HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-06-18; Planning Commission; Resolution 4099e *
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4099
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING AN
AMENDED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, AND SITE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO SUBDIVIDE 8.52 ACRES INTO
TWENTY SIX SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, , THREE LOTS TO
PROVIDE LEGAL ACCESS TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES
AND FOUR OPEN SPACE LOTS FOR A TOTAL OF 33 LOTS
ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH
SIDE OF CAFUSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE AT DONNA DRIVE
IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: PACIFIC VIEW ESTATES
CASE NO: CT 96-03PUD 96-03/HDP 96-03/SDP 96-04
WHEREAS, Pacific View LTD, “Developer”, has filed a verified application with the Ci
Carlsbad regarding property owned by Daniel W. Ryan, “Owner”, described as
A Portion of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of
Section 32, Township 11 south, Range 4 west, San Bernardino
Base and Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 21st day of May 1997, 41
June 1997, and the 18th of June 1997, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed bj
to consider said request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testir-
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff,
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all fa1
relating to the amended Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Plan
I I
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
e 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Pla
Commission hereby APPROVES the mended Mitigated Negative DeclaI
according to Exhibit "ND" dated January 22, 1997, and "PII" and rt
Mitigation Monitoring Program dated January 15, 1997, attached heretc
made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed
considered the amended Mitigated Negative Declaration dated January 22, 1997
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and said comments thereon
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, on file in the Planning Depart]
prior to approving the project. Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereor
Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will h
significant effect on the environment and hereby APPROVES the amended Miti]
Negative Declaration.
2. The Planning Commission does hereby find that the amended Mitigated Neg
Declaration dated January 22, 1997, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Pro
have been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environm
Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures o
City of Carlsbad.
3. The Planning Commission finds that the amended Mitigated Negative Declaration (
January 22, 1997, reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commissia
the City of Carlsbad.
4. The Record of Proceedings for this project consists of the following:
a) The report, CEQA Findings, EIA Part 11, dated January 22, 1997, anc
Mitigation Monitoring Program;
b) All reports, applications, memoranda, maps, letters and other plan
documents prepared by the project applicant and the City of Carlsbad
are before the decisionmakers as determined by the City Clerk;
c) All documents submitted by members of the public and public agencic
connection with the Mitigated Negative Declaration on the project;
d) Minutes of public hearings; and
l e) Matters of common knowledge to the City of Carlsbad which they consi
including but not limited to, the Carlsbad General Plan, Carlsbad 201
Ordinance, and Local Facilities Management Plan, which may be foun
City Hall located at 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive and the Commu
I PC RES0 NO. 4099 -2-
I/ e 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Development Office located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive in the custody (
City Clerk and Director of Planning.
5. The Planning Commission finds that this project qualifies as a subsequent developmc
the City’s MEIR (MEIR 93-01) under Section 21083.3 of CEQA for analys
cumulative air quality and traffic impacts and that all feasible mitigation measw
project alternatives identified in the MEIR 93-01 which are appropriate to
Subsequent Project have been incorporated into this Subsequent Project.
6. The initial study shows that as mitigated there is no substantial evidence that the pl
may have a significant impact on the environment.
7. The site contains disturbed habitat (4.37 acres), low quality coastal sage scrub
acres) and southern mixed chaparral (2.2 acres). The project has the potenti
significantly impact endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats UI
mitigation is incorporated into the project. To reduce potential impacts to less
significant, the project has been conditioned to mitigate for impacts to coastal
scrub, the habitat of the California gnatcatcher which is a listed species undel
Endangered Species Act.
8. The project site is located adjacent to Carlsbad Village Drive, a secondary arte
A noise study was completed for the project which concluded that noise coul~
mitigated to meet the City standard of 60 dBA CNEL exterior and 45 dBA Cl
interior with the placement of a 5 1/2 ‘ noise wall along Carlsbad Village Drive
the installation of STC 32 windows on the second story for Lots 25 and 26.
9. The topography of the site is varied, consisting of gently sloping to steep hills
which generally slope from the center of the site downward to the east and v
The proposed 64,500 cubic yards of grading for the project will not result in
unstable earth conditions or increase the exposure of people or property to geol
hazards.
10. The cultural survey prepared for the site identified one potential cultural resol
site which the study concluded was not significant. Potential impacts
paleontological resources which could occur during grading shall be mitig:
pursuant to the mitigation monitoring program .
Planning Conditions:
1. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are requ
as part of the approved amended Mitigated Negative Declaration as contained in Plm
Commission Resolution No. 4099 and contained in the Mitigation Monito~
Program for Pacific View Estates attached hereto as Exhibit “Z” and made a 1
hereof.
PC RES0 NO. 4099 -3 -
0 e
1
2
3
4
5
2. The Developer shall diligently implement, or cause the implementation of, the P:
View Estates Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
3. The applicant shall apply for a 4(d) “Take” permit following submitt,
application for grading permit and prior to the issuance of that grading permi
applicant shall obtain approval of the 4(d) “Take” permit by the Carlsbad
Council.
6
7
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the P1a1
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of June 1997, b
8
9
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Nielsen, Commissioners Compas, Monroy, N
10 Savary and Welshons
11 NOES: None
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
ABSENT: Commissioner Heineman
ABSTAIN: None
L_-~,) ~ I=z :..* *“ . ,/lJ‘ ’ ,“ , -.
,,/ ,.“ ,,pr“
i /’ 1, L.“ d”~~*~~~.-”-“,“4 -
,A &.”,
,’ ,.& { ,/Ti 9
ROGERT NIELSEN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
21
0- 22 MICHAEL J. WZM~T~LER
23 II Planning Director
24
25
26
27
28 PC RES0 NO. 4099 -4-
AMENDED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddressLocation: Located on the north side of Carlsbad Village Drive .at Donna
Drive, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California.
Project Description: Request for a Tentative Tract Map, Planned Development Permit,
Hillside Development Permit and Site Development Plan to
subdivide an 8.52 acre site into 26 single family residential lots, 3
lots to provide legal access to adjacent property, and 4 open space
lots for a total of 33 lots on the property. The residential units on
the 26 lots would be two-stories, 30 feet in height and be 2,105 to
2,820 square feet in size. Four of the units are proposed to contain
460 square feet, first floor, second dwelling units. The project will
also contain a recreational area and RV storage facility.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within thirty (30) days
of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Teresa Woods in the Planning
Department at (619) 438-1 161, extension 4447.
DATED: JANUARY 22,1997
CASE NO: CT 96-03/PUD 96-03/HDP 96-03/SDP 96-04
CASE NAME: PACIFIC VIEW ESTATES
PUBLISH DATE: JANUARV 77 1997 l!u&Q MICHAEL J. nvLuvuzLcK
LA. A ”, I,, I A ‘n
T TA+ 71 ivrh pn
Planning Director
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (619) 438-1161 - FAX (61 9) 438-0894
0 e
REVISED - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CT 96-03RUD 96-03/HDP 96-03/SDP 96-04
DATE: January 15,1997
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Pacific View Estates
2. APPLICANT: Pacific View, LTD., Contact: Don Jack
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: PO Box 2198, Carlsbad, CA 920 18
1619) 720-9785
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: March 25,1996
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for a tentative tract map, planned development permit,
hillside development permit, and site development plan to subdivide an 8.52 acre site into 26
single-familv residential lots, 3 lots to provide legal access to adiacent uroperty, and 4 open
space lots, for a total of 33 lots on the uroperty. The residential lots range in size from 7.002 to
29.468 square feet. The residential units on the 26 lots would be two-stories, 30-feet in height,
and be 2,105 to 2,820 square feet in size. Four of the units are proposed to contain 460 square
foot, first-floor, second dwelling units. The proiect will also include a recreational area and
recreational vehicle storage facility.
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.
a Land Use and Planning Transportation/Circulation [7 Public Services
Population and Housing Biological Resources Utilities & Service Systems
Geological Problems Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
m Water 0 Hazards m Cultural Resources
Air Quality Noise c] Recreation
[7 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
0 DETERMINATION. 0
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
Ix) 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.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
0 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.
0 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 voided 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.
L Ad" 1 lxei 43
Planner Signature Date
I *I 7
i;?nAcC/.^"\'l_d,& 1/1&7- Planning DirectoH Signhke Date I
2 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0 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.
0 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.
0 “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.
0 “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.
0 “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
0 Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but & 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).
0 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.
0 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.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
e 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.
e 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 I1 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.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project?
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
0 cl
0 0
0
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
population projections? o
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area 0
or extension of major infrastructure)?
housing? 0 c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (#5)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#5)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#5)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#5)
e), Landslides or mudflows? (#5)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
g) Subsidence of the land? (#5)
h) Expansive soils? (#5)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#5)
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#5)
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?
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?
0 cl 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0
0
0
0
5
0
Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0
0
0
[XI
0 ,o
0
Less Than No
Significan Impact t Impact
[XI 0 cl 1x1
0 [XI 0 [XI
0 [XI
[XI 0
Ixi 0
0 w
[XI w w 0 o w
[XI w 0
0 0 0 Ixi
[XI
0 0 IXI
0 0 o [XI
0 1x1
0 1x1
Rev. 03/28/96
0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Impact
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? 0
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through 0
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability?
0 Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significan Impact
Mitigation Incorporated
Unless t Impact
0 0 El
0 0 [XI
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality?
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
0 .o 0' [XI 0 0 0 [XI
otherwise available for public water supplies? 0 o o w
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (# 10)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#lo)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#lo)
existing or projected air quality violation? (#IO)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (# 10)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#9)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
049)
proposal result in:
[XI
0 0
0
[x]
0
0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0 0
0 [XI 0 IXI
0 [XI
0 0 0 [x]
0 [XI
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (#9)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (#9)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
0 0 0 [XI 0 0 0 [XI
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (#9) 0 0 0 [XI .._ g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#9)
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? (#6)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#6,
#4) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#6)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(#6) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#6; #7)
0
0
0
0
0
(7
0
[XI
IXI
[XI
0
0
o w
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 [XI
0 [XI
6 Rev. 03/28/96
0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
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?
proposal?
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? (#2, #3)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#2, #3)
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?
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services?
XILUTILITIES 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
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
e) Storm water drainage?
f) Solid waste disposal?
g) Local or regional water supplies?
facilities?
7
0
Potentially Potentially
Significant Significant Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0 o 0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 Lzl 0 [XI
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 o
0 17 0 0
Less Than No
Significan Impact t Impact
0 [XI R w
0 [XI
0
0
0
0
I8
w
[XI w
IXI
IXI 0 0 o
[XI '0
[XI 0 IXI 17 w o w 0
0 IXI 0 Ix1 0 1x1
IXI 0 [XI 0 w 0 €3
Rev. 03/28/96
e a Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
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?
0 0 cl
Potentially Less Than No Significant Significan Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless t Impact
0 0 [XI 0 Ix1 0 0 w 0
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#8)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#I)
c) Affect historical resources?
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
0 E3 0 0 0 CI w 0 0 0 0 w 0 0 €XI 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?
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?
0
0
cl
0
0
0
[I]. o w
0 El 0
0 cl El
0 w 0
0 0 m
0 0 [XI
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
8 Rev. 03/28/96
0 a a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects fkom 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 fiom the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
9 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL, EVALUATION
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The 8.52 acre site is located on the north side of Carlsbad Village Drive at Donna Drive.
Topographically, the site consists of hilly terrain containing a hilltop which generally falls away
on all sides. Elevations on the site range Erom approximately 200 feet to 288 feet above mean
sea level. The primary soil type on the site is Santiago Formation. The Santiago Formation is
characterized by a thin base1 conglomeration that is overlined by fine-to-medium-grained, gray
green or brown to buff sandstone. The site is presently undeveloped and has been previously
disturbed. The majority of the project site contains disturbed habitat (4.37 acres). Low quality
coastal sage scrub (1.95 acres) exists within the central portion of the site. Approximately 2.2
acres of the site is occupied by southern mixed chaparral. No wetland plant communities exist
on the site. .. . ..
1. LAND USE PLANNING
dc) The project site has a RLM (Residential Low-Medium) General Plan Designation, which
has a density range of 0-4 dwelling units per acre and a Growth Management Control
Point of 3.2 ddac. Under the existing General Plan Designation, with a 3.2 ddac Growth
Management Control Point, this project would be permitted 24 residential units. As may
be allowed under Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, the applicants have
requested to exceed the Growth Management Control Point of 3.2 ddac on the site. As
proposed the project would contain 30 dwelling units (26 market rate and 4 affordable) at
a density of 3.97 ddac, which is within the RLM Range of 0-4 ddac. The project
proposes to provide 4 second dwelling units as affordable. The project is compatible with
the small lot single family projects to the north and west, Multiple family apartment
project to the east and single family development to the south across Carlsbad Village
Drive. There is vacant property to the west that is designated by the General Plan for RM
residential densities which permits a range of 4-8 ddac with a Growth Management
Control Point of 6 ddac, with which the proposed project would be compatible. There
are three parcels located to the north of this site which range in size from .78-1 acre in
size. Each of these parcels currently contains one single family home and could be
further subdivided in the future. These parcels are designated RLM in the Carlsbad
General Plan. The proposed single family residential development will be compatible
with these properties.
b) The proposed project will be consistent with all existing environmental plans and policies
adopted by other agencies including Section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act (4(d)
Rule).
c) The proposed project is an infill development. The site has not been used for agriculture
in the recent past. There are numerous mature eucalyptus trees on the site which
evidence the lack of farming of the site over the years. Therefore, there are no anticipated
impacts to agriculture from this project.
d) The project site is currently surrounded by residential development. The proposed
project will be compatible with the surrounding developments. The project will provide
improved access to the developments to the north. As designed, the project will not pose
10 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0 as a barrier to nearby developments. Accordingly, the proposed 30 unit residential
project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community.
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING
a-b) The City of Carlsbad’s Growth Management Program established performance standards
for public facilities, a population limit of approximately 135,000 persons and a housing
limit of approximately 54,600 dwelling units at buildout of the City. The proposed
project will exceed the Growth Management Control Point of 3.2 dwelling units per acre.
The project site would be permitted 24 units based. on the 3.2 ddac Growth Management
control point. The applicant has requested to exceed the Growth Management Control
Point as may be permitted under Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The
project would exceed the Growth Management allocation for the site by 6 units. The
Citywide Growth Management dwelling unit and population buildout caps will not,
however, be exceeded due to the fact that there have been sufficient developments
approved in the quadrant at densities below the control point to cover the units in the
project above the control points so that approval will not result in exceeding the Quadrant
limit.
Although this 30 unit project will increase the density of the population within the
immediate area, this population increase is not regarded as significant in view of the fact
that there are adequate dwelling units within the Quadrant to allocate to this project
without exceeding the dwelling unit cap of the northwest quadrant and public facilities
and services are available to meet the anticipated demand. This project is compatible
with the surrounding area and will not result in growth inducing impacts to the area.
c) In that the project site is currently undeveloped, no existing residents will be displaced.
The project will however provide 4 units of affordable rental housing.
3. GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS
a-e) The proposed 64,500 cubic yards of grading for the project will not result in any unstable
earth conditions or increase the exposure of people or property to geologic hazards. The
proposed project is subject to the Hillside Development ordinance. At 7,460 cubic yards
of grading per acre the project is within the acceptable range of grading for a hillside
property. A large portion of the grading proposed is necessary to provide public street
access to an existing development to the north. The proposed new street will provide
safe, convenient secondary access to Carlsbad Village Drive for the neighborhood to the
north. As a result of the grading no unique features will be eliminated.
The project site is not subject to significant seismic hazards which would restrict
development of the property for residential use.as proposed.
4. WATER
a/c/d) Development of the project would create impervious surfaces which reduce absorption
rates and increase surface runoff and runoff velocities. In addition, drainage from the
project’s roofs, driveways, parking areas, slopes and open areas would constitute a
potentially significant impact to water quality due to potential pollutants in the “non-point
11 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0 source” urban runoff. Prior to the approval of a grading permit for this project the
applicant shall be required to comply with the requirements of the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The proposed project will provide all
necessary erosion control measures including landscaping, adequate’ drainage facilities
and proper soil compaction to reduce water quality impacts to below a level of
significance. Grading permit standards of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan
require adequate drainage facilities to service the site. These items are all required by the
Engineering Department prior to approval of the grading permit.
b) The project site is not located within a floodplain or within an area which is subject to
flooding. Therefore, no portions of the property or future project residents ‘would be
exposed to flood hazards.
f-i) No potable ground water basins exist within the City. During testing on the site, no
groundwater was encountered. Due to the relatively deep groundwater table, no
significant impacts to groundwater quality, quantity, or rate or direction of flow are
anticipated.
e) No water courses exist on the site. Therefore, this project will not result in the change of
currents or direction of water movement.
5. AIR OUALITY
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.
In that sufficient projects have been approved below the Growth Management Control Point in
the Northwest Quadrant, the Air Quality Impacts of the additional 6 dwelling units proposed with
this project have already been considered in the Master EIR for the Updated 1994 Carlsbad
General Plan. Consequently, with respect to air quality impacts, this project is regarded as a
subsequent project which is consistent with the analysis and findings of the Master EIR for the
updated 1994 Carlsbad General Plan. This project is nevertheless implementing various air
quality mitigation measures including: locating affordable units along major transportation
12 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0 corridors, providing affordable units near commercial services and recreational amenities.
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.
Construction activities associated with the project would result in potential short-term air quality
impacts. Principal pollutants from these activities including fugitive dust particles due to grading
and transportation of construction materials and, to a lesser degree, emissions from construction
vehicles. The Grading Ordinance contains provisions to minimize the release of construction
related pollutants; therefore, air quality impacts resulting from future project related construction
activities would not be considered significant in that the project shall be conditioned to comply
with the City’s Grading Ordinance.
b) Other than project air emissions associated with gas and electric power consumption and
vehicle miles traveled, this 30 unit residential development will not generate any other
source of air pollutants. No sensitive receptors (schoolshospitals) exists near the site,
therefore potential exposure of sensitive receptors to project air emissions is not
considered a significant impact.
6. TFUNSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
The proposed project would result in an additional approximately 300 average daily trips to the
surrounding area. The 300 additional trips will not have a significant impact on the surrounding
area. A traffic signal warrant analysis prepared for the project, determined that a signal was not
warranted on Carlsbad Village Drive at Donna Drive. The City’s Engineering Department will
condition the project to provide necessary traffic control devices for the project based on City
standards. The project will be conditioned to provide full street improvements to Donna Drive,
Wintergreen Street (extension) and all new internal street systems.
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
are projected to 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
13 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0 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.
b/c) All project on-site and off-site circulation improvements shall be required to comply with
minimum engineering design and safety standards. Adequate emergency access from the
project site to Carlsbad Village Drive shall be provided with this project. This project
shall also provide adequate access to existing adjacent uses via new public streets,
d) Required project parking (56 resident spaces and 10 guest spaces) shall be provided on-
site.
e/f) As designed and conditioned, the proposed project will not result in any traffic/bicyclist
conflicts or hazards nor will the project design negatively impact any alternative mode of
transportation. The project, as proposed, complies with all adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation.
g) The project is not located in close proximity to a railroad or navigable waterway,
therefore, no rail or waterborne impacts are anticipated. The project is located within the
Airport Noise Impact Notification Area of the McClellan-Palomar Airport
Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The project shall record a notice concerning potential
airport impacts on the property to alert new residents of their proximity to the McClellan-
Palomar Airport.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a-e) The project has the potential to significantly impact endangered, threatened or rare
species or their habitats unless mitigation is incorporated,
As described in the applicant’s biological study prepared by Anita Hayworth, dated February 7,
1996, the project area consists of approximately 1.95-acres of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub, 2.02
acres of Southern Mixed Chaparral and 4.37 acres of.disturbed habitat. Direct impacts to Diegan
Coastal Sage Scrub are considered to be significant but mitigable. Impacts to the remaining
habitats are not considered significant. A focused survey for threatened coastal California
gnatcatcher and sensitive plant species was conducted by Dudek and Associates, letter dated
January 1 1, 1996. No sensitive species were found on-site and therefore, the likelihood of
survival and recovery of listed species will not be appreciably reduced.
14 Rev. 03/28/96
0 e Sensitive Animals
No coastal California gnatcatchers were observed on the site. No brown-headed cowbirds were
observed during any visits. The Coastal Sage Scrub habitat located onsite is potentially suitable
for the gnatcatcher, however it is very small in size (1.95 .acres) and the property is surrounded
by development thus rendering the site incapable of supporting the gnatcatcher.
The property was surveyed for the Pacific Pocket Mouse. No evidence of the Pocket Mouse was
identified. The study prepared for the site concluded that the site had very limited potential to
support the Pacific Pocket Mouse.
Sensitive Plants
The site supports disturbed habitat, coastal sage scrub, and “lemonadeberry woodland (a plant
community dominated by coastal sage scrub plant species but characterized by dense, woody,
evergreen aspect that is more similar to southern mixed chaparral than coastal sage scrub. No
typical chaparral was identified on the site. Ashy Spike-Moss and Sand Aster were observed on
the site. The study concluded that given the absence of chaparral on the site that it is likely that
these plants do not represent the sensitive variety (Del Mar Mesa sand-aster) which typically is
restricted to southern maritime chaparral in coastal San Diego County.
Sensitive plant species such as Del Mar manzanita, wart-stemmed ceaanothus, Nuttall’s scrub
oak, and Encinitas baccharis, which are components of coastal chaparral, were not observed
onsite and highly unlikely to be present.
Orcutt’s spineflower, is nearly impossible to detect during the time of the year of the survey.
However, the study concluded that based on the absence of coastal chaparral, with which this
species typically is associated, it is unlikely that Orcutt’s spineflower is present.
Regulatory Status
When coastal California gnatcatchers are present on the site, contiguous and nearby suitable
habitat is considered “occupied” habitat for purposes of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
processing. Impacts to the occupied areas of habitat may be assessed a as a “take” of coastal
California gnatcatcher habitat within the context of Section 9 of the ESA. An Incidental Take
Permit for the gnatcatcher can be achieved under Section 7, Section lO(a) or Section 4(d) of the
ESA. The applicant is proposing to take coastal California sage scrub under Section 4(d) of the
ESA.
Coastal sage scrub habitat within the project site does not appear to support gnatcatchers (Source
#11). Further, as noted in the biological study, this project would probably not impact coastal
California gnatcatcher, due to the small size of the habitat on the site, and therefore, no additional
surveys were recommended.
The project site is not located within a preserve plating area of the draft Carlsbad Habitat
Management Plan. This is primarily due to the fact.-that the surrounding area is fully developed
and could not support sensitive species. Because of the development of the surrounding area,
this site would not make a good connective corridor for sensitive species.
15 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0 8. ENERGY & MINERAL, RESOURCES
a) Consistent with Title 24 regulations of the State Building Code, the project will be
designed to incorporate energy conservation measures where feasible. Otherwise, the
project does not conflict with any adopted energy conservation plans.
b) No non-renewable resource has been identified on this site. Therefore, implementation of
the proposed project would not result in the wasteful use of a non-renewable resource.
c) The subject site does not contain any known mineral resources (natural gas, oil, coal or
gravel) that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State.
9. HAZARDS
a-d) Aside from the short-term air quality impacts associated with the emissions from
construction vehicles and generation of dust during project construction activities, the
proposed residential project would not result in a significant risk of a explosion or release
of hazardous substances. The project will be conditioned to construct public street access
to existing Wintergreen Street improving existing emergency response to this existing
neighborhood. No health hazards will be created by this residential project.
e) The project is adjacent to natural vegetation to the west, which is subject to fire hazard.
This project shall be required to comply with all fire suppression policies of the Carlsbad
Landscape Manual.
10. NOISE
a/b) The grading operation and construction activities associated with this project will produce
an insignificant, typical, short term noise impact. No extended noise sources are
associated with the proposed residential development. Construction activities will be
required to comply with the City’s Construction Noise Ordinance Chapter 8.48 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code.
The project site is located adjacent to Carlsbad Village Drive, a secondary arterial in this
area. A noise study was completed for the project and concluded that noise could be
mitigated on the site to meet City standards of 60 dBA CNEL exterior and 45 dBA CNEL
interior with the placement of a 5 %’ noise wall along Carlsbad Village Drive and the
installation of STC 32 windows on the second story for lots 28 and 29.
1 1. PUBLIC SERVICES
a-e) The proposed project is subject to all conditions of the Zone 1 Local Facilities
Management Plan which projected the zone needs at buildout assuming that all units
allowed under Growth Management were constructed. Therefore, the proposed 37 unit
residential development will not result in the need for new governmental services
including police and fire services. The school district has written a letter indicating
acknowledgment of the project and indicating the provision of schools, although school
aged residents of this subdivision may not attend the closest school to their home.
Consistent with the City’s Growth Management Plan and applicable state law, the project
16 Rev. 03/28/96
.. a 0 applicant shall be required to submit evidence to the City that project impacts to school
facilities have been adequately mitigated prior to issuance of grading or building permit.
12. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS
a-g) In that this project shall be subject to the utility and service system requirements and
conditions within the Zone 1 LFMP, no significant utility or service system impacts will
occur. The project shall be conditioned to either tie into existing facilities or construct
new facilities as necessary.
13. AESTHETICS
ah) Potential project visual impacts to Carlsbad Village Drive will be adequately mitigated
with landscaping on all up-slopes, location of structures on building pads, and use of
earth-tone noise barriers/screen walls.
The development of the site will involve 64,500 cubic yards of grading to create building
pads, streets, RV parking site, recreation areas and drainage facilities. The proposed
grading conforms with the City’s Hillside Development Ordinance as manufactured
slopes would be screened with buildings and or landscaping and not exceed 30-feet in
height. Additionally, the proposed development will be terraced from west to east down
the hillside generally preserving the natural integrity of the landform. Therefore, the
alteration of the topography would not create a significant aesthetic impact. The
provision of screednoise walls, landscaping and a differential in grade will adequately
screen the project from Carlsbad Village Drive and other nearby streets.
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES
a-e) The cultural resource survey prepared for the site (Sources 81) identified one potential
cultural resource site on the property (SDI 14,259). Based on the evaluation criteria, the
study concluded that the resource was not important. The study noted that as a small site
with limited variability, that had been compromised by disturbance from adjacent
development, that the sites’ research potential was exhausted. Therefore, the study
concluded that implementation of the proposed project will not result in adverse impact to
the resource and no mitigation is recommended.
Based on the paleontological survey conducted for the site, it has been determined that
the property has the potential to create significant impacts to paleontological resources.
These impacts will occur when mass excavation activities cut into the sandstones of the
Santiago Formation, primarily during grading. Mitigation of the impacts discussed
above can be ensured by implementing the following measures:
a. Prior to any grading of the project site, a paleontologist shall be retained to
perform a walkover survey of the site and to review the grading plans to
determine if the proposed grading will impact fossil resources. A copy of the
paleontologist’s report shall be provided to the Planning Director prior to issuance .
of a grading permit;
17 Rev. 03/28/96
m 0
b. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of the
site and to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the fossils
present in the geologic strate, it may be necessary to collect matrix samples for
laboratory processing through fine screens. The paleontologist shall make
periodic reports to the Planning Director during the grading process;
c. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an
exposed fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage artifacts.
d. All fossils collected shall be donated to a public, non-profit institution with a
research interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum.
e. Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading activities of
the project shall be resolved by the Planning Director and City Engineer.
15. RECREATION
ah) A variety of on-site amenities (ball court, trail, picnic area) will be provided with the
project. In addition, Hosp Grove Park is located within a mile of the site (north).
Accordingly, project impacts to recreational amenities are not regarded as significant.
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) As discussed in the Biological Resources section of this EIA, the project will impact 1.95
acres of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub. However, the mitigation measures proposed will
adequately mitigate impacts to biological resources.
b) All project related impacts must be considered to be considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of continued growth and development of the City, Northern
San Diego County and San Diego County in general. However, with the exception of
significant and unmitigable regional air quality and traffic impacts identified within the
Master EIR for the City’s updated 1994 General Plan, (for which statements of
Overriding Considerations have been adopted by the Carlsbad City Council), this project
will implement project specific mitigation measures to reduce project specific impacts to
a level of insignificance. The implementation of these project mitigation measures will
incrementally reduce cumulative-considerable impacts to a level of insignificance.
c) As previously discussed within this document, this 30 unit residential project will not
create environmental effects which will cause substantial effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly.
Alternatives:
Project alternatives are required when there is evidence that the project will have a significant
adverse impact on the environment and an alternative would lessen or mitigate those adverse
impacts. Public Resources Code Section 21002 forbids the approval of projects with significant
impacts when feasible alternatives or mitigation measures can substantially lessen such impacts.
A “significant effect” is defined as one which has a substantial adverse impact. Given the
attached mitigation conditions, this project had “NO” significant physical environmental
impacts, therefore, there is no substantial adverse impact and no justification for requiring a
discussion of alternatives, (an alternative would not lessen an impact if there is no substantial
18 Rev. 03/28/96
@ 0 adverse impact).
111. SOURCE DOCUMENTS: (Note: all source documents are on file in the Planning
Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009; Phone:
(61 9) 438- I1 61)
1. Cultural Resource Survey and Evaluation of Pacific View Estates San Diego County,
California, ASM Affiliates Inc., John R. Cook, April 1996.
2. Acoustical Analysis Report #708 for Pacific View Estates - Carlsbad, George E.
Leighton, November 27, 1995.
3. Revision to Acoustical Analysis Report #708 for Pacific View Estates - Carlsbad, George
E. Leighton, April 8, 1996.
4. Tree Survey Pacific View Estates, R.D.G. Consultants, Stamped September 16, 1996.
5. Report of Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation for Development of D. Ryan Property
at Carlsbad, California, AdTech Engineering, Inc., October 16,1995.
6. Carlsbad Village Drive Property Biolopical Reconnaissance Survey, Anita M. Hayworth
Biological Consultant, February 7, 1996.
7. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific View Ltd. Proiect,
Sensitive Species Survey, Letters Dated January 31, 1996 and February 28, 1996.
8. Paleontological Resources, 8.5 Acres Located in Carlsbad, CA (APN 167-250-16), San
Diego Natural History Museum, Letter Dated December 26, 1995.
9. Traffic Impact Analysis for a 48 Unit Residential Development, City of Carlsbad,
O’Rourke Engineering, Letter Dated January 18, 1996.
10. City of Carlsbad General Plan Update Final Master EIR, City of Carlsbad Planning
Department, March 1994.
11. Pacific View Limited Sensitive Species Survey, Dudek & Associates, Inc., letter dated
January 11,1996.
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
1. All project grading and site preparation shall comply with the recommendations of the
Report of Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation for the project, prepared by AdTech
Engineering, Inc., dated October 16, 1995, and any subsequent amendments on file in the
Planning Department.
2. Compliance with APCD Rules 51 (The “Nuisance” Rule), 52 (Particulate Matter), and 54
(Dust and Fumes) of the Air Quality Chapter would effectively mitigate dust impacts
associated with project grading operations. A note shall be placed on the grading permit
19 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0 stipulating that the following measures shall be required to achieve compliance with these - rules, and reduce construction-related air pollutants:
a. The watering of all surfaces being graded and haul routes shall be required during
dry weather conditions;
b. All unpaved areas shall be revegetated according to approved landscape plans as
soon as possible after grading;
C. All construction-related traffic shall be restricted to routes that are dust-controlled,
and reduced speeds shall be maintained for all haul and construction vehicles;
d. All construction activities shall be limited during periods of high winds;
e. All heavy-duty, diesel-powered construction equipment shall be operated
according to manufacturers suggested operating instructions (with the fuel-
injection timing retarded to recommend levels for NOx emissions, but which
would not result in excessive visible smoke emissions) in order to control
pollutant emissions;
f. Construction equipment shall be subject to regularly scheduled maintenancehne-
ups, and be turned off when not being utilized to avoid excessive idling
emissions;
g. The application of architectural coating and cut-back asphalt shall adhere to
APCD Rules 67.0 and 67.7, to effectively control other construction-related
emissions of air pollutants; and
h. The Engineering Department shall monitor for compliance during all grading
operations of the project.
3. All project runoff shall conform with the National Pollution Discharge and Elimination
System Permit (NPDES) requirements, pursuant to San Diego Regional Water Quality
Control Board Order No. 90-42, adopted by City Council Resolution 90-235. The
applicant shall provide best management practices to reduce surface pollutants to an
acceptable level prior to discharge into any sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements
shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. Drainage
water from buildings, streets, recreation areas, RV storage area and landscaped areas shall
be disposed of through stormdrains or otherwise in a manner that will avoid runoff onto
adjacent property.
4. Approximately 1.95 acres of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) habitat will be directly
impacted by this project. The impacted CSS habitat is regarded as low quality. Pursuant
to the Interim Take provisions of the 4d Rule of the Endangered Species Act, the project
shall be required to mitigate this take of 1.95 acres of CSS habitat by acquiring for
preservation comparable quality habitat at a. 1:l ratio. Prior to issuance of grading
permits, the project applicant shall be required to consult with and obtain any necessary
permits from the USFWS, the California Department of Fish and Game and the City of
Carlsbad for impacts to the 1.95 acres of CSS.
5. Prior to the issuance of building permits for this project, the applicant shall submit
building plans indicating interior noise mitigation to 45 dBA CNEL interior pursuant to
the Acoustical Analysis Report (George Leighton) for this project. Such noise mitigation
20 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0 shall include at minimum the installation of STC 32 windows on the second story for
Lots 28 and 29.
6. Prior to occupancy of any units, the project applicant shall be required to construct a
minimum 5.5’ high noise barrier (wall) along the top of slope adjacent to Carlsbad
Village Drive, consistent with the recommendations of the acoustical analysis report
prepared for the project. The wall shall be earth tone in color and screened with
landscaping as viewed from Carlsbad Village Drive.
7. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall prepare and record a Notice that
this property is subject to overflight, sight, and sound of aircraft operating from Palomar
Airport in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and the City Attorney.
(See Noise Form #2 on file in the Planning Department).
8. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any construction site within this
project, the applicant shall submit to and receive approval from the City Engineer for a
proposed haul route. The applicant shall comply with all conditions and requirements the
City Engineer may impose with regard to the hauling operation.
9. Paleontology:
a. Prior to any grading of the project site, a paleontologist shall be retained to
perform a walkover survey of the site and to review the grading plans to
determine if the proposed grading will impact fossil resources. A copy of the
paleontologist’s report shall be provided to the Planning Director prior to issuance
of a grading permit;
b. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of the
site and to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the fossils
present in the geologic strate, it may be necessary to collect matrix samples for
laboratory processing through fine screens. The paleontologist shall make
periodic reports to the Planning Director during the grading process;
c. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an
exposed fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage artifacts;
d. All fossils collected shall be donated to a public, non-profit institution with a
research interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum;
and
e. Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading activities of
the project shall be resolved by the Planning Director and City Engineer.
ATTACHED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
21 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVTEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WTH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
) IL'%l
Date .~ Signature
22 Rev. 03/28/96
. "-. . .- . . ..
E~IRONMEN~ M~TIGAT~ON MONITORING CH$O;L~~~ Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT "Z
3 tD Q)
0 n.
8 m 9 (De cn.g
n.2 Om - ho
00" 9 g .E
3B $2 -
??
0: (iju
EO
0" +
(Do Q)
I-D :E
LT .. #E
zg
u<
3
WZ i
z 0 'k
z n
0 0
-
v)
c, Q
P)
w I., v)
5
5 P)
.- 0
0 Q
c .-
.n. .. .. w $2
,; 2
g:
an
t-a Zd
YLT
aa
- E5 5s EU c .a,
'5 E 95
so a0
DC aa Gal -j; n f to,
.- D,"?
2 Fa
.- u EN E€:
F
m 30 mm- .-
0 c 'E .I- $;:
P .E a 0 .e -0 0
4- .I v) .- W-E
QS v)
2 $LT - z .o b .o ij z .r a
.r E u
2%:
or W
v)a
'D 3
2 '5% nul- nmo a a=
v- E5
Of=> 2 .g ij
om$ .- - .E .- D .e $ : Ea 05E
5:g 2.2 E .r ;; 2? 7Jss z g.2 85E PTJ c sgE .r .p a v) .k
$D u 3:2 lnu 0)
fn a.Y
am
a3
g p .;
:€E EEE
o a .v)
t;; . .e .- 0)gu
€ g5
m .e 2
c .pz
m.2 E .5 D
.- 2% 6 $756 a22
3oE
c .- >
.r c W - .-
.I- t=
a
0)- t cma .-
- -u)n 0-2
0-
a ao LC
+ ;.E
+.E m
';Y ,?Ani
-0- al,
0) c -
- k
.- e
c W m .n a: m J=. e:
3 u) m E.
.cn $
E%: cu; E2 ~ 3 m'
II 3:
t
I* 0
m .-
.- -
oz (
em'
-7 .- .- - m .E I
t ad
€E < a=( u 34
u=+
& .E! (I E >srr
- Epg;
$E.
L - m
3 0
m 0. m
0, c
e
.- 6 .- .-a c e
L 2
0 P)
ln c 0 Q u)
-
F s
i
-0 0
c al 2:
E$
Li !g $j
1 F:: : %e%?
.- - - mo
s mm z 5.e Qm moWP)
,o.PmE
f II 0 - P) .z
x 20
ran m
ma.= E
Wl-9