than 50 years old and is not a historic building and no historic buildings are located on or adjacent to the site. The area of proposed impact is not located within the viewshed of a State scenic highway or any State highway that is designated by CalTrans as eligible for listing as a scenic highway. No impact is assessed. d) Less than Significant Impact. With the exception of the existing single family residence, the subject site contains no lights and produces no glare at the present time. However, the proposed project will change the appearance of the subject site from a relatively undeveloped parcel to a developed site with 37 new detached condominium units. The homes will be clustered on the north and northeast section of the lot so that a large portion of the lot will remain open space. Light and glare from the proposed project is not anticipated to be significantly greater than that projected from other similar single family residential uses within the surrounding area. The proposed development modifications will involve an increase in urban appearance, but will not be dissimilar from the existing uses in the area. This increase should not result in significant new sources of-light and glare, and will not significantly impact overall views to and from the site. Rev. 10/02/09 GPA 09-09/ZC 06-08/SP 203D/ LCPA 06-09/CT 06-27/ CP 06-19/CDP 06-32/HDP 06-10/HMPP 07-02 Muroya Subdivision Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant No Impact Impact II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - (In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model-1997 prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? a & c) Less than Significant Impact. 7.90 acres of the project site is identified as an area of non-prime agricultural land on Map X of the Mello II segment of the Local Coastal Program (LCP). The project site has been designated for residential development and agricultural uses are allowed as interim uses and conversion of the property from agricultural to urban development shall be permitted subject to the payment of an agricultural conversion mitigation fee as specified in Policy 2.1 of the Mello II segment of the LCP. The project has been conditioned accordingly. b) No Impact. The subject site is not encumbered by a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, no impact is assessed. Rev. 10/02/09 GPA 09-09/ZC 06-08/SP 203D/ LCPA 06-09/CT 06-27/ CP 06-19/CDP 06-32/HDP 06-10/HMPP 07-02 Muroya Subdivision Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant No Impact Impact III. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.) Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? a) No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a state non-attainment area for ozone (O3) and for particulate matter Less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM!0). The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothill areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). A Plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state- mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other California non-attainment areas having serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November 9* through 10th in 1994, and was forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996. The proposed project relates to the SIP and/or RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that are incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city's and the County's general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the project presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact. As discussed below in Section IX - LANDUSE AND PLANNING, a General Plan Amendment is included as part of this project, to change the General Plan Land Use designation on a portion of the property from Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM, 0-4 du/ac) to Residential Medium Density (RM, 4-8 du/ac). The proposed redesignation of this property from RLM to RM will Rev. 10/02/09 GPA 09-09/ZC 06-08/SP 203D/ LCPA 06-09/CT 06-211 CP 06-19/CDP 06-32/HDP 06-10/HMPP 07-02 Muroya Subdivision however, result in the same number of new dwelling units (37) that was originally anticipated pursuant to the existing General Plan designation. Section 15125(d) 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 growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan and will in no way conflict with 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 15064(h)(3), the proposed project's incremental contribution to the cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. d) No impact. Aviara Elementary and Middle School are located approximately 'A of a mile to the southeast. As noted above, the proposed detached condominium development would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or concentrations. 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. 10/02/09 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated GPA 09-09/ZC 06-08/SP 203D/ LCPA 06-09/CT 06-211 CP 06-19/CDP 06-32/HDP 06-10/HMPP 07-02 Muroya Subdivision 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, & f) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. 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 20.27-acre project site currently consists of an agricultural parcel with an existing residence on the southeast corner of the lot and is surrounded by existing single-family development to the north, south, and west, and developed and undeveloped lots across Black Rail Road to the east. The lot consists of a natural canyon on the south and west side of the lot with habitat located throughout. According to the City of Carlsbad's HMP, the site is identified as a Standards Area, and is located adjacent to and north of an Existing Hardline Preserve Area. 11 Rev. 10/02/09 GPA 09-09/ZC 06-08/SP 203D/ LCPA 06-09/CT 06-27/ CP 06-19/CDP 06-32/HDP 06-10/HMPP 07-02 Muroya Subdivision The HMP conservation goals for Zone 20 require conservation of the majority of sensitive habitats in or contiguous with biological core and linkage areas, including no net loss of wetlands habitats, southern maritime chaparral, maritime succulent scrub, and coastal sage scrub within Core Area 6 and Linkage Area F. The HMP requires additional conservation standards to be applied to properties within the Coastal Zone. The HMP requires a 20-foot buffer for all other native habitats (i.e., coastal sage scrub) between preserved habitats and development. The HMP requires preservation of 67% the Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) onsite, with a "no net loss" of CSS within the Coastal Zone. Project impacts to occupied CSS require a 2:1 mitigation ratio with a minimum 1:1 creation component that achieves the "no net loss" standard. As part of the project all CSS will be retained in an open space easement and will not be impacted. A habitat assessment of the project site was prepared by Dudek Engineering and Environmental in October and November of 2006 and later revised on November 2009. According to the report, the 20.27 acre site contains nine plant communities or land covers: Agricultural Lands (7.90 acres), Coastal Sage Scrub (2.03 acres), developed lands (1.11 acres), disturbed lands (1.83 acres), Native Grassland (0.19 acres), ornamental plantings (1.05 acres), Southern Maritime Chaparral (5.39 acres), Southern Mixed Chaparral (0.77 acres), and Waters of the U.S. (0.02 acres). No wetlands are located within the property; however, the 0.02 acres of waters of the U.S. is located within the upland plant community and is therefore not discussed in the tables below. The proposed project, which is directed by the HMP to cluster development on disturbed areas to the maximum extent feasible, will primarily impact agricultural and disturbed lands. The project is proposing grading and compacting of slopes within the project area that will impact a minor amount of Chaparral habitat. Impacts to 0.29 acres of Southern Maritime Chaparral and 0.77 acres of Southern Mixed Chaparral, as illustrated in the table below will be mitigated by restoration of like habitat onsite. The subject site is identified as a Standards Area in the HMP and mitigation to a "no net loss" standard is required for impacts to sensitive habitats. Table 11 (Pg. D-l 13) of the HMP identifies mitigation ratios for impacts to habitats identified as sensitive in the HMP. The HMP also allows impacts to agriculture and disturbed habitat areas to be mitigated through the payment of an in-lieu mitigation fee The following tables summarize impacts to vegetation types and identify proposed mitigation as presented in Dudek's biological assessment: VEGETATION TOTALS AND IMPACTS PLANT COMMUNITY/LAND COVER EXISTING ACREAGE TOTAL IMPACTS Group B Native Grassland Southern Maritime Chaparral 0.19 5.39 0.00 0.29(5.3%) Group C Coastal Sage Scrub 2.03 0.00 Group D Southern Mixed Chaparral 0.77 0.05 (6.5%) Group F Disturbed Lands Agriculture 1.83 7.90 1.56 6.66 Other Lands Developed Ornamental Plantings Totals 1.11 1.05 20.27* 1.11 0.78 10.45 Total project acreage may not total exactly due to rounding 12 Rev. 10/02/09 GPA 09-09/ZC 06-08/SP 203D/ LCPA 06-09/CT 06-211 CP 06-19/CDP 06-32/HDP 06-10/HMPP 07-02 Muroya Subdivision PROPOSED MITIGATION FOR IMPACTS TO VEGETATION COMMUNITIES VEGETATION COMMUNITY Southern Maritime Chaparral Southern Mixed Chaparral Agriculture Disturbed Land Totals EXISTING ACREAGE 5.39 0.77 7.90 1.83 15.89 IMPACTED ACREAGE 0.29 (5.3%) 0.27 (6.5%) 7.90 1.56 10.02 MITIGATION RATIO 3:1 1:1 Mello 11 LCP Ag. Mitigation Fee In-lieu fee MITIGATION REQUIREMENT 0.87 acres will be restored onsite as Open Space (Lot 3&4) 5.1 acres (94.6%) will be preserved onsite as Open Space 0.27 acres will be restored onsite as Open Space (Lot 3&4) 0.50 acres (93.5%) will be preserved onsite as Open Space In-lieu fee 10,000 per acre In-lieu fee Sensitive Plant Species According to the habitat assessment, no sensitive plant species listed by the United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG), or the HMP were observed onsite. Four species designated as sensitive by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) were found on site: California Adolphia, Wart-stemmed Ceanothus, Nuttall's Scrub Oak, and Engelmann Oak. All four species are within the proposed Open Space area and therefore, no impact to sensitive plant species is assessed. Sensitive Wildlife Species According to the habitat assessment, one state and federally listed endangered species was observed onsite. Two pairs of California Gnatcatchers (CAGN) were observed on site, one pair in the southern portion and one pair in the central portion of the lot. The proposed development results in an open space habitat area, totaling 9.82 (Lot 4) acres, to be preserved including the areas where the CAGN were identified. The site is part of a habitat corridor, Linkage F, and is also a suitable habitat for other species to occur. The habitat assessment did not identify any other special status wildlife species on the site. In accordance with the HMP, the project will be required to implement management of the CAGN habitat to include: 1) manage preserve areas to minimize edge effects, control cowbirds and predators, prevent livestock overgrazing, and restrict human disturbance; 2) prepare and implement a fire management program for preserve areas as part of a detailed management plan; and 3) where opportunities arise, enhance and restore CSS within preserve areas, with priorities given to the creation of CAGN breeding opportunities within constrained linkages. As proposed, approximately 2.03 acres of CSS habitat will be conserved within the proposed open space HMP lot. A preserve management and fire management program will be included in the long-term management and maintenance plan for the preserved open space. In addition, to protect CAGN breeding in the HMP preserve area, mitigation measures are proposed that would prohibit clearing, grubbing, grading or other construction activities in the CSS from February 15 to August 31, the breeding season of the CAGN. Additionally, from February 15 to August 30, no construction activities shall occur within any portion of the site where they would result in noise levels exceeding 60 dB(A) hourly average at the edge of CSS. 13 Rev. 10/02/09 GPA 09-09/ZC 06-08/SP 203D/ LCPA 06-09/CT 06-211 CP 06-19/CDP 06-32/HDP 06-10/HMPP 07-02 Muroya Subdivision Indirect Impacts The project is located adjacent to and north of an existing HMP Hardline area. In order to minimize edge effects, the habitat assessment recommends incorporation of the following adjacency standards as mitigation for the project to reduce indirect impacts: 1. Fire Management: A Fire Protection Plan has been included as part of the project design and includes a 60- foot wide fire suppression zone between the proposed structures (Lots 21-27, 29 and 35-37) and the HMP Preserve boundary to the west. Fire Suppression Zones 2 and 3, which are closest to the HMP Preserve boundary, will be planted with a low water use, naturalizing plant species, known to have low fuel characteristics. As such, implementation of fire management requirements as proposed would be consistent with the HMP buffer requirements. 2. Erosion Control: Prior to construction of the proposed project, the project proponent shall develop an erosion control plan. The plan shall identify areas susceptible to erosion on the property and immediately adjacent to the existing HMP Preserve Area. All potentially sensitive slopes shall be stabilized and, if necessary, planted with native vegetation consistent with the plant community in the adjacent preserve area. The erosion control plan shall contain elements preventing runoff and the transport of fertilizers, pesticides, and similar materials into the existing HMP Preserve Area. 3. Landscaping Restrictions: The proposed project has been designed to provide an Open Space Lot (Lot 3) between the proposed natural vegetated Open Space Lot (Lot 4) and residential Lots 21-27, 29 and 35-37. A 6 ft. tall tubular steel view fence is proposed along the rear property lines of Lots 21-27, 29 and 35-37, which will further separate these two areas. The project shall prohibit the use of any non-native, invasive plant species in landscaping adjacent to the existing HMP Preserve or in any area where undesirable plant materials may have the opportunity to spread into the adjacent preserve area. The Final Landscape Plans prepared for the project shall include a list of HMP non-native invasive plant species that are to be avoided. Lastly, the project shall control landscape irrigation located adjacent to the existing HMP Preserve in order to prevent runoff from spreading into it. 4. Fencing. Signs, and Lighting: The proposed project has been designed to provide an Open Space Lot (Lot 3) between the proposed natural vegetated Open Space Lot (Lot 4) and residential Lots 21-27, 29 and 35- 37. A 6 ft. tall tubular steel view fence is proposed along the rear property lines of Lots 21-27, 29 and 35- 37, which will further separate these two areas. Where Open Space Lot 3 and the Proposed HMP Preserve Area meet, a 4 to 5 ft. tall black vinyl coated chain link fence shall be constructed along the entire boundary. Signage shall be installed on the fence to educate and inform the public about the goals of the HMP Preserve and to prohibit public access. Lighting in back yards adjacent to the existing HMP preserve area shall be of the minimum necessary for safety and security and shall be shielded and directed to shine downward and not into the HMP Preserve. Homeowner lighting restrictions shall be included in the project CC&R's. 5. Predator and Exotic Species Control: Project CC&R's shall educate homeowners regarding responsible pet ownership (e.g., keeping pets indoors, spaying/neutering pets, and not releasing pets into the wild). The proposed project has been designed to provide an Open Space Lot (Lot 3) between the proposed natural vegetated Open Space Lot (Lot 4) and residential Lots 21-27, 29 and 35-37. A 6 ft. tall tubular steel view fence is proposed along the rear property lines of Lots 21-27, 29 and 35-37, which will further separate these two areas. For exotic species control, the project shall not use any non-native, invasive plant species in landscaping adjacent to the existing HMP Preserve. The use of invasive exotic plant species as listed in the HMP shall be avoided. Additionally, in accordance with the HMP, the open space area will need to be protected by a conservation easement and an endowment will need to be established for long-term management, monitoring and reporting of the area in perpetuity. Title to the open space parcel will need to be transferred to an appropriate land trust entity. The conditioned mitigation will result in a Less than significant impact to biological resources. 14 Rev. 10/02/09 GPA 09-09/ZC 06-08/SP 203D/ LCPA 06-09/CT 06-211 CP 06-19/CDP 06-32/HDP 06-10/HMPP 07-02 Muroya Subdivision c) Less than Significant Impact. According to the habitat assessment, no Riparian/Riverine habitat, wetland habitat, artificially created wetlands, wetland species, or evidence of jurisdictional waters were observed or identified onsite. There were seven separate drainages found on site where highly incised channels drain water seasonally during high rainfall events. These ephemeral waters do not drain into any wetlands or navigable waters of the U.S. and therefore are not considered jurisdictional wetlands by the Army Core of Engineers (ACOE), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), or the Regional Water Control Board. The mapped waters of the U.S. account for a total of 0.02 acres of study area and are not included in the total for the plant communities because they are located within upland plant communities. Therefore, no significant impact to wetland habitat and wetland species is assessed. d) Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project is not expected to significantly impede local wildlife movement or migratory fish or wildlife movement because the project is clustering development onto the disturbed portion of the lot per the HMP and proposing an open space lot which keeps Linkage F intact. Therefore no significant impacts 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. 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant No Impact Impact d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? a, b & d) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment and Paleontological Review was prepared for the site by Michael Brandman and Associates (MBA) on January 10, 2007. The assessment program was conducted in accordance with CEQA to determine the presence of any archaeological or historical cultural resources that could be affected by the proposed project. An intensive pedestrian survey of the site was conducted by MBA on December 3rd and 5th, 2006 along with an archeological records search in November 28, 2006 through the South Coastal Information Center (SCIS) at San Diego State University (SDSU). The records search revealed one site (CA-SDi-6754) located directly within the boundaries of the project site In addition, during the survey of the property, some archeological resources were found. Even though the prehistoric findings are not significant under CEQA, their presence within the project area aptly demonstrates the moderate to high probability that significant prehistoric, subsurface artifact deposits will be uncovered during development. Because of this the MBA report recommends that cultural resource monitoring take place during all ground- disturbing activities associated with the proposed development. 15 Rev. 10/02/09 GPA 09-09/ZC 06-08/SP 203D/ LCPA 06-09/CT 06-27/ CP 06-19/CDP 06-32/HDP 06-10/HMPP 07-02 Muroya Subdivision In addition to the above, a request to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for a Sacred Lands File review was also conducted, which resulted in the determination of no known resources being found present within the project boundaries. Furthermore, 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, Pala Band of Mission Indians, Kwaaymii Laguna Band of Mission Indians, San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians, and the Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee. Of those listed, the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians, in a letter dated April 11, 2007 from California Indian Legal Services, requested a formal consultation with the City of Carlsbad. A SB 18 Consultation meeting was held on January 19, 2010 in which an agreement for a formal pre-excavation agreement prior to grading, the use of tribal monitors, and to have archeological monitoring to address any cultural resources that may be found given the San Luis Rey Band's traditional territory. Conditions 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 all ground disturbing activities. Through the implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment and Paleontological Review 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 million 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. An updated Geotechnical Investigation Report was prepared for the project by Geocon, Inc. (Project No. 07671-52- 01, July 14, 2009) and a Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment and Paleontological Review by MBA (January 10, 2007) to identify the geologic conditions of the site. According to the reports, the majority of site consists primarily of debris fill, undocumented fill, topsoil, colluviums, and alluvium soils, and by formational materials consisting of Lindavista, Santiago Formation bedrock materials, as well as Torrey Sandstone. While the deposits of the Lindavista and Torrey Sandstone have moderate paleontological sensitivity, sediments belonging to the Santiago Formation are assigned high sensitivity. Because of the "high paleontological resource sensitivity" of the middle Eocene Santiago Formation and the moderate sensitivity of the Lindavista and Torrey Sandstone, the report recommends full-time paleontological monitoring of the mass grading and excavation activities by a qualified paleontologist. A mitigation program for the proposed project 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 any impacts to a level of less than significant. 16 Rev. 10/02/09 GPA 09-09/ZC 06-08/SP 203 D/ LCPA 06-09/CT 06-211 CP 06-19/CDP 06-32/HDP 06-10/HMPP. 07-02 Muroya Subdivision Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant No Impact Impact 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 Section 1802.3.2 of the California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? a.i.) No Impact. There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zones within the City of Carlsbad and there is no other evidence of active or potentially active faults within the City. No impact is assessed. a.ii.—a.iv.) 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. An updated Geotechnical Investigation Report was prepared for the project by Geocon, Inc. (Project No. 07671-52-01, July 14, 2009) to identify the geologic conditions of the site. According to the report, the majority of site consists primarily of debris fill, undocumented fill, topsoil, colluviums, and alluvium soils, and formational materials consisting of Lindavista and Santiago Formation bedrock. It is understood that the same building code standards, which ensure the relative safety of all new residential construction, will be applied to the units constructed 17 Rev. 10/02/09 GPA 09-09/ZC 06-08/SP 203D/ LCPA 06-09/CT 06-27/ CP 06-19/CDP 06-32/HDP 06-10/HMPP 07-02 Muroya Subdivision pursuant to the proposed tentative map. The geotechnical report found that by following standard and accepted soil preparation techniques, the site is suitable for the proposed project, and would not expose people or structures to fault ruptures, liquefaction or landslides. All existing artificial fill, Colluvium/Alluvium materials, and loose, weathered Lindavista/Santiago Formation sediments will require removal and re-compaction according to the recommendations outlined in the geotechnical report. 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. c-d) Less than Significant Impact. The Geotechnical Investigation indicates that existing debris fill, undocumented fill, topsoil, colluviums, and alluvium soils will require removal and re-compaction according to the recommendations in the report. On-site soils are generally very low to low in expansion potential and recommendations for foundation design and construction are presented in the report. The report indicates that development of the property appears to be viable form a geotechnical viewpoint, provided the recommendations presented in the report are properly incorporated into the design and construction of the project. 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. Less than Significant No Impact Impact 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 18 Rev. 10/02/09 GPA 09-09/ZC 06-08/SP 203D/ LCPA 06-09/CT 06-211 CP 06-19/CDP 06-32/HDP 06-10/HMPP 07-02 Muroya Subdivision Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant No Impact Impact e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? a-b) Less than Significant Impact. A Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments were prepared for the project property by Dudek Engineering and Environmental (April 2006). The Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment identified a 500-gallon aboveground fuel storage tank and pesticide use during the past agricultural activities as potential concerns, and recommended that soil samples be investigated for hazardous materials. As part of the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment. Dudek collected five different soil samples at two locations adjacent to the aboveground storage tank for petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH). None of the soil samples had detectable concentrations of TPH diesel. One of the samples, a surface sample taken from underneath the nozzle of the fuel storage tank had detectable amounts of hydrocarbons in the motor oil range. There are no specified action levels for motor oil hydrocarbons so the report recommendation is for the visibly stained soil be dug out and properly disposed of prior to any grading for the project. Dudek also collected eight soils samples from throughout the nursery site for pesticides analysis. Laboratory test results reported small concentrations of organochlorine pesticides in all eight of the samples. The US EPA Region IX has published Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRG's) as well as the California EPA publishing of the California Human Health Screening Levels (CHHSL's). Both the EPA PRG's and CAL/EPA CHHSL's have a set base for residential development. The report demonstrates that none of the eight samples contained concentrations greater than the US EPA Region IX Residential PRG's or CAL/EPA Residential CHHSL's (See Table below). Table: Soil Sampling Data for Organochlorine Pesticides Analyte 4,4'- DDD 4,4'- DDE 4,4'- DDT US EPA PRG (US/kg) 2,400 1,700 1,700 US EPA CHHSL (fig/kg) 2,300 1,600 1,600 Sample 1 23.4 56 45 Sample 2 22.2 46.4 25.4 Sample 3 41 96 63 Sample 4 7.2 15.6 10 Sample 5 <0.5 0.5 <0.4 Sample 6 58 134 83 Sample 7 <.0.5 <0.5 <0.4 Sample 8 <0.5 1 <0.4 19 Rev. 10/02/09 GPA 09-09/ZC 06-08/SP 203D/ LCPA 06-09/CT 06-27/ CP 06-19/CDP 06-32/HDP 06-10/HMPP 07-02 Muroya Subdivision The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment also recommends that the existing house and maintenance building be analyzed for asbestos and lead based paint prior to any demolition, which will be incorporated into the conditions of approval. By following the recommendations contained within the referenced report, the site is suitable for the proposed project, and exposure of people to hazardous materials is considered to be less than significant. The project also involves grading operations and construction activity for the development of single-family homes. During the construction phases of the proposed project, construction equipment and materials typically associated with land development (i.e. petroleum products, paint, oils and solvents) will be transported and used onsite. Upon completion of construction of the project, some use of hazardous cleaning products on the site may occur. Other than during this construction phase, the project will not routinely utilize hazardous substances or materials. All transport, handling, use, and disposal of any cleaning substances will comply with all federal, state, and local laws regulating the management and use of such materials. No extraordinary risk of accidental explosion or the release of hazardous substances is anticipated with construction, development, and implementation or operation of the proposed project. It is concluded that the routine amount of hazardous materials utilized during the construction period is not significant, and therefore the impact to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials is considered to be less that significant. c) No Impact. The nearest schools to the site are Aviara Oaks Elementary and Middle School, located approximately 0.5 mile to the southeast. Because the site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, no significant hazardous materials impacts are anticipated. No impact is assessed. d) No Impact. The subject property is not included on any lists or registry of sites containing hazardous materials. No impact is assessed. e) No Impact. The subject site is located approximately 1.15 miles south of the McClellan-Palomar Airport runway. Because the site is located well outside of the McClellan-Palomar Airport Area of Influence and furthermore is not located within any Flight Activity Area or Runway Protection Zone, it is concluded that the site will not cause a safety hazard for people residing or working within the project area. No impact is assessed. 0 No Impact. No private airstrip exists within the vicinity of the subject project. No impact is assessed. g) No Impact. The proposed project involves development of an agricultural parcel and is located directly adjacent to Black Rail Road. 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. No impact is assessed. h) No Impact. The proposed project site currently consists of an undeveloped agricultural parcel with an existing residence on the southeast corner of the lot and is surrounded by existing single-family development to the north, south, and west, and Black Rail Road and developed and undeveloped lots to the east. The lot consists of a natural canyon on the south and west side of the lot with habitat located throughout. A Fire Suppression Plan for the project has been included as part of the project, which includes the requirement of a 60 foot wide fire suppression zone consistent with the City of Carlsbad's Landscape Manual and Fire Department standards. As such, the project does not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. No impact is assessed. 20 Rev. 10/02/09 GPA 09-09/ZC 06-08/SP 203D/ LCPA 06-09/CT 06-27/ CP 06-19/CDP 06-32/HDP 06-10/HMPP 07-02 Muroya Subdivision 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant No Impact Impact El El d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off- site? e) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water 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? El El k) Increase erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. 21 Rev. 10/02/09 GPA 09-09/ZC 06-08/SP 203D/ LCPA 06-09/CT 06-271 CP 06-19/CDP 06-32/HDP 06-10/HMPP 07-02 Muroya Subdivision 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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 Diego Watershed Protection, Storm Water Management, and Discharge Control Ordinance (WPO) (Section 67.871), the City of Carlsbad's Standard Urban Storm Water Management Plan (SUSMP), and the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The project will develop and implement specific erosion control and best management practices to protect downstream water quality. These plans will ensure that acceptable water quality standards will be maintained both during construction as well as post-development. b) Less than Significant Impact. The project does not propose to directly draw any groundwater; instead it will be served via existing public water distribution lines within the public right-of-way adjacent to the site. Existing water lines will adequately serve the project's water demands. Rainwater infiltration is needed to provide adequate groundwater recharge. A Preliminary Hydrology Report (Job No. 0042-219) dated July 9, 2009, and a Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan dated July 8, 2009, was prepared for the project by Hunsaker & Associates. According to the reports, the project incorporates Low Impact Development (LID) design features, which promote infiltration of storm water run-off by proposing to minimize impervious surface areas by utilizing pervious pavers for all residential driveways, and directing run-off to landscape areas for bio-filtration. This reduces the amount of discharge and velocity of run-off to pre-development levels, and also serves as a treatment BMP to attain water quality objectives. The project will not significantly deplete groundwater supplies or quality. Therefore, impacts are considered to be less than significant. c) No Impact. There are no streams or rivers within or adjacent to the site. Therefore, no impact is assessed. d) Less than Significant Impact. According to the Preliminary Hydrology Report and Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan, the proposed project will not alter the current overall drainage pattern, and the drainage discharge points for the site will remain the same. The amount of discharge and velocity of run-off will not significantly exceed pre-development levels, and therefore will not cause substantial erosion or flooding. Project grading is 22 Rev. 10/02/09 GPA 09-09/ZC 06-08/SP 203D/ LCPA 06-09/CT 06-27/ CP 06-19/CDP 06-32/HDP 06-10/HMPP 07-02 Muroya Subdivision designed to maintain the existing drainage pattern. The project incorporates LID design features, which promote infiltration of storm water run-off by proposing to minimize impervious surface areas by utilizing pervious pavers for all residential driveways, and directing run-off to landscape areas. This reduces the amount of discharge and velocity of run-off to pre-development levels, and serves as a treatment BMP to attain water quality objectives. Therefore, impacts are considered to be less than significant. e) Less than Significant Impact. According to the Preliminary Hydrology Report and Preliminary Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, the proposed project will not significantly impact the existing or planned storm water systems, nor will the total post development run-off significantly exceed pre-development levels. The project incorporates LID design features, which promote infiltration of storm water run-off by proposing to minimize impervious surface areas by utilizing pervious pavers for all residential driveways, and directing run-off to landscape areas. This reduces the amount of discharge and velocity of run-off to pre-development levels, and serves as a treatment BMP to attain water quality objectives. Therefore, impacts are considered to be less than significant. 0 Less than Significant Impact. The project will, not substantially degrade the water quality as demonstrated in the Preliminary Hydrology Report and Preliminary Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan prepared for the project. The project incorporates LID design features, which promote infiltration of storm water run-off by proposing to minimize impervious surface areas by utilizing pervious pavers for all residential driveways, and directing run-off to landscape areas. This reduces the amount of discharge and velocity of run-off to pre-development levels, and serves as a treatment BMP to attain water quality objectives. 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 Pollution Prevention Plan. 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. I-p) Less than Significant Impact. The project area is approximately 4-miles upstream from the Pacific Ocean. Storm water run-off drains from the site into the Batiquitos Lagoon and ultimately the Pacific Ocean. 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, Best Management Practices (BMP) will be implemented during construction and post construction phases, which specifically address sediments, nutrients, trash and debris, oxygen demanding substances, oil and grease, bacteria and viruses, and pesticides. As discussed in the sections above, the project will not significantly increase pollutant discharges and will not alter the water quality of the receiving surface waters, and the amount of discharge and velocity of run-off will not significantly exceed pre-development levels. The project is incorporating LID design features, which promote infiltration of storm water run-off by proposing to minimize impervious surface areas by utilizing pervious pavers for all residential driveways, and directing run-off to landscape areas. This reduces the amount of discharge and velocity of run-off to pre-development levels, and serves as a treatment BMP to attain water quality objectives. 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. 23 Rev. 10/02/09 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated GPA 09-09/ZC 06-08/SP 203D/ LCPA 06-09/CT 06-211 CP 06-19/CDP 06-32/HDP 06-10/HMPP 07-02 Muroya Subdivision 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) No Impact. Development of the subject project will not physically divide an established community. No impact is assessed. b-c) Less than Significant Impact. The 20.27-acre infill site is primarily used as for agriculture production and is developed with a large single-family residence in the southeast corner of the lot. The south west section of the lot is predominantly natural vegetated hillsides and canyons with sensitive habitat. Topographically, the site is sloping from east to west. The northeast section, the agricultural section, is predominantly a flat pad while the southern and western portions of the project area have small ridges, shallow valleys, and hillsides. These hillsides slope down and away to the west and range in elevation from approximately 220 to 300 feet above sea level. This area is in a natural state and exhibits an overgrowth of vegetation and sensitive habitat. Surrounding land uses include single-family residential to the north, Courte Orchidia, open space and single-family residential to the south, single-family and vacant lots to the east, across Black Rail Road, and single-family homes to the west, off Towee Lane. The General Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use designations for the site are both identified as Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM). The RLM designation anticipates single-family residential dwellings at 0 to 4 dwelling units per acre with a Growth Management Control Point (GMCP) of 3.2 dwelling units per acre. The site is highly constrained with hillsides, habitat, and a SDGE easement running across the lot. The net developable acreage after constraints is 1 l.Slacres which would result in 37.79 units at the GMCP of the RLM designation. The Habitat Management Plan (HMP) requires the development to be concentrated on the disturbed portions of the lot to the maximum extent feasible, as described in section 7-14(d) of the Carlsbad HMP (page D-119). To ensure that development of this infill site is compatible with the existing surrounding residential land uses, and to further reduce any potentially significant impacts to hillsides and habitat as a result of excessive grading, the project is proposing to cluster development into the north and east section of the lot on the agricultural and disturbed portions of the lot. As a result of the clustered development and to preserve as much habitat and hillsides as feasible a General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to change the General Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use designations on the property from RLM to Residential Medium Density (RM, 4-8 du/ac) on proposed lots 1&5, Open Space (OS) on lots 3 & 4, and to retain the RLM designation on lot 2 which will preserve the owners exiting residence. Concurrently, the project is proposing to change the City Zoning and Local Coastal Program Zoning designations on the property from Limited Control (L-C) to Residential Density-Multiple (RD-M), OS, and One- Family Residential (R-l). The proposed project density at 5.3 du/ac is compatible with the proposed RM (4-8 du/ac) land use designation and is 0.7 units below the GMCP. The number of proposed dwelling units (37) does not exceed the number (37.79) permitted under the existing General Plan Land Use designation as a result of the clustering of development. The project also is proposing a one family detached type of development that will have the appearance of single-family residences and be compatible with the predominant surrounding single-family uses. Therefore, the project does not conflict with any existing or proposed land use plans or policies and furthermore as illustrated • 24 Rev. 10/02/09 GPA 09-09/ZC 06-08/SP 203D/ LCPA 06-09/CT 06-27/ CP 06-19/CDP 06-32/HDP 06-10/HMPP 07-02 Muroya Subdivision 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. X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant No Impact Impact 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. No impact is assessed. XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant No Impact Impact c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 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? 25 Rev. 10/02/09 GPA 09-09/ZC 06-08/SP 203D/ LCPA 06-09/CT 06-211 CP 06-19/CDP 06-32/HDP 06-10/HMPP 07-02 Muroya Subdivision a) No Impact. The project will not result in 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. The proposed project residences are located a distance greater than 500 feet from a General Plan Circulation Element Roadway (Aviara Parkway), and furthermore, according to the City of Carlsbad Noise Guidelines Manual (Carlsbad Future 2010 Noise Corridor Map) is outside of the 60 dB(A) CNEL contour. b & d) Less than Significant Impact. The anticipated grading operation associated with the proposed one-family dwellings will result in a temporary and minor increase in groundborne vibration and ambient noise levels. Following the conclusion of grading, ambient noise level 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 37 detached multi-family homes, which are consistent in use and intensity with the surrounding residential development. As such, the project would not result in sustained ambient noise levels which would exceed the established standards. No impact assessed. e) Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The subject site is located approximately 1.15 miles south of the McClellan-Palomar Airport. 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. Mitigation measures have been included to reduce this impact to a level considered to be Less than significant. 0 No Impact. No private airstrip exists within the vicinity of the subject project. No impact is assessed. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less than Significant No Impact Impact 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? a-c) No Impact. Because of the project's lot constraints and per the HMP the project is clustering development in the north and east side of the lot. Therefore, the project's size of 37 one-family detached residential units is consistent with the intensity of the surrounding residential land uses. The project site and the area surrounding it are designated for residential development and were analyzed accordingly in the Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Plan and the Zone 20 Specific Plan E1R. 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 26 Rev. 10/02/09 GPA 09-09/ZC 06-08/SP 203D/ LCPA 06-09/CT 06-211 CP 06-19/CDP 06-32/HDP 06-10/HMPP 07-02 Muroya Subdivision existing housing, thus necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, no impact is assessed. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation . Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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 obje'ctives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? a.i. - a.v.) No Impact. Although the sites General Plan designation is being revised from RLM to RM the project's size, consisting of 37 one-family residential units, does not exceed the number of units that could be developed on the property at the GMCP (3.2 du/ac) of the RLM General Plan designation. Therefore, this project will not affect 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. XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant No Impact Impact 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? 27 Rev. 10/02/09 GPA 09-09/ZC 06-08/SP 203D/ LCPA 06-09/CT 06-27/ CP 06-19/CDP 06-32/HDP 06-10/HMPP 07-02 Muroya Subdivision a-b) No Impact. The project's size, consisting of 37 one-family residential units, will not result in the deterioration of existing neighborhood or regional parks or cause such parks to be expanded. The development of this site with 37 dwelling units is anticipated by the existing 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. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less than Significant No Impact Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in insufficient parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn- outs, bicycle racks)? a) Less than Significant Impact. The 37 proposed one-family detached homes will generate 370 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 would not, therefore, cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. The impacts from the proposed project are, therefore, less than significant. b) Less than Significant Impact. SANDAG acting as the County Congestion Management Agency has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and one highway segment in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The existing LOS on these designated roads and highway in Carlsbad is: 28 Rev. 10/02/09 GPA 09-09/ZC 06-08/SP 203D/ LCPA 06-09/CT 06-27/ CP 06-19/CDP 06-32/HDP 06-10/HMPP 07-02 Muroya Subdivision Rancho Santa Fe Road El Camino Real Palomar Airport Road SR78 LOS "A-D" "A-D" "A-D" 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 with 37 dwelling units is consistent with the City's existing General Plan and does not exceed the number of units that could be developed on the property at the GMCP (3.2 du/ac) of the RLM General; Plan designation. 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. Less than Significant No Impact Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 29 Rev. 10/02/09 GPA 09-09/ZC 06-08/SP 203D/ LCPA 06-09/CT 06-27/ CP 06-19/CDP 06-32/HDP 06-10/HMPP 07-02 Muroya Subdivision Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? a-g) No Impact. The proposed residential development will be required to comply with all Regional Water Quality Control Board Requirements. In addition, the Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Plan and the Program EIR for the Zone 20 Specific Plan anticipated residential development on this site and wastewater treatment facilities were planned and designed to accommodate the future residential uses. 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 number of dwelling units (37) 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. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumula- tively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less than Significant . No Impact Impact 30 Rev. 10/02/09 GPA 09-09/ZC 06-08/SP 203D/ LCPA 06-09/CT 06-27/ CP 06-19/CDP 06-32/HDP 06-10/HMPP 07-02 Muroya Subdivision Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project's required mitigation, as outlined in the Biological Resources section of this report, will preclude any possible degradation of the environment or substantial reductions of habitat and wildlife species. Cumulative impacts to sensitive plant and wildlife species within the MHCP Subarea would occur through the proposed project, in absence of the implementation of the HMP, and specifically the adjacent preserve system. However, the implementation of the HMP provides mitigation for these cumulative impacts because the plan has anticipated region-wide impacts and has adopted a preserve system that mitigates for these impacts. The project is consistent with the MCHP guidelines and the HMP regional planning efforts in the City of Carlsbad. Therefore, there will be no cumulative impacts to sensitive upland habitat, and plant and wildlife species. Furthermore, the project's required mitigation as outlined in the Cultural Resources section of this report will preclude any elimination of important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory, thus reducing impacts to less than significant. 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) No Impact. Based upon the residential nature of the project and that future development of the site will comply with City standards, the project will not result in any direct or indirect substantial adverse environmental effects on human beings. No impact assessed. 31 Rev. 10/02/09 GPA 09-09/ZC 06-08/SP 203 D/ LCPA 06-09/CT 06-211 CP 06-19/CDP 06-32/HDP 06-10/HMPP 07-02 Muroya Subdivision 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. 32 Rev. 10/02/09 GPA 09-09/ZC 06-08/SP 203D/ LCPA 06-09/CT 06-211 CP 06-19/CDP 06-32/HDP 06-10/HMPP 07-02 Muroya Subdivision EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008. 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994. 2. Carlsbad General Plan, City of Carlsbad Planning Department, dated March 1994. 3. City of Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 21 Zoning, City of Carlsbad Planning Department, as updated. 4. City Council Policy 43 - Proposition E "Excess Dwelling" Unit Bank, City of Carlsbad Planning Department, dated April 26, 2005. 5. City Council Policy 44 - Neighborhood Architectural Design Guidelines. City of Carlsbad Planning Department, dated May 2, 2006. 6. Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad. City of Carlsbad Planning Department, final approval dated November 2004. 7. Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Zone 20 Specific Plan (EIR 90-03). Brian F. Mooney Associates. June 1992. 8. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for McClellan Palomar Airport. Carlsbad. California. San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, as amended October 4, 2004. 9. Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment and Paleontological Records Review Muroya Project. Michael Brandman Associates, January 4, 2007 10. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. APN 215-040-03. Dudek Engineering and Environmental, April 2006 11. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Muroya Growers. APN 215-040-03. Dudek Engineering and Environmental, April 2006 12. Biological Resources Technical Report and Impact Analysis for the Muroya Property City of Carlsbad. California. Dudek Engineering and Environmental, November 2009 13. Geotechnical Investigation Muroya Property Carlsbad, CA (Project No.07671-52-01), Geocon Incorporation, July 14, 2009 14. Tentative Map Drainage Study for Muroya (W.O. 0042-219). Hunsaker & Associates, July 9, 2009 15. Storm Water Management Plan for Muroya (W.O. 42-219). Hunsaker & Associates, July 8, 2009 16. 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. 33 Rev. 10/02/09 GPA 09-09/ZC 06-08/SP 203D/ LCPA 06-09/CT 06-27/ CP 06-19/CDP 06-32/HDP 06-10/HMPP 07-02 Muroya Subdivision LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES 1. To offset the conversion of non-prime agricultural land to urban land uses per the requirements of the Mello II Segment of the City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, the applicant shall provide payment of an agricultural conversion mitigation fee, the amount of which shall not be Less than $10,000 for each net converted acre (7.90 acres) of non-prime agricultural land. The fee shall be paid prior to final map approval, or issuance of grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first. 2. Prior to recordation of the final map, mitigation for impacts to 1.56 acres of Group-F Disturbed Lands shall be mitigated by payment of an in-lieu mitigation fee. 3. Prior to recordation of the final map, the project applicant shall dedicate on the Final Map and Record an open space and conservation easement over Open Space Lot 4 to prohibit any encroachment, development, grading, or alterations. 4. Prior to recordation of the final map, a revegetation plan must be submitted and approved by the. Planning Director to mitigate for the loss of 0.29 acres of Southern Maritime Chaparral (SMC) by restoring 0.87 acres (3:1 ratio) onsite and preserve the 5.1 acres of remaining SMC on Open Space Lot 4. The applicant shall also mitigate for the loss of 0.27 acres of Southern Mixed Chaparral by restoring 0.27 acres (1:1 ratio) onsite and preserve the remaining 0.77 acres of Southern Mixed Chaparral on Open Space Lot 4. 5. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or clearing of any habitat, whichever occurs first, the Developer shall take the following actions to the satisfaction of the Planning Director in relation to the open space lot(s) which are being conserved for natural habitat in conformance with the City's Habitat Management Plan: a. Select a conservation entity, subject to approval by the City, which possesses qualifications to manage the open space lot(s) for conservation purposes. b. Prepare a Property Analysis Record (PAR) or other method acceptable to the City for estimating the costs of management and monitoring of the open space lot(s) in perpetuity in accordance with the requirements of the North County Multiple Habitats Conservation Plan and the City's Open Space Management Plan. c. Based on the results of the PAR, provide a non-wasting endowment or other financial mechanism acceptable to the Planning Director and conservation entity, if any, in an amount sufficient for management and monitoring of the open space lot(s) in perpetuity. d. Record a Conservation Easement over the open space lot(s). e. Prepare a Preserve Management Plan which will ensure adequate management of the open space ]ot(s) in perpetuity. 6. Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall dedicate an open space easement over the 20 ft. wide habitat buffer area to prohibit any encroachment, development, grading, alterations, including clearing of vegetation, except for fuel modification Zone 3 to a maximum of 20 feet for upland and non-riparian habitat. 7. No clearing, grubbing, grading or other construction activities shall occur onsite during the avian nesting season (February 15 through August 30), unless a qualified biologist confirms, through a documented survey immediately prior to clearing activities, that no nesting gnatcatchers or other sensitive bird species will be impacted. 8. Construction noise that could affect migratory songbirds and other species associated with the sensitive habitat area shall be avoided. In order to ensure compliance, grading shall be avoided during the avian nesting season (February 15 through August 30). If a grading permit is required, this restriction can be waived by the City of Carlsbad, with concurrence from the Wildlife Agencies (USF&W, CDF&G), upon completion of a breeding/nesting bird survey in accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. If nests are present, no grading or removal of habitat may take place within 500 feet of active nesting sites during the nesting/breeding season 34 Rev. 10/02/09 GPA 09-09/ZC 06-08/SP 203D/ LCPA 06-09/CT 06-27/ CP 06-19/CDP 06-32/HDP 06-10/HMPP 07-02 Muroya Subdivision (February 15 through August 30). A buffer zone will be established around any identified nests in coordination with the monitoring biologist. No construction activities shall occur within any portion of the site where they would result in noise levels exceeding 60 dB(A) hourly average at the edge of CSS. 9. Fire Management: A Fire Protection Plan has been included as part of the project design and includes a 60- foot wide fire suppression zone between the proposed structures (Lots 21-27, 29 and 35-37) and the HMP Preserve boundary to the west. Fire Suppression Zones 2 and 3, which are closest to the HMP Preserve boundary, will be planted with a low water use, naturalizing plant species, known to have low fuel characteristics. As such, implementation of fire management requirements as proposed would be consistent with the HMP buffer requirements. 10. Erosion Control: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent shall develop an erosion control plan. The plan shall identify areas susceptible to erosion on the property and immediately adjacent to the HMP Preserve. All potentially sensitive slopes shall be stabilized and, if necessary, planted with native vegetation consistent with the plant community in the adjacent preserve. The erosion control plan shall contain elements preventing runoff and the transport of fertilizers, pesticides, and similar materials into the HMP Preserve. 11. Landscaping Restrictions: The project shall prohibit the use of any non-native, invasive plant species in landscaping adjacent to the HMP Preserve, or in any area where undesirable plant materials may have an opportunity to spread into the preserve area. The Final Landscape Plans prepared for the project shall include a list of HMP non-native invasive plant species that are to be avoided. The project shall control irrigation of landscaping adjacent to the HMP Preserve to prevent runoff from spreading into the preserve. 12. Fencing, Signs and Lighting: A 4 to 5 ft. tall black vinyl coated chain link fence shall be constructed along the entire boundary where Open Space Lot 3 and the proposed open space HMP Preserve Area (Lot 4) converge. Signage shall be installed on the fence to educate and inform the public about the goals of HMP Preserve and to prohibit public access. Lighting in back yards adjacent to the HMP preserve shall be of a minimum necessary for safety and security, and shall be shielded and directed to shine downward and not into the preserve area. Homeowner lighting restrictions shall be included in the project CC&R's. 13. Predator and Exotic Species Control: Project CC&R's shall educate homeowners regarding responsible pet ownership (e.g., keeping pets indoors, spaying/neutering pets, and not releasing pets into the wild). For exotic species control, the project shall not use any non-native, invasive plant species in landscaping adjacent to the HMP Preserve. 14. Archeological mitigation measures shall be implemented as follows: a. Prior to commencement of grading, 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 issuance of a grading permit, the project developer shall retain the services of a qualified archeologist to monitor all ground disturbing 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. 35 Rev. 10/02/09 GPA 09-09/ZC 06-08/SP 203 D/ LCPA 06-09/CT 06-277 CP 06-19/CDP 06-32/HDP 06-10/HMPP 07-02 Muroya Subdivision 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. 15. 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. 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. 16. Prior to the recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property is subject to over flight, sight and sound of aircraft operating from McClellan-Palomar Airport, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and the City Attorney (see Noise Form #2 on file in the Planning Department). 17. Developer shall post aircraft noise notification signs in all sales and/or rental offices associated with the new development. The number and locations of said signs shall be approved by the Planning Director (see Noise Form #3 on file in the Planning Department). 18. The Developer shall comply with and implement all recommendation measures of the "Geotechnical Investigation" by Geocon, Inc, dated July 14, 2009. 19. Prior to demolition of any buildings on the property an asbestos and lead paint survey shall be conducted by a certified assessor for the project structures. 36 Rev. 10/02/09 GPA 09-09/ZC 06-08/SP 203D/ LCPA 06-09/CT 06-277 CP 06-19/CDP 06-32/HDP 06-10/HMPP 07-02 Muroya Subdivision . 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. ft DatS jSignpure 37 Rev. 10/02/09 Page 1 of 9 PROJECT NAME: Murova Subdivision FILE NUMBERS: GPA 09-09/ZC 06-08/SP 203D/LCPA 09-09/CT 06-27/CP 06-19/CDP 06-32/HDP 06-10/HMPP 07-02 APPROVAL DATE: The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). Mitigation Measure 1 . To offset the conversion of non-prime agricultural land to urban land uses per the requirements of the Mello II Segment of the City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, the applicant shall provide payment of an agricultural conversion mitigation fee, the amount of which shall not be less than $10,000 for each net converted acre (7.90 acres) of non-prime agricultural land. 2. Prior to recordation of the final map, mitigation for impacts to 1.56 acres of Group-F Disturbed Lands shall be mitigated by payment of an in-lieu mitigation fee. 3. The project applicant shall dedicate on the Final Map and record an open space and conservation easement over Open Space Lot 4 to prohibit any encroachment, development, grading, or alterations. Monitoring Type Prior to recordation of the final map or issuance of a grading permit Prior to recordation of the final map Prior to recordation of the final map Monitoring Department Planning Planning Planning Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information. RD-Appendix P. Page 2 of 9 Mitigation Measure Monitoring Type Monitoring Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks Prior to recordation of the Final Map a regevetation plan must be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director to mitigate the loss of 0.29 acres of Southern Maritime Chaparral (SMC) by restoring 0.87 acres (3:1 ratio) onsite and preserve the 5.1 acres of remaining SMC on Open Space Lot 4. The applicant shall also mitigate for the loss of 0.27 acres of Southern Mixed Chaparral by restoring 0.27 acres (1:1 ratio) onsite and preserve the remaining 0.77 acres of Southern Mixed Chaparral on Open Space Lot 4. Prior to recordation of the final map Planning 5. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or clearing of any habitat, whichever occurs first, the Developer shall take the following actions to the satisfaction of the Planning Director in relation to the open space lot(s) which are being conserved for natural habitat in conformance with the City's Habitat Management Plan: a. Select a conservation entity, subject to approval by the City, which possesses qualifications to manage the open space lot(s) for conservation purposes. b. Prepare a Property Analysis Record (PAR) or other method acceptable to the City for estimating the costs of management and monitoring of the open space lot(s) in perpetuity in accordance with the requirements of the North County Multiple Habitats Conservation Plan and the City's Open Space Management Plan. Prior to recordation of the final map or prior to issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first Planning Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information. RD - Appendix P. Page 3 of 9 Mitigation Measure Monitoring Type Monitoring Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks d. e. Based on the results of the PAR, provide a non- wasting endowment or other financial mechanism acceptable to the Planning Director and conservation entity, if any, in an amount sufficient for management and monitoring of the open space lot(s) in perpetuity. Record a Conservation Easement over the open space lot(s). Prepare a Preserve Management Plan which will ensure adequate management of the open space lot(s) in perpetuity. 6. Prior to recordation of the final map, the Developer shall dedicate an open space easement over the 20 ft. wide habitat buffer area to prohibit any encroachment, development, grading, or alterations, except for fuel modification to Zone 3 to a maximum of 20 feet for upland and non-riparian habitat. Prior to recordation of the final map Planning 7. No clearing, grubbing, grading or other construction activities shall occur onsite during the avian nesting season (February 15 through August 30), unless a qualified biologist confirms, through a documented survey immediately prior to clearing activities, that no nesting gnatcatchers or other sensitive bird species will be impacted. Prior to issuance of a grading permit. Planning Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information. RD - Appendix P. Page 4 of 9 Mitigation Measure Monitoring Type Monitoring Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks 8. Construction noise that could affect migratory songbirds and other species associated with the sensitive habitat area shall be avoided. In order to ensure compliance, grading shall be avoided during the avian nesting season (February 15 through August 30). If a grading permit is required, this restriction can be waived by the City of Carlsbad, with concurrence from the Wildlife Agencies (USF&W, CDF&G), upon completion of a breeding/nesting bird survey in accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. If nests are present, no grading or removal of habitat may take place within 500 feet of active nesting sites during the nesting/breeding season (February 15 through August 31). A buffer zone will be established around any identified nests in coordination with the monitoring biologist. No construction activities shall occur within any portion of the site where they would result in noise levels exceeding 60 dB(A) hourly average at the edge of CSS. Prior to issuance of a grading permit. Planning 9. Fire Management: A Fire Protection Plan has been included as part of the project design and includes a 60-foot wide fire suppression zone between the proposed structures (Lots 21-27, 29 and 35-37) and the HMP Preserve boundary to the west. Fire Suppression Zones 2 and 3, which are closest to the HMP Preserve boundary, will be planted with a low water use, naturalizing plant species, known to have low fuel characteristics. As such, implementation of fire management requirements as proposed would be consistent with the HMP buffer requirements. Shown of Final Landscape Plans, Building Plans and project CC&R's Planning Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information. RD -Appendix P. Page 5 of 9 Mitigation Measure Monitoring Type Monitoring Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks 10. Erosion Control: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall obtain approval of an erosion control plan. The plan shall identify areas susceptible to erosion on the property and immediately adjacent to the HMP Preserve. All potentially sensitive slopes shall be stabilized and, if necessary, planted with native vegetation consistent with the plant community in the adjacent preserve. The erosion control plan shall contain elements preventing runoff and the transport of fertilizers, pesticides, and similar materials into the HMP Preserve. Shown on Final Grading and Landscape Plans. Planning 11. Landscaping Restrictions: The project shall prohibit the use of any non-native, invasive plant species in landscaping adjacent to the HMP Preserve, or in any area where undesirable plant materials may have an opportunity to spread into the preserve area. The Final Landscape Plans prepared for the project shall include a list of HMP non-native invasive plant species that are to be avoided. The project shall control irrigation of landscaping adjacent to the HMP Preserve to prevent runoff from spreading into the preserve. Shown of Final Landscape Plans, Building Plans and project CC&R's Planning 12. Fencing. Signs and Lighting: A 4 to 5 ft. tall black vinyl coated chain link fence shall be constructed along the entire boundary where Open Space Lot 3 and the proposed open space HMP Preserve Area (Lot 4) converge. Signage shall be installed on the fence to educate and inform the public about the goals of HMP Preserve and to prohibit public access. Lighting in back yards adjacent to the HMP preserve shall be of a minimum necessary for safety and security, and shall be shielded and directed to shine downward and not into the preserve area. Homeowner lighting restrictions shall be included in the project CC&Rs. Shown of Final Landscape Plans, Building Plans and project CC&R's Planning Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information. RD - Appendix P. Page 6 of 9 Mitigation Measure Monitoring Type Monitoring Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks 13. Predator and Exotic Species Control:Project regardingCC&R's shall educate homeowners responsible pet ownership (e.g., keeping pets indoors, spaying/neutering pets, and not releasing pets into the wild). For exotic species control, the project shall not use any non-native, invasive plant species in landscaping adjacent to the HMP Preserve. Include in project CC&R's Planning 14. Archeological mitigation implemented as follows: measures shall be a. Prior to commencement of grading, 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 issuance of a grading permit, the project developer shall retain the services of a qualified archeologist to monitor all ground disturbing 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. Prior to issuance of a grading permit Planning Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information. RD-Appendix P. Page 7 of 9 Mitigation Measure Monitoring Type Monitoring Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks e. 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. The discovery of any resource shall be reported to the City of Carlsbad Planning Director prior to any evaluation testing. If any deposits are evaluated as significant under CEQA, mitigation may be required as recommended by the qualified archeologist. 15. 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. Prior to issuance of a grading permit Planning Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information. RD - Appendix P. Page 8 of 9 Mitigation Measure 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. 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. Monitoring Type Monitoring Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information. RD - Appendix P. Page 9 of 9 Mitigation Measure 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. 16. Prior to the recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating from McClellan-Palomar Airport, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and the City Attorney (see Noise Form #2 on file in the Planning Department). 17. Developer shall post aircraft noise notification signs in all sales and/or rental offices associated with the new development. The number and locations of said signs shall be approved by the Planning Director (see Noise Form #3 on file in the Planning Department). 18. The Developer shall comply with and implement all recommendation measures of the "Geotechnical Investigation" prepared by Geocon, Inc, dated July 14, 2009. 19. Prior to demolition of any buildings on the property an asbestos and lead paint survey shall be conducted by a certified assessor for the project structures. Monitoring Type Prior to the recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first Prior to the recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first Prior to and during grading Prior to demolition of any buildings or structures Monitoring Department Planning Planning Engineering Planning Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information. RD - Appendix P. !4 CITY OF Planning Department March 25, 2010 www.carlsbadca.gov CEQA Tracking Center Department of Toxic Substances Control Attn: Al Shami, Project Manager 1001 I Street, 22nd Floor, M.S. 22-2 Sacramento, CA 95814 SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO DTSC COMMENTS (SCH#2010021061) - GPA 06-09/ZC 06-08/SP 203(D)/LCPA 06-09/CT 06-27/CP 06-19/CDP 06-32/HDP 06-10/HMP 07-02- MUROYA SUBDIVISION - MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Dear Mr. Shami, Thank you for your comment letter dated March 17, 2010 pertaining to the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) that was prepared for the proposed Muroya Subdivision project located on a lot (APN:215-040-03) north of Aviara Parkway, south of Corte Orchidia, east of Towhee Lane, and west of Black Rail Road in the City of Carlsbad. City staff has evaluated the subject agricultural property with respect to the historic release of hazardous wastes/substances. Specifically, the applicant has provided to the City a Phase I and subsequent Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (April 2006) by Dudek Environmental and Engineering, a Geotechnical Investigation Report by Geocon, Inc. (Project No. 07671-52-01, July 14, 2009), as well as Biological Resource Study and a Cultural Assessment Study, Drainage Study that staff referenced in the preparation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project. The project has been assessed for all potentially significant impacts through the MND and all identified impacts have been mitigated to a less than significant level. A review of the above mentioned studies enabled City staff to conclude in the MND that the project does not have any hazardous wastes/substances on site nor are any expected during the grading and construction phases. For your convenience staff has responded below to each of the comment listed in your letter: Comment #1 - The ND should indentify and determine whether current or historic uses at the project area may have resulted in any release of hazardous wastes/substances. Reply - The applicant completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and a Phase II Site Assessment (April 2006) for the project by Dudek Environmental and Engineering. The studies identified and assessed any hazardous wastes or substances. Comment #2 - The document states that the (M)ND would identify any known or potentially contaminated sites within the proposed project area. For all identified sites, the (M)ND should evaluate whether conditions at the site may pose a threat to human health or the environment. Reply - The applicant completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and a Phase II Site Assessment (April 2006) for the project by Dudek Environmental and Engineering. The Phase i study includes a section (pages 9-12) of "Public Agency Records Search Review" which includes all of the regulatory agency data bases, among many others, presented in your comment letter. Comment #3 - The (M)ND should indentify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation and/or remediation for any site that may be contaminated, and the government agency to provide 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 ' T (760) 602-4600 F (760) 602-8559 © GPA 06-09/ZC 06-08/SP 203(D)/LCPA 06-09/CT 06-27/CP 06-19/CDP 06-32/HDP 06-10/HMP 07-02 - MUROYA SUBDIVISION March 25, 2010 Page 3 hazardous waste are present on site or are likely to be found on site. The project also involves grading operations and construction activity for the 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 hot significant, and therefore the impact to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials is considered to be less that significant. Comment #7 - If weed abatement occurred, onsite soils may contain on-site residue. If so, proper investigation and remedial actions, if necessary, should be conducted at the site prior to construction of the project. Reply - The project has provided a Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (April 2006) by Dudek Environmental and Engineering, a Geotechnical Investigation Report by Geocon, Inc. (Project No. 07671-52-01, July 14, 2009), as well as several other studies which concur that no hazardous waste are present on site or are likely to be found on site. Comment #8 - If it is determined that hazardous wastes are, or will be generated by the proposed operation, the wastes must be managed in accordance with the California Hazardous Waste Control Law and the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations. Reply - The project has provided a Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (April 2006) by Dudek Environmental and Engineering, a Geotechnical Investigation Report by Geocon, Inc. (Project No. 07671-52-01, July 14, 2009), as well as several other studies which concur that no hazardous waste are present on site or are likely to be found on site. In light of the Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment studies referenced in the MND, it can be concluded that the MND adequately addresses and mitigates for potential of hazardous waste impacts. If you have any further questions, or wish to meet, please do not hesitate to contact me at (760) 602-4631. Sincerely, DAN HALVERSON Assistant Planner DH:sm Jack Henthorn & Associates, Attn: Jack Henthorn, PO Box 237, Carlsbad, CA 92018 Taylor Morrison of CA, LLC, Attn: April Tornillo, 15 Gushing, Irvine, CA 92618 Don Neu, Planning Director Chris DeCerbo, Team Leader File Copy Department of Toxic Substances Control Maziar Movassaghi, Acting Director Linda S. Adams 5796 Corporate Avenue Arnold Schwarzenegger Secretary for Cypress, California 90630 ArrV OP P AR1 QRA0overnor Environmental Protection VII 1 vT Vyrtnl-OOrM-» March 17, 2010 MAR 2 2 OT Community & Economic Development Department Mr. Dan Halverson City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ND) FOR MUROYA SUBDIVISION (SCH# 2010021061) Dear Mr. Halverson: The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your submitted document for the above-mentioned project. As stated in your document: "The proposed project involves a General Plan Amendment (GPA), Zone Change (ZC), Local program Amendment (LCPA), Specific Plan Amendment (SPA), Tentative Tract map (CT), Condominium Permit (CP) Coastal Development Permit (CDP), Hillside Development Permit (HDP), Habitat Management Plan Permit (HMPP) to allow for the subdivision and development of a 20.27 acre parcel (APN 215-04-03) located north of Aviara parkway, south of Corte Orchidia, east of Towee Lane, and west of Black Rail Road. The Parcel will be subdivided into five (5) separate lots. Lot 1 is approximately 6.3 acres in size and will contain 37 detached condominium units clustered in the northern and eastern portions of the lot. Lot 2 is 0.9 acres in size and is the site of the owners existing residence which will remain on this parcel. Lot 3 and 4 are 1.6 acres and 9.8 acres in size and will be open space lots. Lot 5 is a 0.7 acres size lot which will be developed as private road for common access to the 37 detached condominium units". Based on the review of the submitted document DTSC has the following comments: 1) The ND should identify and determine whether current or historic uses at the project area may .have resulted in any release of hazardous wastes/substances. 2) The document states that the ND would identify any known or potentially contaminated sites within the proposed project area. For all identified sites, the ND should evaluate whether conditions at the site may pose a threat to human health or the environment. Following are the databases of some of the regulatory agencies: © Printed on Recycled Paper Mr. Dan Halverson March 17,2010 Page 2 j>f National Priorities List (NPL): A list maintained by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). EnviroStor, a database primarily used by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, at www. Envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov. Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS): A database of RCRA facilities that is maintained by U.S. EPA. Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS): A database of CERCLA sites that is maintained by U.S. EPA. Solid Waste Information System (SWIS): A database provided by the California Integrated Waste Management Board which consists of both open as well as closed and inactive solid waste disposal facilities and transfer stations. GeoTracker: A List that is maintained by Regional Water Quality Control Boards. Local Counties and Cities maintain lists for hazardous substances cleanup sites and leaking underground storage tanks. The United States Army Corps of Engineers, 91 1 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, 90017, (213) 452-3908, maintains a list of Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS). 3) The ND should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation and/or remediation for any site that may be contaminated, and the government agency to provide appropriate regulatory oversight. If hazardous materials or wastes were stored at the site, an environmental assessment should be conducted to determine if a release has occurred. If so, further studies should be carried out to delineate the nature and extent of the contamination, and the potential threat to public health and/or the environment should be evaluated. It may be necessary to determine if an expedited response action is required to reduce existing or potential threats to public health or the environment. If no immediate threat exists, the final remedy should be implemented in compliance with state laws, regulations and policies. 4) The project construction may require soil excavation and soil filling in certain areas. Appropriate sampling is required prior to disposal of the excavated soil. If the soil is contaminated, properly dispose of it rather than placing it in another Mr. Dan Halverson March 17, 2010 , Pages location. Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) may be applicable to these soils. Also, if the project proposes to import soil to backfill the areas excavated, proper sampling should be conducted to make sure that the imported soil is free of contamination. 5) Human health and the environment of sensitive receptors should be protected during the construction or demolition activities. A study of the site overseen by the appropriate government agency might have to be conducted to determine if there are, have been, or will be, any releases of hazardous materials that may pose a risk to human health or the environment. 6) If during construction/demolition of the project, soil and/or groundwater contamination is suspected, construction/demolition in the area should cease and appropriate health and safety procedures should be implemented. If it is determined that contaminated soil and/or groundwater exist, the ND should identify how any required investigation and/or remediation will be conducted, and the appropriate government agency to provide regulatory oversight. 7) If weed abatement occurred, onsite soils may contain herbicide residue. If so, proper investigation and remedial actions, if necessary, should be conducted at the site prior to construction of the project. 8) If it is determined that hazardous wastes are, or will be, generated by the proposed operations, the wastes must be managed in accordance with the California Hazardous Waste Control Law (California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5) and the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations (California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5). If it is determined that hazardous wastes will be generated, the facility should also obtain a United States Environmental Protection Agency Identification Number by contacting (800) 618-6942. Certain hazardous waste treatment processes or hazardous materials, handling, storage or uses may require authorization from the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). Information about the requirement for authorization can be obtained by contacting your local CUPA. 9) DISC can provide guidance for cleanup oversight through an Environmental Oversight Agreement (EGA) for government agencies that are not responsible parties, or a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement (VGA) for private parties. For additional information on the EGA or VGA, please see www.dtsc.ca.gov/Site.Cleanup/Brownfields, or contact Ms. Maryam Tasnif- Abbasi, DTSC's Voluntary Cleanup Coordinator, at (714) 484-5489. Mr. Dan Halverson March 17, 2010 Page 4 If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at (714) 484-5472 or at "ashami@DTSC.ca.gov". Sincerely Al Shami Project Manager Brownfields and Environmental Restoration Program - Cypress cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 state.clearinghouse@opr.ca.qov CEQA Tracking Center Department of Toxic Substances Control Office of Environmental Planning and Analysis 1001 I Street, 22nd Floor, M.S. 22-2 Sacramento, California 95814 ADelacM (S)dtsc.ca.gov CEQA #2830