Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MP 98-01; Villages of La Costa; Master Plan (MP) (4)
City of Carlsbad Planning Department Notice of Preparation Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: Agency Name: City of Carlsbad, Planning Street Address: 2075 Las Palmas Drive City/State/Zip: Carlsbad, CA 92009 Phone: (760) 438-1161, ext. 4448 Contact: Christer Westman Consulting Firm: Firm Name: T&B Planning Consultants Street Address: 5897 Oberlin Drive, Ste 208 City/State/Zip: San Diego CA 92121 Phone: 619-546-8366 Contact:James Greco The City of Carlsbad will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an Environmental Impact Report for the project identified below. We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project. This project description, location, and the potential environmental effects are contained in the attached materials. A copy of the Initial Study is attached. Due to the time limits mandated by State Law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Please send your response to Christer Westman at the address shown above. We will need a contact person in your agency. Project Title and Number: Villages of La Costa - MP 98-01 Project Location: City of Carlsbad Southeast Quadrant Project Description: Attached MICHAEL J. HOLZMILEER, Planning Director Date Reference: California Administrative Code, Title 14, (CEQA Guidelines) section 15082(a), 15103, 15375. Revised October 1989 2O75 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (760) 438-1161 - FAX (760) 438-O894 DETAILED PROJECT ASCRIPTION SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The Villages of La Costa Project is located in northwestern San Diego County. Regional access to the project site is provided by Interstate 5 (1-5), located approximately 3.25 miles to the west of the most western project boundary (El Camino Real). The project site is shown in its regional perspective and local vicinity in Figure 1. The Project is situated within the southeastern quadrant of the City of Carlsbad, within Local Facilities Management Zones (LFMZ) 10 and 11. The project site is generally located south of Palomar Airport Road, east of El Camino Real, north and east of La Costa Avenue, and straddles portions of Rancho Santa Fe Road. Primary local access to The Greens is provided via Alga Road to the south and the proposed Poinsettia Lane, a Circulation Element road that will bisect The Greens. Access to The Oaks is provided primarily by La Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road. Rancho Santa Fe Road, Alga Road and Melrose Avenue provide access to The Ridge. A portion of the La Costa Resort Golf Course lies within the southern central portion of The Greens, and San Marcos Creek bisects The Ridge and The Oaks. The Greens - (LFMP Zone 10) The Greens consists of approximately 660.7 acres and is composed of gently rolling topography. Environmentally constrained areas of the site consist of approximately 181.09 acres of steeper slopes and sensitive biological resources contained within the adopted HCP/OMSP area. Elevations within The Greens range from 80 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) at the golf course boundary in the southern central portion of the site to 320 feet AMSL along the western border. Existing land uses immediately surrounding the Greens consist of an adjacent retail commercial shopping center at the southwest, an adjoining residential development to the west and east, vacant agricultural land to the north and additional residential development to the south across Alga Road. Limited industrial and agriculture uses and an affordable housing project exist across El Camino Real at the site's northwestern boundary. Agricultural uses also presently exist between the project and El Camino Real. The County-owned McClellan -Palomar Airport and planned industrial uses are located approximately one-half mile to the north of The Greens along Palomar Airport Road. The Ridge and The Oaks - (LFMP Zone 11) The Ridge, which consists of approximately 465 acres, and The Oaks, which lies adjacent to The Ridge and includes about 741.3 acres, are composed of gently rolling topography within The Oaks rising to a rocky plateau within the Ridge. The Ridge and The Oaks are divided by a canyon containing the northeast to southwest trending San Marcos Creek. Environmentally constrained areas of The Ridge and The Oaks consist of approximately 521.91 acres of steeper slopes and sensitive biological resources contained within the adopted HCP/OMSP area. Elevations within The Ridge range from 80 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) in the bed of San Marcos Creek to about 800 feet AMSL near an existing water reservoir in the north-central portion of the village. The bed of San Marcos Creek, at approximately 80 feet AMSL, also serves as the lowest elevation for The Oaks, which rises to about 825 feet AMSL near the existing water reservoir located in the central-eastern portion. Existing land uses immediately surrounding The Ridge and The Oaks consist of limited industrial uses, Villages of La Costa Master Plan (No. 149) Amendment P City of Carlsbad open space/vacant land to tMKast and existing residential development me north, west, and south. An existing water treatment plant is situated on San Marcos Creek adjacent to The Ridge. Rancho Santa Fe Road, which runs in a north/south direction, bisects The Oaks, and Alga Road establishes the northern boundary for The Ridge. Villages of La Costa Master Plan (No. 149) Amendment P City of Carlsbad Figure 1 Regional Perspective and Local Vicinity LA COSTA !._. OAKS \ BACKGROUND The old La Costa Master Plan (MP 149), which consisted of a total of 2,399 acres, was adopted by the City of Carlsbad in 1972 and has been amended from time to time since then. Master Plan 149 (Amendment O), adopted on September 4, 1990, provided for 1,865 acres, 6,959 dwelling units, and 306.4 acres of open space within the area that encompasses The Greens, The Oaks, and The Ridge. The proposed Villages of La Costa Master Plan consists of a total of 1,867 acres providing up to 2,236 market rate dwelling units, up to 335 affordable housing units to meet the City of Carlsbad's inclusionary housing requirements, and over 885.1 acres of open space. Of the maximum 2,236 market rate dwelling units, 1,038 are planned for The Greens, 323 for The Ridge and 875 for The Oaks. Affordable housing units are calculated as 15 percent of the market rate totals. Adoption of the proposed Villages of La Costa Master Plan also will result in implementation of the HCP/OMSP. As contemplated by the HCP/OMSP Implementation Agreement, the proposed Master Plan will include adjustments to the HCP/OMSP area. These adjustments to the configuration of the HCP/OMSP will result in a net increase of conserved area. Additional open space, outside of the current HCP/OMSP, including utility corridors and undeveloped slopes, also will be established within the new Master Plan. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The Villages of La Costa Master Plan provides a comprehensive set of guidelines, regulations, and implementation programs intended to ensure the orderly development of the entirety of the Villages of La Costa and each Village independently in accordance with the City's General Plan. The proposed new Master Plan defines the allowable types and intensity of land use, provides detailed development and design standards and criteria, and describes the method by which the Villages of La Costa will be implemented. City Council adoption of the new Master Plan will establish development intensities, development criteria and design standards for the three Villages, while ensuring that the subject property is developed in full accordance with the City of Carlsbad General Plan, the amended Zone 11 and proposed Zone 10 Local Facilities Management Plans, the McClellan-Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and the HCP/OMSP Implementation Agreement. The proposed Villages of La Costa Master Plan provides for construction of low to medium-high density residential uses, planned industrial uses, a school site, a community park, circulation element roads, community facilities and open space. Each of the three proposed Villages have been subdivided into planning areas or "Neighborhoods," which are depicted on Figures 2, 3 and 4. Each Village Neighborhood will consist of the uses listed within Table 1, Project Characteristics, and as described below: The Greens: The Greens will provide for a range of housing types including homes in the Low-Medium and Residential Medium-High categories. A total of 717 residences on lots consisting of a minimum 4,500 square feet, 5,000 square feet, 6,000 square feet, 7,500 square feet and 9,000 square feet will be developed in the Residential Low Medium category. A maximum of 321 units, consisting of multi- family attached dwellings, townhomes and/or courtyard detached residences will be constructed in the Villages of La Costa Master Plan (No. 149) Amendment P City of Carlsbad Residential Medium High cB|ory. Additionally, up to 156 affordable Hosing units could occur within The Greens (calculated as 15 percent of the project's 1,038 market-rate units) to meet the City of Carlsbad's inclusionary housing requirements. Approximately 10.5 acres of planned industrial uses and recreational vehicle storage and 4.0 acres of Community Facilities also will be incorporated into the project, along with an elementary school site, a community park and about 207.3 acres of open space. Primary access will be provided to The Greens via the existing El Camino Real, Alga Road, Dove Lane and Zodiac Street. The project also would construct on-site segments of Alicante Road and Poinsettia Lane. Table 1, Project Characteristics, and Figure 2, The Greens Village Development Plan, illustrate specific locations and types of uses within The Greens. The Ridge: The Ridge will provide 265 units in the Residential Low Medium category and 58 units in the Residential Medium High category. The 265 units would be developed on lots of 6,000, 7,500 and 10,000 square feet minimum. The Ridge also provides for 58 multi-family homes along with 264.6 acres of open space. In addition, up to 179 affordable housing units could be provided in The Ridge and The Oaks combined (calculated as 15 percent of the market-rate units) to meet the City of Carlsbad's inclusionary housing requirements. Primary access will be provided by the existing El Fuerte, Corintia Street and Melrose Avenue and by a project road shown as Ridge Road on Figure 3. Table 1, Project Characteristics, and Figure 3, The Ridge Village Development Plan, illustrate specific locations and types of uses within The Ridge. The Oaks: The Oaks will provide for a range of housing types including homes in the Residential Low Medium and Residential Medium High categories. A maximum of 802 dwelling units will be constructed on minimum 5,000 square-foot, 6,000 square-foot, 7,500 square-foot and 9,000 square-foot lots in the Residential Low Medium category. A maximum 73 units, consisting of multi-family attached dwellings and/or townhomes will be constructed in the Residential Medium High category. In addition, up to 179 affordable housing units could be provided in The Ridge and The Oaks combined (calculated as 15 percent of the market-rate units) to meet the City of Carlsbad's inclusionary housing requirements. Approximately 5.7 acres will be dedicated to Community Facilities uses and about 337.1 acres will be preserved as open space. Primary access will be provided to The Oaks via Rancho Santa Fe Road, La Costa Avenue and by a project road designated "Street C." Table 1, Project Characteristics, and Figure 4, The Oaks Village Development Plan, illustrate specific locations and types of uses within The Oaks. Villages of La Costa Master Plan (No. 149) Amendment P City of Carlsbad Figure 2 The Greens Village Development Plan INSETTTA LANE VIUACE BOUHDAW BAoaoNf CaammoH Pnojfcr Boumair Muuar SCHOOL OeatSpuf DAY CAM natTosoif 'Figure 3 The Ridge Village Development Plan VILLAGC BOUNDARy NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARY BACKBONE CIRCULATION VILLAGE MARKER NEIGHBORHOOD OPEN SPACE Figure 4 The Oaks Village DevelopmentTTanitnai ^ CO /<i? 7- THE / RIDGE /DEVELOPMENT AREA WtMGf BOUNDARY NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARY BACKBONE CIRCULATION PROJECT BOUNDARY MARKER NEIGHBORHOOD OPEN SPACE Table 1 Project Characteristics DEVELOPMENT TYPE DEVELOPMENT AREA ACRES (GROSS) D. U. The Greens Planned Industrial Community Facilities SFD - Min. 9,000 S.F. Lots SFD - Min. 7,500 S.F. Lots SFD - Min. 6,000 S.F. Lots SFD - Min. 5,000 S.F. Lots SFD - Min. 4,500 S.F. Lots Townhomes/Small-Lot SFD Multi-Family/Townhomes Elementary School Community Park HCP Open Space/Utility Corridor Circulation Neighborhood 1.1 Neighborhood 1.2 Neighborhoods 1.10 and 1.12 Neighborhoods 1.6 and 1.8 Neighborhoods 1 .7 and 1 .9 Neighborhoods 1.11, 1.13 and 1.14 Neighborhood 1.17 Neighborhoods 1.3 and 1.16 Neighborhood 1.15 School Area 1 .4 Park Area 1.5 Open Space Areas 1 . A - G — Village Subtotal 10.5 4.0 83.8 86.0 72.4 49.3 45.4 23.0 15.4 6.8 25.8 207.3 31.0 660.7 — — 99 171 211 118 118 141 180 — — — — 1,038' The Ridge SFD - Min. 10,000 S.F. Lots SFD - Min. 7,500 S.F. Lots SFD - Min. 6,000 S.F. Lots Multi-Family HCP Open Space Neighborhoods 2.3 and 2.4 Neighborhoods 2.1 and 2.2 Neighborhood 2.5 Neighborhood 2.6 Open Space Areas 2.A and 2.B Village Subtotal 62.8 92.7 36.8 8.1 264.6 465.0 107 92 66 58 — 3232 The Oaks SFD - Min. 9,000 S. F. Lots SFD - Min. 7,500 S.F. Lots SFD -Min. 6,000 S.F. Lots SFD - Min. 5,000 S.F. Lots Neighborhood 3. 14 Neighborhoods 3.8, 3.12, 3.13 and 3.15 Neighborhoods 3.3, 3.9, 3.10 and 3.1 1 Neighborhoods 3.1, 3.4 and 3.5 39.2 114.0 127.1 56.0 74 245 329 154 Villages of La Costa Master Plan (No. 149) Amendment P City of Carlsbad Townhomes/Small-Lot SFD ^T Community Facilities HCP Open Space/Utility Corr./Open Space Circulation Neighborhood 3.6 and 3.7 ^^ Neighborhood 3.2 Neighborhoods 3.A - E — Village Total VILLAGES OF LA COSTA MASTER PLAN TOTAL 28.6 5.7 337.1 33.6 741.3 1,867 73 — ~ — 8752 2,2361,2 In addition to the 1,038 units allocated for The Greens, up to 156 affordable housing units could be provided within this village (calculated as 15 percent of the market rate units). 2 In addition to the 323 and 875 units allocated for The Ridge and The Oaks, respectively, up to 179 affordable housing units could be provided within these two villages combined (calculated as 15 percent of the market rate units). Proposed Road Improvements Besides construction of necessary on-site local roads and private streets, it is anticipated that the project will include the construction of Poinsettia Lane as a Major Arterial and Alicante Road as a Secondary Arterial within The Greens and the improvement of El Fuerte (Secondary Arterial) adjacent to The Ridge. Within The Oaks, Rancho Santa Fe Road will be improved to Prime Arterial standards and Street "C" will be graded as a Major Arterial and constructed to Secondary Arterial status. The existing truck by-pass associated with Rancho Santa Fe Road will be vacated as part of the project. PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES To promote the orderly development of the project site, the Villages of La Costa Master Plan presents ten goals for the development and use, as follows: 1. Preserve environmental resources and implement the Habitat Conservation Plan/On- Going Multi-Species Plan (HCP/OMSP) in accordance with all local, state and federal laws, regulations and policies. 2. Ensure that development within the overall project area is internally consistent and compatible with surrounding development and that the three Villages are likewise integrated. 3. Create and maintain an open space network (i.e., active and passive pedestrian/bicycle trails) which links neighborhoods within the Villages and provides the linkage to the greater city-wide trail system and to surrounding land uses. 4. Create an open space-oriented community with a variety of residential neighborhoods and product type. 5. Assure conformity to Carlsbad's General Plan, applicable Local Facilities Management Plan Zones, and applicable City ordinances, regulations and policies. 6. Assure that necessary public facilities and services that serve the Project area meet or exceed applicable City standards and requirements. Villages of La Costa Master Plan (No. 149) Amendment P City of Carlsbad 7. Create an anBRive, buffered circulation system that p^Pdes for the safety needs of automobiles, cyclists, and pedestrians. 8. Permit residential design flexibility to match market demand and allow for the incorporation of positive technical advancements. 9. Allow the individual Villages to develop at their independent pace based on necessary infrastructure improvements and response to market conditions. 10. Establish overview procedures to regulate the Villages of La Costa Master Plan area and assure compatibility with City of Carlsbad standards, while at the same time allowing for individual, site specific Village Development Plan adjustments to occur without affecting the Master Plan as a whole. PROJECT PHASING Other than general market conditions, development within the Villages of La Costa Master Plan will be controlled by the availability of adequate public facilities and providing infrastructure in accordance with the City's Growth Management Plan. A phasing program was developed for public facility planning purposes which will be consistent with the proposed Zone 10 and the amended Zone 11 Local Facilities Management Plans. This phasing program defines the level of infrastructure improvements required to meet estimated demand based on the buildout of proposed uses within each Village of the overall Villages of La Costa Master Plan area. The Greens will be developed through a proposed four stage phasing plan as depicted in the proposed Villages of La Costa Master Plan as Exhibit 5.11; The Ridge will be developed in one phase, as depicted in proposed Villages of La Costa Master Plan Exhibit 6.9; and The Oaks will be implemented in two phases, as depicted on the proposed Villages of La Costa Master Plan Exhibit 7.11. The objective of these Phasing Plans is to coordinate a logical sequence and pattern of residential development and habitat conservation with the provisions for public facilities infrastructure as established by the proposed Zone 10 and amended Zone 11 Local Facilities Management Plans. Each development phase will comply with all public facility performance standards identified in the Growth Management Plan and individual Local Facilities Management Plans. Fee interest conveyance of the HCP/OMSP Open Space Areas to an appropriate conservator will occur in accordance with the HCP/OMSP Implementation Agreement. COVERAGE OF THE EIR Discretionary Actions - Villages of La Costa Master Plan Project The following actions/approvals will be under consideration by the City Council as part of the proposed project and as analyzed in this EIR: 1. General Plan Amendment. The applicant is requesting an amendment of the General Plan which is required by the HCP/OMSP in order to revise open space and areas designated for development in the Land Use Map of the General Plan to implement the Conserved Habitat and Impact Areas of the HCP/OMSP. This General Plan Amendment also is required in order to shift allowable dwelling units provided for by the existing General Plan and within the Villages of La Costa Master Plan (No. 149) Amendment P City of Carlsbad Conserved Habitat to conform to the Impact Areas desipped within the HCP/OMSP. Existing and Proposed General Plan Land Uses are depicted on Figures 5 and 6. 2. Master Plan 149 Amendment. The applicant is requesting an amendment to Master Plan 149 in order to delete all portions of the Project area previously known as La Costa Southeast/Rancheros and the Northwest Areas and create a new Master Plan for the areas to be deleted from the plan. Villages of La Costa Master Plan (No. 149) Amendment P City of Carlsbad Figure 5 Existing General Plan Land Uses •^Ig^mfrt**11-*** •^&^mm^i f^ssfifff SSHfei ^CS^Sitft^gj »^Srt|;\|j|«y?/ RL RLM RESIDENTIAL- LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL- LOW MEDIUM LA COSTA GREENS RM r j RESIDENTIAL- MEDIUM OPEN SPACE E U Cosw ! RIDGE 1 o ELEMENTARY SCHOOL } LA COSTA ! OAKS Figure 6 Proposed General Plan Land Uses RL RLM RESIDENTIAL- LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL- LOW MEDIUM LA COSTA GREENS RM RMH __, RESIDENTIAL- MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL- MEDIUM HIGH LA COSTA RIDGE N PI NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL PLANNED INDUSTRIAL \ LA COSTA OAKS IBf ^nn E MASTER PLAN OPEN SPACE EXISTING OPEN SPACE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 3. Villages of La Costa^Rister Plan. The applicant is proposing l^^doption of a new Villages of La Costa Master Plan that will provide for the phased development of The Greens, The Oaks and the Ridge. The proposed Master Plan also will incorporate redefined habitat preserve areas and open space, as established by the HCP/OMSP. 4. Local Facilities Management Plans Zones 10 and 11. Pursuant to the requirements of the City of Carlsbad's Growth Management Program, Title 21, Chapter 21.90 of the Municipal Code, a new Local Facilities Management Plan (Zone 10) is being proposed for The Greens and an amendment to LFMP Zone 11 is being proposed for The Oaks and The Ridge. The new and amended LFMPs describe all public facilities requirements and set forth the timing of installation and financing for all public facilities within The Greens, The Ridge and The Oaks. 5. Master Tentative Maps. The applicant is requesting approval of a Master Tentative Map for each of the three Villages. A tentative map is required for the implementation of proposed development as analyzed in the EIR and for all subdivisions creating five or more parcels pursuant to Government Code §66426. 6. Implementation of HCP/OMSP. The Implementation Agreement for the HCP/OMSP anticipates the need to finalize the HCP/OMSP boundaries as part of the required General Plan Amendment and proposed new Villages of La Costa Master Plan. The Villages of La Costa Master Plan will establish and define permanent preservation of Conserved Habitat Area and appropriate Impact Area within each of the three Villages. 7. Hillside Development Permits. Proposed grading within the three Villages must be conducted in conformance with the City of Carlsbad's Hillside Development Ordinance. The purpose of these permits is to review for conformance within each Village. 8. Scenic Corridor Special Use Permit. Scenic corridors, as designated within the City of Carlsbad's Scenic Corridor Guidelines, consist of arterial streets which the City Council has determined are worthy of special treatment in order to improve or protect scenic views and traffic safety. El Camino Real is identified as a scenic corridor within the Master Plan. The purpose of this permit is to review conformance of project design with provisions established for the El Camino Real scenic corridor. 9. Floodplain Special Use Permits. A Floodplain Special Use Permit is required before construction or development begins within any area of special flood hazards, flood-related erosion hazards or mudslide hazards, as established in §21.110.070 of the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code. Floodplain Special Use Permits will be required for certain portions of proposed development within The Greens and The Oaks. 10. Right-of-way Vacation. A street vacation is required for the Rancho Santa Fe Road/Melrose Avenue intersection realignment. As part of the proposed project, the existing Rancho Santa Fe Road truck by-pass will also be vacated. The existing surface improvements will be removed and a bicycle/hiking trail will be established in its place. 11. State and Federal Permits. As a part of the proposed Project, various state and federal permits will be required to implement the Project. These permits include, but are not limited to, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 permits, California Department of Fish and Game 1600 and 1603 Villages of La Costa Master Plan (No. 149) Amendment P City of Carlsbad Permits, and U.S. F^lnd Wildlife Service Section 7 Consultati^lnd 401 Permit. 12. Special District Service Area/Boundary Adjustments. As part of the project, proceedings may be initiated with the San Diego County Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO), or other appropriate agencies, for certain service area/boundary adjustments involving sewer service (Leucadia County Water District and Vallecitos Water District), water service (Carlsbad Municipal Water District, Vallecitos Water District, and Olivenhain Municipal Water District) and schools (Carlsbad Unified School District, San Marcos Unified School District, San Dieguito Union School District and Encinitas Union School District). 13. Future Discretionary Actions. The Program EIR will form the basis for environmental review of future discretionary actions required to implement the Project. Implementation of the Project will require subsequent approval of subdivision, planned development permit and other related implementing actions, including but not limited to grading and building permits. If subsequent CEQA documentation is required for future discretionary actions, such documentation should incorporate by reference the discussions in the Program EIR and concentrate solely on the issues specific to the subsequent action. LEAD, RESPONSIBLE AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES Lead Agency In conformance with §15050 and §15367 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Carlsbad has been designated the "lead agency" which is defined as the "public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or disapproving a project." Villages of La Costa Master Plan (No. 149) Amendment P City of Carlsbad ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: MP 98-01 DATE: December 22. 1998 BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. CASE NAME: Villages of La Costa APPLICANT: Morrow Development ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2300 Alga Road P.O.Box 9000-695 Carlsbad CA 92009 (760) 929-2701 DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: December 22. 1998 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of a master plan in addition to a number of discretionary permits. The project area is approximately 1.867 acres in the southeast quadrant of the City and includes low to medium-high residential, planned industrial, elementary school site, community park, community facilities, relocation of a major arterial roadway and open space uses. SUMMARY OF 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. Land Use and Planning /\ Population and Housing X] Geological Problems Water | Air Quality I Transportation/Circulation Public Services /\ Biological Resources X Utilities & Service Systems Energy & Mineral Resources IXJ Aesthetics Hazards Noise Cultural Resources Recreation | Mandatory Findings of Significance Rev. 03/28/96 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 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 significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one potentially significant effect 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. An EIR 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 EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. Planner Signature Date Planning Director's Signature Date Rev. 03/28/96 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. • A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. • "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not adversely significant, 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 significant. • Based on an "ElA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but all potentially significant 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 (Prior Compliance). • When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant 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 effect on the environment. • If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce 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. • An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant 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 impact to less than significant; (2]^BfStatement of Overriding Considerations" fc^fe significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. Issues ( and Supporting^Vrmation Sources)Potentially Significant Impact Filially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): (See Discussion) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (See Discussion) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (See Discussion) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (See Discussion) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (See Discussion) >/ V V V V II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (See Discussion) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure )? (See Discussion) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (See Discussion) V V V 111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (See Discussion) b) Seismic ground shaking? (See Discussion) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (See Discussion) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (See Discussion) e) Landslides or mudflows? (See Discussion) 0 Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (See Discussion) g) Subsidence of the land? (See Discussion) h) Expansive Soils? (See Discussion) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (See Discussion) V V V V V V V V V ^ "^ IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (See Discussion) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (See Discussion) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? (See Discussion) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (See Discussion) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (See Discussion) f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations ro through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (See Discussion) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (See Discussion) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (See Discussion) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (See Discussion) V V V V V V V V V V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (See Discussion) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (See Discussion) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (See Discussion) d) Create objectionable odors? (See Discussion) V V V V VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (See Discussion) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (See Discussion) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (See Discussion d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (See Discussion) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (See Discussion) 0 Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (See Discussion) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (See Discussion) V V V V V V V •f VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCESWould the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? (Biological Report) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? (Biological Report) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Biological Report) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pools)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (See Discussion) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and ineftlcicm manner? (See Discussion) c) 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? (See Discussion) V 9 V V V V V V V IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? (See Discussion) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (See Discussion) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? (See Discussion) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (See Discussion) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (See Discussion) V V V V V X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (See Discussion) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (See Discussion) V V XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (See Discussion) b) Police protection? (See Discussion) c) Schools? (See Discussion) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (See Discussion) e) Other governmental services? (See Discussion) ^ V V V V XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power and natural gas? (See Discussion) b) Communication systems? (See Discussion) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (See-Discussion) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (See Discussion) e) Storm water drainage? (See Discussion) f) Solid waste disposal? (See Discussion) g) Local or regional water supplies? (See Discussion) V -J V V V V V XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (See Discussion) b) Have a demonstrative negative aesthetic effect? (See Discussion) c) Create light or glare? (See Discussion) V V V XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (See Discussion) b) Disturb archaeological resources? (See Discussion) c) Affect historical resources? (See Discussion) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique cultural values? (See Discussion) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (See Discussion) XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (See Discussion) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (See Discussion) V V V V V V V XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS^ 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 the impact that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively Considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effect on human beings, either directly or indirectly? • V 9 V ^ XVII.EARLIER ANALYSIS Earlier analysis 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 analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. a) 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 analyses. a) 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. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The Project includes a number of proposed discretionary actions which are as follows: 1) A General Plan Amendment, which will implement the Habitat Conservation Plan/On-Going Multi-Species Plan (HCP/OMSP) and Implementation Agreement adopted in 1995 and modify General Plan Land Use Designations from Open Space (O/S), Residential Low Density (RL); Residential Low Medium (RLM); Residential Medium (RMto Open Space (O/S), Residential Low Density (RL); Residential Low Medium (RLM); Residential Medium (RM); Residential Medium-High (RMH); Planned Industrial (PI), and Elementary School (E) on a total of 1,867 acres; 2) an Amendment of old Master Plan 149 to delete three Villages, La Costa Southeast/Rancheros and La Costa Northwest; 3) a new Villages of La Costa Master Plan to create three Villages, The Greens, The Ridge and The Oaks; 4) an Amendment to the Local Facilities Plan for Zone 11; 5) a Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 10; 6) Master Tentative Maps for each Village; 7) implementation of the HCP/OMSP in a manner which would result in an overall increase in HCP/OMSP open space; 8) Hillside Development Permits for each Village; 9) Scenic Corridor Special Use Permits for El Camino Real; 10) Floodplain Special Use Permits for proposed development within The Greens and The Oaks; 11) Vacation of the truck by-pass associated with Rancho Santa Fe Road; (12) State and Federal Permits as de^ri necessary; and 13) other discretionary acti<|A Individual developments within the Project will require the approvaflPrentative Maps, Planned Unit Developments.^^ Development Plans and possible other discretionary permits. These plans are site specific and are not proposed at this time; however, the environmental analysis of the Project will consider their potential impacts as part of the overall Project. LAND USE AND PLANNING Proposed development of three Villages requires amendments to the General Plan and La Costa Master Plan which would result in a modification to areas set aside for development or open space under current General Plan designations. Areas currently designated as open space would be modified with a net expansion of overall preserved natural vegetation and steep slopes. Zones and densities would be modified resulting in an overall reduction in planned residential development, and a planned industrial area would be added to the range of planned land uses. Implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with environmental plans or policies imposed by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). These agencies participated in the preparation of a Habitat Conservation Plan/Ongoing Multi-Species Plan (HCP/OMSP)for the Project, and an implementation agreement was approved in 1995. The proposed Project would be implemented in a manner which would result in an overall increase in HCP/OMSP open space. Proposed adjustments of the General Plan Open Space boundaries will require further analysis. The proposed Project would be compatible with surrounding land uses and would not disrupt or divide an established community. Compatibility issues related to the offsite sewer treatment plant and reclamation activity will require further analysis. The project site in its existing state is primarily undeveloped and unimproved with the exception of several water tanks, dirt roads and paths, and various utility easements. The La Costa Resort and Golf Course is located in the south- central portion of The Greens but is not a part of the Villages of La Costa Master Plan. To the northwest of the Greens is Palomar Airport and existing commercial and industrial uses. To the east and south of the Greens is residential and community commercial development. The Ridge is surrounded on the south, west, and north by residential development and the east by industrial uses and open space. The Oaks lies adjacent to the southeastern border of the Ridge and is mostly surrounded by open space on the east and south. Some residential development is located to the immediate west of the central and southern boundaries of the Oaks. The Project would not affect agricultural resources or operations. No acreage within any of the three Villages has been devoted to agricultural crop production, and no prime, unique or other farmland of state or local importance has been identified within the Project. POPULATION AND HOUSING The project site is generally vacant, and no existing housing would be displaced by project implementation. The provision of up to 2,236 market-rate residential units and up to 335 affordable housing units to meet the City of Carlsbad's inclusionary housing requirement, an elementary school, a community park and approximately nine gross acres of planned industrial uses would substantially alter the density of the human population of the area. The intensity of development would not exceed growth assumptions and corresponding population projections included in the City's General Plan for this area. The Project proposes non-residential land uses - such as planned industrial uses, an elementary school, day care facilities and recreation areas - which would create additional employment opportunities. The creation of new jobs may create a demand for additional housing within the City. The Project would be providing up to 2,235 new residences and up to 335 affordable housing units to meet the City of Carlsbad's inclusionary housing requirement which could fulfill this demand. The Project would be required to adhere to the requirements of the Housing Element of the General Plan. In accordance with the Housing Element, the Projajk'ould establish an affordable housing progran^kaddress any need created by the Project. ^^ ^^ GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS A geotechnical report has been prepared for each of the three Villages. GEOCON, INC. prepared a report for The Greens entitled Preliminary Soils and Geological Investigation for La Costa Ranch - Northwest Area. Carlsbad. California and also prepared a study for The Oaks, entitled Supplemental Soils & Geological Investigation for Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment. A report for The Ridge was prepared by Ninyo & Moore and is titled An Updated Geotechnical Evaluation - Rancheros Subdivision. The reports conclude that active or potentially active faults are not known to exist within the three Villages. However, inactive faults have been mapped and/or observed transecting the Greens. The nearest active fault zones to the three Villages include the Rose Canyon Fault (7 miles), the Elsinore Fault (19 miles) and a series of off-shore faults. No soil or geologic conditions were encountered that would preclude development of the three Villages, according to the three individual reports. The major geotechnical area of concern in The Greens and The Oaks would be the presence of undocumented fill soils, topsoil, landslide debris and alluvium, which could be excavated with light to moderate effort. The area of major geotechnical concern for The Ridge would be the excavatability of hard rock underlying the site, including the potential for blasting. Although large portions of the property would remain in its natural condition within each of the three Villages, grading necessary to accommodate the proposed development would occur on a mass scale resulting in a balanced grading operation in each village. The Greens would be graded in four phases; The Oaks in two and The Ridge in one. Each phase of each Village would balance with some minor import or export to other phases solely contained within a particular village. No export or import would occur between villages. WATER Proposed development plans for each of the three Villages include a storm drain system composed of underground drains, vegetated swales, detention structures and temporary sediment basins. Erosion potential for each of the Villages would be reduced by the inclusion of necessary drainage and erosion controls. The City of Carlsbad requires that cut and fill slopes be provided with appropriate surface drainage features and be landscaped as soon as possible after grading to minimize potential erosion. No significant increase in soils erosion would be expected to occur with implementation of the City's Grading Ordinance and Landscape Manual, as well as the recommendations provided within the Geotechnical Reports prepared for each of the Villages. Development of The Oaks and The Ridge would not result in significant adverse changes in the deposition of beach sands or modification of the San Marcos Creek drainage basin or any other river channel, stream or bed of the ocean. Potentially significant impacts could arise in conjunction with the construction of Poinsettia Lane, a proposed east-west trending Major Arterial that would bisect The Greens when constructed. This General Plan Circulation Element roadway would result in modification of east-west trending drainage area that abuts the proposed road alignment. Construction of Poinsettia Lane, the proposed elementary school and the proposed community park also could result in significant adverse impacts to a second north-south trending drainage course, which flows into the existing golf course. The drainage system proposed for each Village would include detention facilities, an underground network system and street curbs and gutters to capture and direct flow and to regulate the volume of water being discharged at rates which would not exceed the pre-development level. The proposed system would be designed by a licensed engineer qualified in hydrology and hydraulics and wouyfcsure that there would be no net increase in th^fcak runoff rate from each Village as a result of a 10-year frequency stormWi.lso, erosion control measures would be requ^ro as part of the grading operation to be undertaken within each Village. Construction of Poinsettia Lane, Alicante Road, an elementary school and a community park within The Greens would result in a potentially significant-but-mitigatable change in the course of two substantial drainage systems. The proposed drainage system would ensure that there would be no net increase in the peak runoff rate as a result of a 10-year frequency storm Drainage from the three Villages carrying pollutants generated from the proposed land uses, hardscape and landscaped areas would have a potential affect on the quality of surface water within San Marcos Creek, Batiquitos Creek and the Pacific Ocean. A storm water management system and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) would need to be devised and implemented within each Village. AIR QUALITY During blasting operations, some temporary dust may be generated. This will be confined to areas proposed for grading and will not be of sufficient quantity to have any long term or materially significant cumulative impacts. Uniform standard dust control suppression techniques will be utilized. The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Because the San Diego Air Basin in a "non-attainment basin," any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant; therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on ah- quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These included: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or will be included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a "non-attainment basin." Therefore, the Initial Study checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact." The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. Impacts will be evaluated and cumulative impacts will require a statement of overriding consideration. TRANSPORTATION AND The proposed Project would generate vehicle trips and increase traffic and congestion on existing and planned roadways in the project vicinity. As a result of changes in intensity and location of proposed land uses, an analysis of the impact of the three Villages on the circulation system is needed. The proposed Villages of La Costa Master Plan illustrates an internal street network to link on-site uses and to connect with the surrounding street system. Descriptions of the vehicular and non-vehicular circulation plans for each of the three Villages of La Costa are provided in the Master Plan. Major roadways to be constructed in The Greens include segments of El Camino Real, Poinsettia Lane, Alga Road, Poinsettia Lane, Melrose Avenue, Alicante Road, and Ridge Road. Major roadways to be constructed in The Ridge and The Oaks include segments of El Fuerte, Alga Road, and Melrose Avenue. Rancho Santa Fe Road, which will traverse The Oaks, is being improved by the City of Carlsbad. Environmental impacts associated with the construction of Rancho Santa Fe Road are disclosed in the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared by the City of Carlsbad, and dated January 1992 (SCH No. 90010850). The proposed development of the three Villages would not create a large demand for new parking (other than of the proposed Community Park) nor affect existing parking facilities. The proposed on-site circulation system includes separate vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian systems. Necessary traffic controls will be required as part of the system's design in accordance with accepted engineering practices and standards. Cumulative traffic impacts may require a statement of overriding considerations. BIOLOGICAL Six habitat types occur within the Master Plan area including, Diegan coastal sage scrub, southern mixed and southern maritime chaparral, non-native and native grassland, riparian scrub and oak woodland, disturbed habitat, and eucalyptus woodland scrub. These habitats contain numerous individual plant and wildlife species, some of which are considered sensitive. Implementation of the proposed Project will result in disturbance to on-site habitats and species. A Habitat Conservation Plan/Ongoing Multi-Species Plan (HCP/OMSP) was approved for the project site in June 1995 by the City of Carlsbad, the project proponent's predecessor in title, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Department of Fish and Game. The approved HCP/OMSP addresses the needs of 66 listed and unlisted species classified as "species of special concern," and provides protection for nearly 80 percent of all sensitive plant populations on the site. The proposed Project will implement the comprehensive mitigation program set forth by the approved HCP/OMSP. Approximately 703 acres of native vegetation and steep slopes within the proposed three Villages has been preserved by the HCP/OMSP. The Project proposes to provide additional acreage to the HCP/OMSP. Other natural resources, such as San Marcos Creek, also would be preserved. The diversity and number of species, habitat and animals will be affected by the Project in areas identified for development. The approved HCP/OMSP will be implemented by the Project. The HCP/OMSP addresses the needs of 66 listed and unlisted species and provides protection for nearly 80 percent of all sensitive plant populations on the site. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES Energy will be consumed at the Project site in two phases. The first phase is during construction. The second phase addresses energy consumed after the Project is completed and is being occupied. Energy consumed during construction is considered to be short-term and is therefore not a significant impact. Energy consumed after occupancy of the Project would not have a significant impact as building construction must comply with Title 24 of the California Administrative Code, which sets forth energy conservation requirements for new construction. Measures related to reducing the demand for automobile fuel would be addressed under the sections dealing with air quality and traffic. HAZARDS The Project does not involve a significant risk of an explosion based on the types of land uses proposed and the requirements contained in the proposed Villages of La Costa Master Plan. The Project does have the potential to negatively impact water quality as grease and oils from impervious surfaces, as well as fertilizers and pesticides used for project landscaping, could be carried off-site in drainage waters. Utility easements are located on the property. A San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDG&E) 200' electrical easement runs in an east-west alignment in the southern portion of The Greens, another 200-foot wide SDG&E easement crosses the southern part of The Ridge, and a 100, 150, and 200-foot SDG&E easements cross The Oaks. Some easements include overhead electrical utilities, including transmission lines with wood pole and lattice tower supported electric lines. The potential for exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) exist on the site. Future residents of the Villages of La Costa and users of the proposed City-wide and local trails within the utility easements could be exposed to EMF. A portion of the northwest segment of The Greens is located in the Airport Influence Area for McClellan Palomar Airport. Planned industrial uses and community facilities are proposed to be constructed within this area. Height limitations on structures would be established by the Villages of La Costa Master Plan. This portion of The Greens must be evaluated pursuant to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the airport for compatibility with regard to building heights and noise sensitive land uses. The emergency response plans of the city need to be reviewed in conjunction with the proposed Project to determine if the Project would interfere with existing plans. The project site would incorporate brush management/fuel modification zones at the perimeters of development to reduce the risk of exposure to wildfire. NOISE A small portion of the northwest segment of The Greens could potentially be impacted by noise from McClellan-Palomar Airport operation. El Camino Real, Alga Road, Poinsettia Lane, Rancho Santa Fe Road and Melrose Avenue also generate noise that could impact the project site. Development of the three Villages would generate additional noise during grading and construction. Once development is completed, noise generated by motor vehicles would increase in the area. An analysis of the existing and future noise environment of the Project is needed in order to evaluate the impacts of the proposed Project. PUBLIC SERVICES The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 11 would be amended by the proposed development for The Oaks and The Ridge- A proposed Local Facilities Management Plan has been prepared for Zone 10. The demands generated by the three Villages for public services, water, reclaimed water, sewer, gas and electric, solid waste, schools, police and fire must be quantified and the ability of all agencies to meet the identified demand calculated to determine whether a significant impact would be created. ITTTT.TTTFS AND SERVICE The provision of up to 2,236 residential units, up to 335 affordable housing units to meet the City of Carlsbad's inclusionary housing requirement, an elementary school, a community park and approximately nine gross acres of planned industrial uses would generate demand for utilities and services. As noted above, the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 11 would be amended by the proposed development for The Oaks and The Ridge. A proposed Local Facilities Management Plan has been prepared for Zone 10. The demands generated by the three Villages for public services, water, reclaimed water, sewer, gas and electric, solid waste, schools, police and fire must be quantified and the ability of all agencies to meet the identified demand calculated to determine whether a significant impact would be created. AESTHETICS The majority of the land mass within each Village is generally in its natural state. However, water tanks, a storage pond, sewer lines, a sewer pump station, power lines, a ranch house and supporting structures and man-made roads and trails have modified the natural terrain within the Villages. The underlying topographic character of the three Villages does remain legible despite these minor man-made features and provides the basis for the proposed grading approach. The topography of site may be significantly altered if the proposed grading concept is implemented. Elevations would be raised or lowered as a result of grading. Development of the site would result in new sources of light being located on the project site. However, lighting would be required to be directed downward so as to not significantly impact adjacent properties. Portions of the three Villages graded for building pads and roads would be visible from El Camino Real, Alga Road, Melrose Avenue, El Fuerte Street, Rancho Santa Fe Road and other area roads. Impacts associated with this proposed grading, including cut and fill slopes, alteration of the existing topography and a phased grading plan, may create a significant visual impact. An analysis of the potential visual impacts of the proposed phases and ultimate development is needed. Such analysis may include simulations that address the proposed grading operation and the proposed maximum height of buildings within the three Villages. A visual simulation of the terrain within each of the Villages may be needed in order to analyze the impacts of the proposed grading. Such simulations should include a comparison of existing terrain with the final appearance of each Village once the grading operation is completed. These simulations need not address the entirety of each Village, but rather should address major areas of topographic disturbance which would or could effect key public view points. CULTURAL RESOURCES Based upon previous studies and preliminary re-investigation of the three villages, potentially significant cultural resource sites (loci) have been identified, including seven previously identified sites within The Greens. All potentially significant sites will require further investigation and any necessary or appropriate mitigation will be required. Only consultants demonstrating that they meet the minimum qualifications for cultural resource professionals required by the "City of Carlsbad Cultural Resource Guidelines" dated December, 1990 shall prepare the Cultural Resource Study. All field work, research, report preparation and determinations of significance shall be done in accordance with the requirements of the City Guidelines. RECREATIONAL The Project would provide private recreational facilities and a community park, as well as recreational opportunities within the proposed elementary school facilities. Demand for park facilities created by the development would be satisfied by the establishment of the community parj^kby payment of a park in lieu fee or through o^fc agreements. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The Project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment specifically with regard to impacts upon water quality and native habitat. Project impacts must be assessed with past, present, and future projects to determine if significant cumulative impacts would be created. Several potential environmental impacts identified in the initial study such as air quality, archeological and paleontological resources, biological resources, traffic/circulation, land use compatibility, noise, public services and utilities, solid waste, visual aesthetics/grading, water quality/hydrology, population/housing, hazards, and alternatives can have substantial adverse effects on human beings and require further analysis to determine if a significant impact would be created. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT) CASE NO: DATE RECEIVED: (To be completed by staff) BACKGROUND 1. CASENAME: Villages of La Costa Master Plan 9 APPLICANT- Morrow Development 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: P.O. Box 9000-685, Carlsbad, CA 92018-9000 (760) 929-2701 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: General plan amendment, zone change, local facilities plan and amendment, amendment to the La Costa master plan & new master plan to conform to the adopted habitat conservation plan and implementation agreement between the applicant., US Dept. of Interior, Calif Fish and Game and the City of Carlsbad, and to update the existing master plan. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: 0 Please check any of the environmental factors listed below that would be potentially affected by this project. This would be any environmental factor that has at least one impact checked "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" in the checklist on the following pages. | | Land Use and Planning ^K] Transportation/Circulation | | Public Services [~~] Population and Housing | | Biological Resources | | Utilities & Service Systems Q Geological Problems | | Energy & Mineral Resources | | Aesthetics £3] Water | | Hazards | | Cultural Resources [5j Air Quality p^ Noise [ | Recreation |cx] Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 03/28/96 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. • A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. • "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not adversely significant, 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 significant. • Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but aft potentially significant 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 (Prior Compliance). • When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant 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 effect on the environment. Rev. 03/28/96 • If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce 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. • An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant 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 impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. : Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): '(Supplemental jigcuments may be referred to and attached) I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): ( ) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?c) d) e) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? ( ) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? ( ) II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local populatioivprojections? ( ) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) t) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? ( h) Expansive soils? ( ) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ) IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D D D D D Q D D D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D ' D D D D D D D D D 1 D D D a Less Than Significan t Impact E 0 0 D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D No Impact D D D a B a @ a D m n D 1 a OH- Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? ( ) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? V. AIR QUALITY. Would the.proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? ( ) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? Potentially Significant Impact D D D D . D D D a D D D •a n n n n a Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D n D n nn D n n D D D n n n n Less Than Significan t Impact D D n e B D a a a D a a a a a a No Impact D a m n n n n m a a n a B m m a n n n Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to >and attached) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? ( ) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ( ) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) c) 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? ( ) IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? ( ) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? ( ) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) b) Police protection? ( ) c) Schools? ( ) Potentially Significant Impact D D D . 'n D n D n n n n n n n nna Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Da Less Than Signiilcan t Impact D n n n n n n D n n n n 0 n nn No Impact a a a m m m a a m m a m D D I Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? e) Other governmental services? ( ) XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ( ) b) Communications systems? ( ) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? ( ) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) c) Affect historical resources? ( ) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? Potentially • Potentially • Less Than No Significant Significant Significan Impact Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated D a a a a a a D D a a Gn n nnnn n n n n Dnn nnn Dnna a D a Daa. a G a0 aaaa m a a aaan a. D a © a Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may.be referred toatidattacheci) XVI. 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? ("Cumulatively considerable" means . that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Potentially Significant Impact D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Sigmfican t Impact No Impact D n n D D n 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. Rev. 03/28/96 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Please use this area to discuss any of the environmental factors that were checked "No impact" yet lack any information citations and any factors that were checked "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." The City has adopted a "Statement of Overriding Consideration" with regard to air quality and circulation impacts resulting from the normal buildout according to the General Plan. The following sample text is intended to guide your discussion of the impacts to these environmental factors. AIR QUALITY: The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. CIRCULATION: The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections 9 Rev. 03/28/96 ~ ^are projected 10 fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore. the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "'Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) SEE ATTACHED ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) 10 Rev. 03/28/96 VILLAGES OF LA COST/TMASTER PLAN Land Use and Planning a) A General Plan Amendment is being processed concurrently with the Master Plan Amendment and the new Villages of La Costa Master Plan. The purpose of both amendments is to establish land use and development patterns that reflect the content of the approved Habitat Conservation Plan and Implementation Agreement. The changes as proposed will result in a redistribution of land uses existing prior to the approval of the Habitat Conservation Plan. b) The proposed changes are based on the Habitat Conservation Plan Implementation Agreement and are consistent with the provisions therein (F.2.a.-d.). c) The proposed land use changes have been made based on evaluation of surrounding land use and in consultation with existing residents. d) There are currently no areas of agricultural operations within the project area. Agricultural operations to the north of the project are currently being planned for future development. e) The proposal will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of a community. It will link existing isolated areas by requiring the expansion of circulation system improvements in the area. Population and Housing a) The proposed development is consistent with the existing Growth Management Limitations as shown in the proposed Local Facilities Management Plan and Amendment b) Since the proposal is a reallocation of existing land uses necessary to implement the Habitat Management Plan, it will not induce growth beyond that analyzed in the City's General Plan. c) The project will not result in the displacement of existing housing since the project area is undeveloped. Geologic Problems a) The project is not located in an area of an active fault. (City of Carlsbad General Plan Public Safety Element - 1994) b) Seismic ground shaking risks will be reduced by structural design requirements of the Uniform Building Code and recommendations of geo-technical analysis conducted during the subdivision and grading permit process. c) Development will proceed only on the basis of recommendations from a geo-technical analysis as required by the City's grading ordinances d) These features are known not to exist in the area. e) See c) above f) See c) above g) See c) above h) See c) above i) There no known unique geologic or physical features in the area as revealed by geologic surveys conducted as a part of certified EIR 307. Water a) All future development proposals will require drainage and surface analysis in accordance with City regulations. 02/12/98 3:28PM VILLAGES OF LA COSTATlASTER PLAN b) See a), above c) There are no surface water bodies impacted by the project. d) See c), above e) See a), above f) See a), above g) See a), above h) All projects are required to comply with NPDES standards, i) The project will not impact ground water resources. Air Quality a) See statement of overriding considerations b) See a), above c) Hardscape surfaces created by future development will result in less moisture and higher temperatures than would be found in the existing natural area. This could result in microclimate changes in the immediate vicinity of the project, but would not impact overall climatic conditions. d) Future development will be required to comply with APCD standards related to construction activity Transportation/Circulation a) See statement of overriding considerations b) Future development will be required to comply with City of Carlsbad Engineering design standards c) The proposed Master Plan incorporates access to adjacent development and insures adequate emergency access in accordance with exisitng City regulations (Engineering Department Policy 1) d) The proposed Master Plan standards incorporates the existing City parking standards. e) The proposed Master plan incorporates pedestrian and bicycle links and facilities throughout the project and eliminates existing hazards and barriers. f) Alternative transportation modes are encouraged in the design of the Master Plan concept for bicycles and pedestrian access. g) The project does not impact rail, waterborne or air traffic facilities. Biological Resources a) The proposed General Plan amendment and related applications implement the terms and conditions of the Habitat Conservation Plan and Implementation Agreement as executed by the City in 1995. All areas to be conserved are proposed for Open Space designation and will be preserved. Under the terms of the agreement all other areas (impact areas) are available for development. No additional analysis or mitigation will be required. b) See a), above c) See a), above d) See a), above e) See a), above Energy and Mineral Resources 2 02/12/98 3:28PM VILLAGES OF LA COSTAHVIASTER PLAN a) The proposed Master Plan incorporates energy conservation requirements in design and development guidelines for future development.. b) The project encourages efficient use of all resources. There are no nonrenewable resources on site. c) The project area contains no known mineral resources that would be of future value to the region and residents of the State (EIR 307 Soils and Geology) Hazards a) The Master Plan requires all future construction activity to be carried out in accordance with all Local, State and Federal health and safety regulations b) The Master Plan provides for increased access for emergency response and evacuation by specifying the locations of major infrastructure. c) See a), above d) There are no known existing sources of potential health hazards within the project area. The owner has completed Phase I Environmental Analysis and no potential health hazards were found. e) The Master Plan provides for fire suppression buffers in all areas proposed for development adjacent to brush areas. Development of the area and increased irrigation will minimize fire hazards. Noise a) The project as proposed will result in increased noise levels due to construction and future traffic. The Master Plan provides for buffers adjacent to major roadways and will require noise studies to determine the type of noise attenuation devices necessary to mitigate noise impacts. b) The Master Plan will require compliance with the provisions of the Noise Element of the General Plan of the City of Carlsbad. Public Services a) The Local Facilities Management Plan and Amendment proposes mitigation for fire protection impacts b) Police protection in the area is provided by the City of Carlsbad. Impacts will be offset by increased tax revenue and increased access c) The project's impacts on school facilities will be mitigated as follows: Carlsbad Unified School District: Mello Roos District (CFD)Participation San Marcos Unified School District: Comply with existing statutes San Dieguito High School District: Mello Roos District (CFD)Participation Encinitas Union School District: Covered by agreement for VLC/others must comply with State statutes d) Public Facilities maintenance is provided the City of Carlsbad. Impacts will be offset by increases in property tax revenue e) Impacts to governmental services is addressed in the Local Facilities Management Plan and Amendment Utilities and Services Systems 3 02/13/98 8:40 AM VILLAGES OF LA COSTATVIASTER PLAN c) The proposed Master Plan Amendment is consistent with development projections used in the CMWD. Olivenhain and Vallecitos facilities planning d) The Local Facilities Managment Plan and Amendment has analyzed these impacts and established mitigations measures that must be undertaken by future development. e) See d), above f) See d), above g) See d), above Aesthetics a) The proposed project will extend and improve roadways identified in the Scenic Corridor Study. These areas will be enhanced using the criteria established in the study. b) All future development proposed in the Master Plan will be required to comply with the City of Carlsbad Hillside Development regulations and grading standards. c) The Master Plan will require all lighted areas to be designed in a manner to minimize potential glare. All lighting will be directed away from residential areas and public roadways. Cultural Resources a) The Master Plan Amendment will require a paleontology resources survey prior to approval of any tentative map. b) The Master Plan Amendment will require a archaeological resources survey prior to approval of any tentative map. c) The City's historical registry does not include any sites located within the project area d) See a), above e) The Master Plan and related documents do not restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. Recreational a) The Local Facilities Management Plan shows an increase in demand for parks in the southeast quadrant. However, the proposed phasing shows that adequate facilities will be available through build out of the area and that the project will add to the supply of parks facilities. The existing parks agreement with the City provides adequate facilities through build out. b) The Master Plan and related documents envision the completion of Alga Norte Park, the integration of pedestrian and bicycle trails and the dedication of environmental open space areas. These will all increase recreational opportunities. Mandatory Findings of Significance a) One of the primary purposes of this Master Plan effort is to implement the Habitat Conservation Plan and Implementation Agreement. The approval of this request will insure that the environmental quality is not degraded or threatened. b) Cumulative impacts resulting from the implementation of the La Costa Master Plan include increases in traffic, noise, ambient air pollution. c) Impacts related to traffic, air quality and noise 4 02/12/98 3:28 PM VILLAGES OF LA COSTATlASTER PLAN MITIGATION MEASURES GEOLOGY AND SOILS 1. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits for future development, the developer shall perform a detailed, comprehensive geotechnical evaluation, including subsurface investigation, and submit the results of this evaluation for the review and approval of the City Engineer. 2. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits for future development, the developer shall perform a geotechnical evaluation that shall include: 1) depth and extent of the alluvium and colluviums; 2) depth of the groundwater table; 3) geometry and characteristics of onsite landslides; if any, 4) slope stability information; and 5) engineering characteristics of onsite sails. A report on these evaluations shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. 3. Prior to issuance of any building permits for future development, the developer shall submit for review and approval to the City Building Department plans which shall conform to the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and the City's Seismic Design Standards. 4. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits for future development, the applicant shall submit for review and approval to the City Engineer a plan for erosion control measures that includes, but is not limited to, hydroseeding with erosion control vegetation which shall he done on any exposed slopes within 30 days after grading or as approved by the City Engineer 5. Grading plans shall provide variety in the steepness of slopes and configuration of pads within the guidelines of the Grading Ordinance. The rounding and tapering of all manufactured slopes shall be completed to complement the natural contours of the land. 6. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits for future development, the developer shall submit for review and approval to the City Engineer a grading plan which shall include, but is not limited to, a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities to minimize any potential impacts from silt-, debris, and other water pollutants, 7. Prior to recordation of each Final Map for future development, drainage studies for each phase shall be approved by the City Engineer. 8. Prior to issuance of any grading permits for future development, the developer shall submit appropriate drainage facility designs to insure that flooding hazards are adequately reduced to an acceptable level to the City Engineer for his review and approval. 9. Prior to issuance of any grading permits for future development, the developer shall prepare an erosion and sedimentation control plan for each proposed development to address the problem of short-term construction and grading activity which will be 5 02/12/98 3:28 PM VILLAGES OF LA COSTATVIASTER PLAN incorporated into each development site's grading and construction plans and submitted to the City Engineer for his review and approval. 10. Prior to issuance of any grading permits for future development, the developer shall submit for review and approval to the City Engineer an evaluation of the velocity of concentrated runoff from the project and proposed erosive velocity control plans to be incorporated as part of the project design. 11. Prior to issuance of any grading permits for future development, the Design Engineer shall review and state that the discharge of surface runoff from the project will be performed in a manner to assure that increased peak flows from the project will not increase erosion immediately downstream of the system. This shall be reviewed and approved by both the Planning Director and the City Engineer. 12. Prior to issuance of grading permits for future development for each proposed development, the developer shall prepare and submit for review and approval to the city Engineer a drainage plan which will minimize any potential impacts from drainage flows to be altered by each proposed development. AIR QUALITY 1. Although the project will contribute to cumulative air quality impacts, a statement of overriding considerations was adopted for this cumulative impact. Furthermore, the project provides for alternative forms of transportation to reduce potential air quality impacts. TRANSPORTATION\CIRCULATION 1. Prior to any Final Map recordation, the developer shall submit to the City Engineer for his approval, a schedule for all road improvements to be constructed. The improvement schedule shall have all improvements scheduled for completion prior to the issuance of building permits of the last phase of construction 2, Prior to issuance of building permits for any unit or structure within the project the developer shall pay all traffic impact fees as established by City Council in accordance with City Codes in effect at the time of building permit issuance. BIOLOGY Prior to recordation of the first Final Map the developer shall submit for review and approval to the Planning Director landscape plans that shall include, but are not limited to, provisions to assure that landscaping materials used to replant cut and fill slopes in the vicinity of the preserved natural areas do not infest the native chaparral vegetation. The plant materials to be used must be approved by a biologist or horticulturist with a background in restoration of upland habitats. 6 02/12/98 3:28 PM COST/™^VILLAGES OF LA COSTA"MASTER PLAN 2. Onsite natural areas shall be adequately maintained in a natural condition and so stated in the Habitat Conservation Implementation Agreement NOISE 1. The applicant shall provide noise mitigation to comply with the mitigation measures designated in the Administrative Noise Policy. If the Noise Policy is revised and lower CNEL's become- acceptable, the applicant, may In i do a revised noise Analysis to comply with these standards- 2. The applicant shall include a 'note' on all building plans for future development specifying the hours that construction activities may occur. 3. Prior to the issuance of building permits for future development and when grading and structural drawings become available, the. developer shall submit for review and approval to the Planning Director detailed acoustical analyses with precise mitigation recommendations. 4. The Planning Director shall approve all onsite noise barriers. These barriers mitigation measures for the residential areas along El Camino Real, Olivenhain Road , Rancho Santa Fe Road and Calle Barcelona showing measures to achieve acceptable indoor (ie., 45 CNEL) and acceptable outdoor (i.e., 60 CNEL) noise levels, 5. Prior to the issuance of building permits for future development, the developer shall submit for review and approval to the Building Director plans based on the acoustical analyses for the noise barriers required to bring the outdoor noise level down to 60 CNEL along roadways in the project. 6. Prior to issuance of any building permits for future development, the Planning Director and the Building shall meet the requirements of ultimate buildout traffic noise reduction. The location of all noise barriers shall be shown on the overall design of the project plans to be approved by the Planning Director prior to approval of each Final Map. 7. Prior to issuance of any building permits for future development, plans to upgrade building materials and construction for residential units exposed to outdoor noise levels in excess of 60 CNEL sball be approved by the Planning Director. AESTHETICS 1- Prior to recordation of the first Final Map for future development the developer shall submit for review and approval to the Planning Director a landscape plan that includes, but is not limited to, preservation of existing trees where feasible . 2. Prior to recordation of the first Final Map for future development the applicant shall submit for review and approval to the Planning Director a plan for the undergrounding of all utility lines including, but not limited to, electric, telephone, street lighting and cable television. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, the applicant shall make the necessary arrangements with the utility companies for the installation of such 7 02/12/98 3:28PM COST)™/VILLAGES OF LA COSTATvlASTER PLAN facilities and shall submit a letter to the City as evidence that these arrangements have been made. 3. Prior to recordation of the first Final Map for future development the developer shall submit for review and approval to the Planning Director final designs for landscaping and building product type that minimize visual impacts on adjacent parcels CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits for future development, the developer shall agree that the initial brushing or removal of vegetation from the project be monitored and inspected by a qualified archaeologist and a qualified paleontologist. Compliance with this provision will be monitored by the Planning Director. 2. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits for future development, the developer shall agree that all grading activities shall be monitored by a qualified archaeologist and a qualified paleontologist to ensure that any of the sites which might individual parcels, including individual retaining walls, shall be limited to that shown on the Final Map. This statement shall also be included in the CC&Rs of the Homeowner's Association 3. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits for future development, the developer shall agree that any newly discovered deposits will require evaluation of their significance and that such deposits may require additional mitigation after their significance is determined by a qualified archaeologist. Compliance with this provision will be monitored by the Planning Director. 4. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits for future development, the developer shall agree that the paleontologist shall he allowed to divert or redirect grading in the area of an exposed fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and any necessary salvage. Compliance with this provision will be monitored by the City Engineer. 5. Prior to the issuance of any qrading permits for future development, the developer shall agree that all fossils collected shall be donated to an institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum. Compliance with this provision shall be monitored by the Planning Director. RECREATIONAL 1. All development in the Villages of La Costa Master Plan will comply with the provisions of the La Costa Parks Agreement.. 02/12/98 3:28 PM VILLAGES OF LA COSTA MASTER PLAN EIA SUPPLEMENTAL INFOMATION. The Environmental Impact Assessment form includes information from the following documents that are not enclosed as attachments due to their volume: • EIR 307 - Final Environmental Impact Report for the La Costa Master Plan and General Plan Amendment, certified April 27, 1976. • Habitat Conservation Plan/Ongoing Multi-Species Plan for properties in the southeast quadrant of the City of Carlsbad, California • Rancho Santa Fe Road EIR, January 1992 • Habitat Conservation Plan Implementation Agreement, June 1995 • City of Carlsbad General Plan 1994 These documents should be available in City files. If you are unable to locate them, Please contact our office and we will provide copies for your use.