HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-06-20; Planning Commission; Resolution 30221
x\ rli, - .- .I 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 I
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3022
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A 180 LOT
SUBDIVISION WITH 174 RESIDENTIAL LOTS GENERALLY LOCATED
AT THE SOUTH EASTERLY CORNER OF THE CITY ADJACENT TO
THE CITY OF ENCINITAS.
CASE NAME: RANCHO VERDE
CASE NO.: CT 89-18/PUD 89-23/HDP 89-35/SUP 90-5
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 6th day of June 1'
20th day of June, 1990, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by lav
said request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all t8
arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted 1
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission consider€
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Cc
follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planninl
hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration according to
hereof, based on the following findings:
dated March 29, 1990, and "PII", dated March 13, 1990, attached hereto m
Findinns ImDacts and Mitigation:
1. Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the emir
will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures ha-
to the project to a point where clearly no significant effect would occur;
2. There is no substantial evidence that the project as conditioned may hav
effect on the enviromenL
..I.
....
3. ,
" I1 e 0
1
2
3
3. That the Planning Commission finds and determines that the Mitigat(
Declaration has been completed in conformance with the California Fnvironmt
Act, the state guidelines implementing said Act, the monitoring requirement
in Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and the provisions of Title 19 of '
Municipal Code and that the Planning Commission has reviewed, considered a:
the information contained in the Declaration.
4 II
5
6
Conditions:
1. All conditions of Resolutions 3023, 3024, 3025, and 3026 are incorporatc
reference-
7 2. The proposal shall comply with the environmental mitigation monitor a
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning 9
indicated on attached Exhibit "I", dated June 6, 1990.
10 of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of June, 1990, by the fo
Ill/ to wit:
12
13
14
AYES: Chairperson Schramm, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Holmes
Marcus & Hall.
NOES: None. I
15 ABSENT: Commissioner Erwin.
16 ABSTAIN: None.
17
18
19
20 I ATTEST:
SHARON SCHRA", Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
21
22
23 PLANNING DIRECTOR
24
25
26
27 PC RES0 NO. 3022 -2-
28
.. I. ~
,( ,
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESVLOCATION: RANCHO VERDE: Located at the southeast comer of the
of Carlsbad.
APN: 295-031-17, 264-010-21,22,23,25; 264-220-71
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 174 single family residential lots on 216.1 gross acres, in the
R-1 25,000 and PC zones.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described pr
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said revie
Conditional Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant irr
on the environment) is hereby issued €or the subject project. Justification for this action :
file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Conditional Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file il
Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments fro1
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 21
of date of issuance.
DATED: March 29, 1990
CASE NO: CT 89-18/HDP 89-35/
PUD 89-23/SUP 90-5
APPLICANT: Brighton Homes
PUBLISH DATE: March 29, 1990
Planning Director
2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 - (619) 438
.. I.
.' .I 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. CT 89-18/HDP 89-35/PUD 89-23/SUP
DATE : March 13, 1990
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Rancho Verde
2. APPLICANT: Briqhton Homes
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 505 N. Tustin Avenue
Suite 250
Santa Ana, CA 92705
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: October 25, 1989
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 174 Sinale Family Residential Lots or
216.1 Gross acres
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ~~
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires tha conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project 1
significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact i appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This c identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be il the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report 01:
Declaration.
* A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no SI evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a signific on the environment. On the checklist, llNOfv will be checked to ind. determination.
* An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is s'
evidence that any aspect of the project may cause a sisnificant eff environment. The project may qualify for a Negative Declaration h adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can insiqnificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under th, flYES-siglf and ffYES-insigff respectively.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measur at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION.
attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts wl otherwise,be determined significant.
.. . .. .. 0 0
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: E? ($38
1. Result in unstable earth conditions or increase the exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards?
2. Appreciably change the topography or any unique physical features? X
3. Result in or be affected by erosion of soils either on or off the site?
4. Result in changes in the deposition of beach sands, or modification of the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? X
5. Result in substantial adverse effects on ambient air quality?
6. Result in substantial changes in air movement, odor, moisture l or temperature?
7. Substantially change the course or flow of water (marine, fresh or flood waters)? X
8. Affect the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water or public water supply?
9. Substantially increase usage or cause depletion of any natural resources?
10. Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
11. Alter a significant archeological,
paleontological or historical site, structure or object? X
-2-
.. .. , e 0
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: Y% (inYsg$
12. Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic plants) ? X
13. Introduce new species of plants into an area, or a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species?
14. Reduce the amount of acreage of any agricultural crop or affect prime, unique or other farmland of state or local importance?
or numbers of any species of animals . (birds, land animals, all water dwelling organisms
and insects? X
15. Affect the diversity,of species, habitat
16. Introduce new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? X
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 7% (&$?
17. Alter the present or planned land use of an area?
18. Substantially affect public utilities,
schools, police, fire, emergency or other
public services? X
19. Result in the need for new or modified sewer systems, solid waste or hazardous waste control systems?
20. Increase existing noise levels?
21. Produce new light or glare?
-3-
..
'C ,. 0 e
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: E7 frki&
22. Involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to, oil, pesthides, chemicals or radiation)?
23. Substantially alter the density of the human population of an area? X
24. Affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? X
X 25. Generate substantial additional traffic?
26. Affect existing parking facilities, or
create a large demand for new parking?
27. Impact existing transportation Systems or alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods?
28. Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic?
29. Increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
30. Interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans?
31. Obstruct any scenic vista or create an aesthetically offensive public view?
32. Affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities?
-4-
*. .. ' . .. 0 a
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
7% gg,
33. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wild- life 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 en-
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory.
dangered plant or animal, or eliminate
34. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the dis- advantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.)
35. Does the project have the possible environmental effects which are in- dividually limited but cumulatively considerable? (IICumulatively con- siderable" means that the incremental
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
effects of an individual project are
36. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
-5-
,' , ..
I, .. .. e 0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Physical Environment
The property is not known to have unstable ground conditions or have sit exposure to geologic hazards. The proposed grading on site will sign. alter the existing contours of the hills. A balanced site is being pro
the majority of development being considered is hilltop versus v hillside. Grading quantities proposed are calculated at approximately 6
Ordinance quantities of less than 8000 cubic yards per acre are accepta project design has incorporated undulation on the manufactured slopes w
reduce visual impacts of the proposed grading and slope planting wi:
erosion.
Blueline streams have been identified within the project boundary. Alt overall subdivision design has been developed to avoid the stream collector street necessary for the project, Calle Acervo, crosses the st Mitigation proposed includes the issuance of a section 1601/1603 permit
California Department of Fish and Game if required by that agency. Any impact to wetlands areas may require the issuance of a 404 permit as d by the Army Corp of Engineers.
Portions of a 100 year flood plain bisect a north westerly section of A Special Use Permit submitted to and reviewed by the City has indicate( effect of encroachment into the floodplain will not have significan effects.
Air quality was not identified as a significant impact as a result project. Air quality will however be effected by increases in tra: recognition of air qualities regional stature CEQA guidelines section states1f[i]f an air emission or water discharge meets the existing sta a particular pollutant, the lead agency may presume that the em discharge of the pollutant will not be a significant effect on the envi Total project emissions do not exceed threshold criteria.
Although implementation of the project will have an effect on consu natural resources and use of fuel or energy, projected levels of consur within service levels.
Two archeological sites have been identified within the project boundal the EIR 82-3, for the Wooley Annexation. Field investigation was cor May 10, 1989 and as a result of the survey and testing, the information of the site was exhausted. The subsequent report was reviewed by tk:
those findings.
yards per disturbed acre. Per the City of Carlsbad Hillside De
Carlsbad Historic Commission which has made recommendations to furthe]
-6-
I. . .. .. ,. .. 0 a
Bioloqical Environment
One State endangered and four sensitive species of plants have been 1 on site.
1. San Diego thornmint: State endangered species
2. California adolphia: CNPS list 2 sensitive plant
3. Palmers grapplinghook: CNPS list 2 sensitive plant
4. San Diego marsh-elder: CNPS list 2 sensitive plan
5, Ashy spike-moss: CNPS list 4 sensitive plant
Diegan coastal sage scrub and southern willow scrub are listed with 1
Department of Fish and Game (llCDFGtl) as high-priority community sensitive plant and animal species.
The majority of the above mentioned plants are found on south or southw
slopes. Project design has attempted to minimize the impacts to thes designating most hillside areas as open space lots, minimizing gradi:
areas, and concentrating lots to hill tops versus hillsides. A r program to revegitate those contiguous areas that are barren implemented to further mitigate loss of sensitive plant species.
Two sensitive wildlife species were observed on the project site.
1. The Northern harrier hawk: A species of Special Concern bl Natural Diversity data Base.
2. The Black-tailed gnatcatcher: A species of special concern b Natural Diversity Data Base and a Category 2 species on tl Register.
The Northern harrier is threatened by the loss of grassland habitaf Black-tailed gnatcatcher is threatened by the loss of the Diegan co scrub. Human encroachment and the future presence of domestic pets dogs) will also threaten the existence of these sensitive species. Re
of habitats could reduce the threat to these species however zoo1
Wientraub has indicated that even with the complete retention of a
cannot be guaranteed.
Appropriate mitigation is to revegitate habitat areas and minimize enc
New plant species which would be a barrier to the replenishment o species are not being proposed. Open space lots will be maintained i1 condition but could be revegitated with indigenous plant species. Pr part of the site is being used for agricultural production and identified as prime, unique, or important on either the State or loc
sage scrub the preservation of the Black-tailed gnatcatcher in thi
-7-
..
-, , .. .. 0 0 Human Environment
The General Plan and Zoning of the property designate single family rt development at a density ranging from 0-1.5 units per acre for the pro: No variation from this density figure has been proposed. Although thc development land use patterns for contiguous properties in the City of require larger individual lots, compatability has not been identif
issue. Based on gross acreage the project density is .8 units per ac
Public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public se be provided by the independent agencies under current service level cap Verifications of service availability are on file with the City of C:
Noise levels will be increased on-site during construction phases. M involving time limits on work hours and equipment noise rnufflins implemented. Once occupancy occurs, noise will be generated by autom trucks, human voices, radio and television and household appliances noise levels acceptable are governed by the City's municipal code a enforced on an individual basis. In addition, the change in land form noise patterns and light reflectiveness. Street lighting and interic will be accomplished through the installation of standard fixtures whi city's criteria on spread and intensity.
Hazardous substances are not a part of this proposal however approxim: cubic yards of diesel contaminated soil has been identified on-site. the presence of the soil the ground water in the vicinity of the soj hydrocarbons above drinking water standards. In addition, approxi cubic yards of pesticide contaminated soil have been identified. A I action plan will be proposed to clean the hydrocarbon contaminated soi
and remove the pesticide contaminated soil. All soils and water PI
plans must be completed prior to construction.
Increases are expected in human population, the provision of k vehicular traffic. Based on 174 single family units, 1740 average are projected and a population increase of 430 persons at 2.471 per u increases alone are not considered significant. Necessary semi provided and density projections are within limits set by the Gel Through implementation of Local Facilities Management Plan: Zone 11 cumulative impacts to services and circulation will be mitigated.
No other impacts have been identified.
-8-
.* , .. .. 0 0 ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS:
a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate Site design c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the s
e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alter- nate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative.
a) Phased development of the project: As proposed the projec.
constructed in two phases. Phasing the project will not u
reduce any potential impacts however it will provide time for improvements to be completed as needed. Phasing the pro: retains those areas which will not be constructed immediate11 present state until time of development. The negative il phasing will be borne predominantly by those who have occup
phases.
b) Alternate site designs/Alternate scale of development: TI could be redesigned to avoid all sensitive biological areas. so a result could be a reduction in the number of lots achic an increase in development cost per lot which would in turn on to the consumer. The current site design has minimized :
biological resources. Reducing the scale of developmen reduction in lot sizes could have a similar effect on 1 resources.
c) Alternate uses for the site: Of those uses permitted w designated zoning classification, there are none that wou significantly lesser impact on the environment. An alterna' housing product could have similar impacts to traffic, air q-
biology. Green houses and agricultural crops could additional chemicals into the soil and encroach into sensiti areas to a greater degree.
d) Development at a future time: Although development at a will allow existing conditions to continue, the ultimate the environment will be the same when development occurs.
e) Alternate sites for the development: By transferring deve
an other site many of the same impacts could be identified. no other areas within the City limits which have an R-1-25 and therefore make this property unique for its intended u
f) No project alternative: Under this scenario, the Project continue to sit vacant. This use, while not in conflicl City's General Plan, would not result in the furtherance of Housing opportunities and associated economic benefits wou or deferred pending ultimate site development. Similarly, under this alternative, existing site condit remain. A hazardous materials assessment has identified tl of soil contaminants (petroleum hydrocarbons and pesticide: In the absence of the project, these conditions may rema
remediation. As a result, the "no project" alternati environmentally superior to the proposed action.
-9-
.. ..
_I
c 0 0
On September 3, 1989 Dr. Joel Weintraub, a vertebrate z visited the site to document the findings of earlier biologicz (see Amendix D) . Based upon that research Dr. Weintraul: status report on the black-tailed gnatcatcher, attached 1 Armendix E, examined the viability of potential mitigation on existing biological resources, including implementation c project" alternative. He concludes that avoidance of the a
Would NOT guarantee the survival of the Black- tailed Gnatcatcher in this area. Urbanization is rapidly approaching this parcel and with it
will come increased human disturbances including pets. It is likely that if the northern hill containing the best sage parcel
were to remain undeveloped, the characteristic
sage animals may still disappear from the site.
-10-
.. .. . . .. .. e e
DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect c the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
X I find that although the proposed project could have a significal
effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect
this case because the mitigation measures described on an attache sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative Declaration will be proposed.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
',&L.Cb\ \3 j 1 qqfi /j. \ &
Datd - ' Signature
4-
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
1. The impacts to topography and visual aesthetics will be reduced tl incorporation of the following design strategies: (a) Grading fol pads and roadways shall be accomplished in a manner that would ma. appearance of natural hillsides: (b) innovative and varyil techniques shall be utilized: (c) to avoid excessive grading, rosa follow natural contours where feasible; (d) a landscape plan prepared that satisfies both the need for adequate erosion contrc need for visual enhancement of the manufactured slopes and undevc areas. Landscaping shall be accomplished as soon as practical aft'
activities have been completed: and (3) manufactured slopes sh minimal height and contour graded.
2. Erosion control measures shall be incorporated into all grad submitted to the City to minimize potential increases in short-te and sediment transport both on-site and downstream. Such measurc
provided in accordance with City requirements, and shall include revegetation of graded areas and the use of temporary control dev sediment traps, desilting basins, berm and perimeter sandbagging
3. In order to mitigate potential impacts on water quality, a stree, program shall be implemented on-site for all internal roadways.
-11-
I. ., . i -. e e 4, The impacts associated with future development can be miti - conforming to the following measures:
a) following grading, temporary berms should be constructed on perimeter to collect sediment from each lot;
b) all artificial slopes should be landscaped after gradin5 combination of trees, shrubs, and groundcover. Special emphas
be placed on utilizing native species, whenever possible;
c) the tops of all graded pads should be graded to drain away manufactured slopes and supplied with small berms around the E
d) grading should be scheduled to occur following the annual rair
if practical. If roads and down drains cannot be paved pri
following rainy season, they should be sandbagged, where r during the rainy season in order to minimize erosion and transport; e) wherever necessary energy dissipaters should be included in t
to reduce the velocity of runoff into existing canyons.
5, Major manufactured slopes shall incorporate contour grading teck
soften visual appearance. These techniques may include 1
undulation of slopes, variations of slope gradients at various 1
intervals as well as top and toe of slope, and contour round manufactured slopes meet natural slopes to produce smooth transil
6. Applicant shall submit a precise grading plan. Precise plans prepared by a civil engineer and be based on recommendations o engineer and/or engineering geologist. Grading plans shall be r( the city Engineer and Planning Department, shall be subject to
permit, and shall conform to the terms and conditions impose! Hillside Development Permit.
The overall shape, height and grade of any cut and fill slope developed in concert with the existing natural contours and sc; natural terrain.
During grading a soils engineer and engineering geologist sha:
adequate inspection of the site and specify changes, if necessar
7. Grading plans shall include an erosion, siltation and dust contr
be approved by the City Engineer. That plan shall include prov mitigation measures, such as temporary irrigation, temporary sed basins and sandbagging and shall include a watering and compactio The plan shall ensure that discharge of surface runoff from the s construction activities shall not result in increased erosion or
of existing drainage facilities. A cash bond for proper el
fugitive dust control and clean up shall be required.
8. Construction equipment should be stored on the project site duri
activities to eliminate heavy-duty equipment truck trips.
9. All construction vehicles should be equipped with the most mo
mufflers and all engines should be kept in proper tune.
-12-
.' . >I
0' 'C -. e 0 10. Grading and other construction activities, including the re maintenance of construction equipment, should be restricted to th and those days as may be established under the City's Noise Ordin
11. To control fugitive dust during clearing, grading, earthmo excavation, the applicant shall institute a regular watering PI affected areas, or such other dust prevention measures as may be
by the City and the Air Quality Management District, pursuant to
Rule 403 requirements. Water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be
to keep all areas subject to vehicular traffic damp enough tc fugitive dust.
When in the judgment of the City or the Air Quality Management
wind conditions create a fugitive dust nuisance such as may oc Santa Ana wind conditions, applicant shall initiate a watering or I suppressant program to minimize wind erosion hazards.
12. The following information shall be submitted to the City pric issuance of grading permits:
a) The location of prehistoric sites SDi-8436 and SDi-8437 on t
b) Provide a catalogue for surface and subsurface artifacts. c) Update and record,with the State of California and the City 0:
site record forms for SDi-8436 and SDi-8437 to reflect one PI
site at these localities.
d) Update the submitted report of May 12, 1989 Report by RECON 1 the site record change from two prehistoric sites to only one s the proposed development.
e) Label Figure 3 of the May 12, 1989 Report by RECON with the number for the site tested and found not to be important.
f) Provide site boundary for the site tested and method of dete Note that the City of Carlsbad' proposed archaeological guide require shovel test pits to determine site boundary.
Santa Fe and Encinitas Quadrangles.
13. The canyons and other areas not to be impacted directly should be from degradation by permanent conservation open space easement easements shall be incorporated into the grading and construct Grading of the site should be monitored by a qualified biologist that impacts to open space areas are minimized.
14. Applicant shall prepare, as a component of applicant's approved plan, a resource management plan that includes specific stax revegetation, including willow scrub and coastal sage scrub re guidelines, to ensure the reestablishment of those habitat area That management plan shall identify a plan palette, plant arrange and spacing) and planting guidelines, Applicant shall compl] requirements identified in the resource management plan.
15. Opportunities for habitat replacement and enhancement, consi public health and safety considerations, shall be maximized and 1 the greatest extent feasible in an effort to replace lost habi
Replacement and enhancement efforts shall maximize taxonomical
plant. materials to achieve the greatest value to wildlife as cove
-13-
.. . ui .' , 0 0 breeding areas.
16. In order to facilitate replacement of willow scrub habitat, the cen
space area is proposed as a potential site for habitat replacemen acre expansion to the existing willow scrub habitat in that proposed.
17.
18.
No structure shall be located, constructed or substantially improv than circulation improvements authorized under the approved traci
properties which are within watercourse or open space areas un: structures constitute health and safety or flood control improvt resource management efforts approved by the City and consistent terms and conditions of the Section 1601/1603 permit, if applical
the California Department of Fish and Game, and such improvements
substantially impede the flow of water or result in any increase levels during the occurrence of the 100-year flood discharge.
Applicant shall obtain a Section 1601/1603 permit from the Ci Department of Fish and Game if required for any proposed alter2
existing natural watercourses on-site and shall comply with any permit requirements associated therewith. Applicant, in conjunci
the Department of the Amy Corp of Engineers, shall determine whet
permit shall be required for alterations to wetland areas. If ap] applicant shall obtain said permit and comply with those condition: therewith.
19. Pursuant to section 1601/1603 of the Fish and Game Code, applica contact the California Department of Fish and Game to determine ac permitting requirements, if any, in compliance with that statuti subsequent permit is required form the California Department of Game, applicant shall undertake and complete those actions thereunder.
20. Areas that support populations of San Diego thornmint shall be 1 from future impacts (e.g. off-road vehicles, trampling, etc.). An
consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game
conducted prior to project implementation and the results include project's open space easement and resource management plan consultation shall also formalize a monitoring program which would
shall also include a program to monitor the populations for two yei
the project is complete and residences are occupied to assess the of the protection program. Adjustments to the San Diego t preservation plan shall be made as needed to ensure the continued E of the populations.
the protected areas during grading and project construction activit
21. Impacts to the coastal sage scrub communities shall be mini] monitoring grading in the areas of this habitat by a qualified biolc by hand clearing fire safety zones instead of with the use i equipment. Compensation for the loss of this habitat type shall be
revegetating cut and fill slopes with coastal sage scrub species n the area if approved and consistent with Fire Marshall and fuel modi zone requirements. This revegetation would help replace valuable for the black-tailed gnatcatchers in the area.
-14-
-1
-< f Yt 0 e 22. Applicant, in discussions with the City, and consistent with pub1 and safety, shall consider the incorporation of large diameter
conduits under those roadway segments which intersect natural 01 areas, to counteract the effects of fragmentation of open space ax-
by those roadways, to enhance wildlife mobility and to eliminate 01
the attrition of species over time by facilitating dispe
recolonization.
23. Low-intensity lighting should be used for roadway illumination and where consistent with public safety. Street lighting plans
submitted to the City for review and approval.
24. Development of the site shall conform to those recommendations pre the "Preliminary Geotechnical Study--Proposed Rancho Verde Re
Developmentts (-GeoSoil, Inc., February 16, 1989) .
25. Trucks importing or exporting soil material and/or debris shall b
and/or sprinkler prior to entering public streets to minimize fugitive dust.
26. Applicant shall obtain any and all permits and comply with any info or noticing requirements as may be required by the City of carlsbac Diego County Department of Health Services, the Air Pollutior District, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the C department of Health Services, the California Department of Transp
and any other permitting agency having jurisdiction thereupon, elimination of contaminated soils, the removal of underground stora and the remediation of groundwater contaminants, and shall comply
and all terms and conditions as may be imposed upon applicant permitting agencies.
27. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the project site certified by the San Diego County Department of Health Services ( Materials Management Division) indicating that the site has been ef
mitigated of contaminated soil and groundwater conditions.
28. Prior to the approval of the final tract map the San Diego Gas and Company shall determine that existing facilities are adequate project demands.
29. Incorporate energy conservation measures into parcel-specific c accordance with energy conservation requirements imposed by the C
Energy Commission and Title 24 of the California Administratj Subdivision plans and architectural and landscape design pla promote, to the maximum extent feasible, ltpassive design" stral maximize solar exposure, shading and natural cooling.
30. Applicant shall provide the City with documentation, prepar hydrologist or civil engineer, ensuring that proposed improvements drain facilities are adequate to ensure low-velocity flows throug
drainage areas to prevent erosion and preserve the ecological bi
those habitat areas.
-15-
, ,- '* . b 0 0
31. The applicant shall construct storm drains coincident with the de of the subdivision map area. These improvements shall be co according to final engineering drawings to be approved by the City
32. In conjunction with the recordation of the final tract map, applic dedicate all necessary right-of-way easements for all on-site stl facilities to the city or such other entity as may be identifie City, in a form acceptable by the City or such other entity.
33. To reduce erosion and siltation in downstream watercourses, applic explore the use of automatic sprinkler systems, soil-moisture devices, and drip irrigation systems.
34. During grading and construction, steps shall be taken to ensure waste chemicals, especially lubricants, paints, and fuels, are contained and transported off the site where they shall be
destroyed or stored.
35. Prior to the approval of the final tract map, the applicant shall the City Engineer for approval, a hydrology study, preparl hydrologist, civil engineer or engineering geologist, demonstral
surface runoff from the subdivided area to off-site parcels adversely impact those parcels as a result of proposed activit including specific design parameters for project drainage facil appropriate to accommodate site-specific demands and in accordance criteria, design standards and construction requirements of the C. required drainage facilities shall be of a size and type sufficient runoff waters originating from upflow properties through the property to a discharge site as approved by the City.
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
-16-