HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-04-07; Planning Commission; Resolution 45030 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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4503
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM TO GRADE AND SUBDIVIDE 33.4 ACRES INTO
30 LOTS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF BLACK
RAIL ROAD AND FUTURE POINSETTIA LANE IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 20.
CASE NAME: DE JONG RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
CASE NO.: ZC 98-02LCPA 98-01/CT 98-05NDP 98-
03/CDP 98-26N 98-04
WHEREAS, Arie De Jong Jr. Family Trust, “Developer”, has filed 2
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Arie De Jong Jr
Trust, “Owner”, described as
Being that portion of Lot 2 of Section 22, Township 12 South,
Range 4 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the City
of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California
according to the official plat thereof
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunc
said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of March
on the 7th day of April 1999 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to
said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all t
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by ~
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered a
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
0 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
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the 1
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the :
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Mitigated :
according to Exhibit "ND" dated November 30, 1998, and "PII" dated
15, 1998, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attache
and made a part hereof, based on the following findings and subjec
following condition:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analy
considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration , the environmental impact5
identified for this project and said comments thereon, and the Mitigation Monitc
Reporting Program, on file in the Planning Department, prior to RECOMME
APPROVAL of the project. Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments the]
Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence the project wi
significant effect on the environment and hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVA
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
2. The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative De
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared in ac
with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guide
the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad.
3. The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaratic
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program reflects the independent judgme
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad.
4. The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures 01
alternatives identified in the MEIR 93-01 which are appropriate to this Su
Project have been incorporated into this Subsequent Project.
Conditions:
1. The Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of the De Jong Re
Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
~ ...
...
. ..
PC RES0 NO. 4503 -2-
0 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
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the :
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of April 1995
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners Compas, L’Heure
Savary, and Segall
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioners Nielsen and Welshons
ABSTAIN:
COURTNEY E. HEINEMAN, CHAIRPERSON
Carlsbad Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 4503 -3-
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddressLocation: Northeast comer of the intersection of Black Rail Road and futu
Poinsettia Lane.
Project Description: A Local Coastal Program Amendment and Zone Change to chani
the land use designation for the site fkom Limited Control (L-C)
One-Family Residential, 7,500 square foot minimum lot siz
Qualified Development Overlay Zone (R-1-7,500-Q) and Opt
Space (OS) on a 33.4 acre property. Also proposed is a Tentatiy
Tract Map to create 28 residential lots and 2 open space lots,
Hillside Development Permit, Coastal Development Permit and
Variance to allow two proposed lots to exceed the maximu:
panhandle length.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described proje
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act ar
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, tl
initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (
revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before tl
proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid tl
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environme
would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Ci
that the project "as revised" may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore,
Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for th
action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in tl
Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments &om tl
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 2
days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Don Neu in the Plannir
Department at (760) 438-1 161, extension 4446.
DATED: NOVEMBER 30,1998
CASE NO: ZC 98-02LCPA 98-01/CT 98-05MDP 98-03/CDP 98-26N 98-04
CASE NAME: de Jong Residential Project
PUBLISH DATE: NOVEMBER 30,1998
MICHAEL J. HOLZMLLER
Planning Director
2075 Las Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 - (760) 438-11 61 FAX (760) 438-089
0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: ZC 98-02/LCPA 98-01/CT 98-05EIDP 98-03/CDP 98-26N 984
DATE: October 15.19!
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: de Jong Residential Project
2. APPLICANT: Arie de Jong. Jr. Family Trust
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 622 E. Mission Road. San Marcos. C
92069: (760)-744-3222
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: February 13.1998
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment and Zone Chanl
to change the land use designation for the site from Limited Control (L-C) to One-Fami
Residential. 7.500 sauare foot minimum lot size. Oualified Development Overlay Zone (R-
7.500 -0) and Open Space (OS) on a 33.4 acre proDerty. Also proposed is a Tentative Tract Mi
to create 28 residential lots and 2 open space lots. a Hillside Development Permit. Coast
Development Permit and a Variance to allow two proposed lots to exceed the maximu
panhandle length. The project site is located at the northeast corner of Black Rail Road a1.
future Poinsettia Lane.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this projec
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impa
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Land Use and Planning IXI TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services
[7 Population and Housing [XI Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
Water [XI Hazards [XI Cultural Resources
IxI Air Quality [XI Noise 0 Recreation
0 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 tl
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on tl
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigatic
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIV
DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and :
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
(x] I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earli
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigatic
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An Mitigatc
Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to 1
addressed.
0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on tl
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potential
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Master Environment
Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voidc
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-01
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed projec
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. J.L z //-24-92?
Planner Signature Date
r\/z&.@
Planning Direcgr’s %nature Date 1
2 Rev. 03128196
* e
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the Cit,
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significar
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the followin
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and huma
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information t
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negativ
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 ar
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following eac
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced informatio
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. 1
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, c
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
0 “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that th
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopte
general standards and policies.
0 “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporatio
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and tk
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce tk
effect to a less than significant level.
0 “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that a
effect is significant.
0 Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significal
effect on the environment, but &l potentially significant effects (a) have been analyze
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicab:
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigate
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upc
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to (
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the pric
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no addition
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
0 When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily requirt
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier El
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement 1
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
0 A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence th
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03128196
0 0
a If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing a
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, aE
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In th
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporatec
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and includir
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect h:
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, ar
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less th:
sigmficant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact h;
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduc
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is nl
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, (
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significa:
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of tl
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attentic
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determint
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially
Significant Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18; #2: Pgs 111-74 - I11 0 0
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the 0 0
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18; #2 Pgs 111-74 - I11 -87)
- 87)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
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 0 0
land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18; #2 Pgs 111-74 - I11 -
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or 0 0
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18; #2 I11 -
(#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18; #2 Pgs I11 -74 - I11 -87) 0 0
87)
74 - I11 -87)
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) 0 o
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area 0 0
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 -
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
5.5-6)
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) 0 0
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2: Pgs 111-112 -
b) Seismic ground shaking? ((#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2:
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2:
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
g) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2: Pgs
h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2: Pgs 111-112
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
111- 1 18; #6)
Pgs 111- 1 12 - 111- 1 18; #6)
((#l:PgS 5.1-1 - 5.1.15; #2: Pgs 111-112 - 111-118; #6)
5.1-15;#2: Pgs 111-112 - 111-118; #6)
Pgs 111-112 - 111-118; #6)
5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2: PgS 111-112 - I11 -118; #6)
111-1 12 - 111-1 18; #6)
- I11 -1 18; #6)
5.1-15; #2 PgS I11 -1 12 - I11 -118; #6)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than No
Significant Impact Impact
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 w
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 IXI
0 [XI
0 IXI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 El
0 El
0 [XI
0 [XI
5 Rev. 03/28/96
a * Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
s)
h)
1)
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-
Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5. 2-1 1; #7)
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1; #7)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1; #7)
Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11; #7)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
Impacts to groundwater quality? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5. 2-
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? ((#l:Pgs
11; #7)
body? ((#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5.2-11; #7)
((#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5. 2-11; #7)
11; #7)
5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
d) Create objectionable odors? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
1 - 5.3-12)
- 5.3-12)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #2: Pgs
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
proposal result in:
5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #2: Pgs 111-58 - 111-69)
111-58 - 111-69)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #2: Pgs 111-58 - 111-69)
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #2: Pgs 111-58 - 111-69)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #2: Pgs 111-58 - 111-69)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless Impact
0 0 [XI
0 0 [XI
0 o w
0 0 [XI
0 0 w
0 0 [XI
0 [XI
0 o w
0 0 [XI
[XI
0
0
0
[XI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 El
0 IXI
0 [XI
0 0
0 [XI
0 [XI o w o w
6 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 0
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #2: PgS 111-58 - 111-69)
5.7.22; #2: Pgs 111-58 - 111-69) 0 g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -
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? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24; #2: Pgs III-
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24; #2:
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#1 :Pgs 5.4- 1
37 - 111-57; #3)
(#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24; #2: PgS 111-37 - 111-57; #3)
PgS 111-37 - 111-57; #3)
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24; #2: PgS 111-37 - 111-58; #3)
- 5.4-24; #2: Pgs 111-37 - 111-57; #3)
0
0
0
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
proposal?
(#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) o
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13- 0
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and 0
the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5
1 - 5.13-9)
& 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
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)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5; #2: Pgs 111-97 -
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5; #2: Pgs
e) Increase fie hazard in areas with flammable brush,
5.10.1-5)
111-105)
111-97 - 111-1 OS)
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
0
0
0
0
0
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
7
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impacl
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless Impact
0 0 [XI
0 0 [XI
w 0 0
0 0 w w 0 0
0 0 [XI
IXI 0 0
0 0 E o 0 IXI
0 o w
0 o [XI
0 o w
w 0 o
w 0 0
0 0 [XI
Rev. 03/28/96
0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9-
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-
15; #2: PgS 111-88 - 111-96; #5)
1 - 5.9-15; #2: Pgs 111-88 - 111-96; #5) 0
o
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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6)
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4)
C) Schools? (#l:PgS 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (#l,
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
5.12.8-7)
XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
b) Communications systems? (#l; pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
e) Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
f) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
5.12.3-7)
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5; #2: Pgs
5.11-1 - 5.11-5; #2: Pgs 111-119 - 111-151) 0
0
0
5.11-1 - 5.11-5; #2: PgS 111-119 - 111-151)
111-119 - 111-151)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10;#2:
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs
10; #2: Pgs 111-106 - 111-107)
10; #2: Pgs 111-70 - 111-73)
Pgs 111-70 - 111-73)
5.8-1 - 5.8-10; #2: PgS 111-70 - 111-73)
0
0
0
0
8
0
Potentially Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
IXI
0 0
0
0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
[XI
0
0
0
Less Than No
Significant Impac Impact
0 IXI
0 0
0 w 0 w w o w
0 w
0 [XI
O w 0 w
[XI 0 [XI 0 IXI 0 IXI
0 w o [XI
0 [XI
0 0 o w o w
0 [XI
Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10; #2: Pgs 0
111-70 - 111-73)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 - 0
5.12.8-7)
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7) 0 b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#1 :Pgs
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the a
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? €3
(“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, 0
either directly or indirectly?
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impacl
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless Impact
0 0 [XI
a 0 Ixl
0 0 IXI
[XI 0 0
0 0 0
[XI 0 0
9 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
XVII. EAIUIER ANALYSES .
Earlier analysis of this proposed single family residential project has been completed through
the General Plan Update (GPA 94-01) and related Master Environmental Impact Report (MEI:
93-01) . The MEIR is cited as source #1 in the preceding checklist. This proposal is consister
with the applicable portions of the General Plan and is considered a project that was describe
in MEIR 93-01 as within its scope. All feasible mitigation measures identified in MEIR 93-C
which are appropriate to the project have been incorporated into this project.
The project site is located in an area which is subject to the requirements of the Zone 2
Specific Plan approved by the City Council in 1994. A program EIR was certified for the Zon
20 Specific Plan. The Zone 20 Program EIR identified, analyzed, and recommended mitigatio
to reduce potentially significant impacts to insignificant levels. The Zone 20 Program E11
(PEIR) analyzed potential impacts to agriculture, air quality, biology, circulation, land us(
noise, pesticide residue, paleontology, public facilities financing, soils/geology, and visu:
aesthetics that could result from the development of the Specific Plan area. The Program E11
is intended to be used in the review of subsequent projects within Zone 20. The projec
incorporates the required Zone 20 Program EIR mitigation measures, and through the analysj
of the required additional biological, geotechnical, hydrology, and noise analysis
determination has been made that no additional significant impacts beyond those identified an(
mitigated by the Program EIR will result from this project. The following environmenta
evaluation briefly explains the basis for this determination along with identifying the sourc
documents which support the environmental determination. The Zone 20 Program EIR an(
additional technical studies are cited as source documents for this environmental evaluation.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project site is approximately 33.4 acres in size and is located at the northeast corner of Blac
Rail Road and future Poinsettia Lane. The project consists of 28 residential lots with a minimu
lot area of 7,500 square feet and 2 open space lots which contain a total of 22.68 acres. The si!
contains coastal sage scrub, southern maritime chaparral, scrub oak chaparral, coast live oak an
areas which have been used for agriculture. The site elevation decreases from a high c
approximately 350 feet in the southwestern comer to a low of 204 feet in the canyon located i
the central portion of the north end of the site.
A total of 23.42 acres of the site are designated as Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM 0-
DU/AC) and 9.99 acres are designated as Open Space (OS) on the General Plan Land Use May
The project site is zoned Limited Control (L-C). A zone change and local coastal prograr
amendment are proposed to designate the site as One-Family Residential, 7,500 square foc
minimum lot size, Qualified Development Overlay Zone (R-1-Q) and Open Space (OS) t
correspond to the existing general plan land use designations. An irrevocable offer of dedicatio.
will be required over the two open space lots. A portion of the residential density from thesl
parcels is being transferred to the area of the site which is proposed to be developed.
In addition to approval of the tentative map application a hillside development permit, coasta
development permit, and a variance application approval are being requested. The requestel
variance is to exceed the maximum panhandle length for two lots caused by the location of a:
existing SDG&E easement and tower. The project also includes some offsite grading fo
Poinsettia Lane parallel to the southern boundary line of the site.
11 Rev. 03128196
0 0
11. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
B. Environmental Impact Discussion
V. a) Air Quality
The implementation of projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 Gener
Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles travelec
These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organi
gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the maj,
contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the Sa
Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considere
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in tk
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 variet
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisior
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measwc
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Dernan
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mas
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable an
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into th
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project i
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marke
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, th
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by Cit-
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for ai
quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects withil
the scope of the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no furthe
environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at thl
Planning Department.
VI. a) TransportatiodCirculation
The implementation of projects that fall within the scope of and are included in the updated 199~
General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate tc
accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severel:
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. Thest
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbac
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersection:
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, numerou:
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measure:
to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develol
12 Rev. 03/28/96
c 0
alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestri2
linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies whc
adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highwa
onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. Tk
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either bee
incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. TI
project will generate 280 average daily trips. Conditions of project approval will inch
constructing a portion of Poinsettia Lane and Black Rail Road along the project frontages. TI
project will generate 280 average daily trips. Conditions of project approval will incluc
constructing a portion of Poinsettia Lane and Black Rail Road along the project frontages.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of th
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefor1
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project :
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because th
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, include
a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement C
Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects that fall within the scope of the General Plan’
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulatio
impacts is required.
VII. a, c. & d) Biological Resources
The Zone 20 Program EIR identified the mitigation requirement that future site specifi
biological survey studies that focus on the impacts created by individual subsequent developmel.
projects be prepared. The additional biological studies are required to consider the baseline dat
and biological open space recommendations of the Zone 20 Program EIR and provide mor
detailed and current resource surveys. The site specific biological survey is required to identif
mitigation for any project specific impacts.
A report titled, “Biological Resources Report and Impact Analysis for the de Jong Property, Cit:
of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California,” dated February 11, 1998 by Dudek & Associate
has been prepared for the project. In addition, a report title, “Offsite Impacts of the Proposed d
Jong Property Development, dated July 27, 1998 has been prepared to analyze the biologic2
impacts of the offsite impacts associated with grading for Poinsettia Lane which are depicted o
the tentative tract map.
The biology report for the de Jong property determined that implementation of the project woul
result in the direct loss of 13 acres, including impacts to the following habitat types:
0.0 acre of coastal sage scrub - less than significant
0.7 acre of southern maritime chaparral - significant
0.8 acre of annual non-native grassland - less than significant
1 1.5 acres of agricultural land - less than significant
In general, the proposed plan results in the preservation of 20.4 acres (61 percent), 16.7 acres o
which are native habitats, in natural open space, including 100 percent of coast live oa
woodland, coastal sage scrub, disturbed coastal sage scrub, disturbed southern maritim
13 Rev. 03/28/96
0 e
chaparral, scrub oak chaparral, valley needlegrass grassland, and 93 percent (9.8 acres) (
southern maritime chaparral. The location and configuration of the open space land is conducih
to long-term viability as it is a single, large, concentrated block of habitat linked with offsil
natural habitat. No impacts would occur to sensitive animal species. The California gnatcatchc
observed onsite within the canyon was located within the proposed large block of open space.
the bird is resident within the property, there is adequate habitat to support it. There will be I!
impact to its preferred habitat, coastal sage scrub. Because of the time of year that the surve
took place (late summer), it is likely that the birds were dispersing or roaming within the vicinit:
Coastal sage scrub habitat is located nearby both to the north and west and gnatcatcher location
have been recorded nearby. No impacts are expected to occur to the California gnatcatcher.
Indirect impacts may result in the reduction of the carrying capacity of the native habitat:
however, the patch of habitat onsite is connected to additional habitat offsite. These indirec
impacts are considered less than significant.
The following onsite impacts associated with implementation of the proposed development pla
are considered significant:
a) Loss of 0.7 acre of southern maritime chaparral.
Although the project results in the loss of 0.7 acre of southern maritime chaparral, the projec
contributes to the preservation of resources and the ultimate development of the subregiona
preserve system by contributing open space, a total of 20.4 acres of predominately nativ
habitats.
The de Jong property is located within Preserve Planning Area 4 of the Carlsbad Draft HMI
which has been designated for 50 to 60 percent preservation by the MHCP and is subject to th
project level conservation requirements outlined within the Carlsbad HMP. On a overall projecl
level basis, the property is proposed to receive 61 percent preservation, with the native habitat
onsite proposed to receive approximately 97 percent preservation which far exceeds the goals se
by the MHCP. The proposed project meets the project-level conservation requirements outline(
by the Draft Carlsbad HMP: the project does not preclude the hctioning of preserve linkage!
due to the preserve design; over 50 percent of the southern maritime chaparral is preserved; then
is no net loss of the coast live oak riparian forest habitat, coastal sage scrub, valley needlegras!
grassland; the project has been designed to avoid and minimize impacts to sensitive habitats ant
species. Thus, the proposed project is consistent with the Draft Carlsbad HMP.
Mitigation Measures
The project design mitigates direct impacts to southern maritime chaparral and the sensitive plan
species that occur within this habitat. Included in the project design is the granting of a]
irrevocable offer of dedication to the City of Carlsbad or an acceptable entity for an oper
space/conservation easement over Lots Number 29 and 30 of the tentative map. This covers ovel
93 percent (9.8 acres) of the southern maritime chaparral on the de Jong property. This is greatel
than the 2:l mitigation ratio that is typically required by the resource agencies for the impact 0:
southern maritime chaparral. The open space easement also includes the preservation of 10(
percent of the Del Mar manzanita, wart-stemmed ceanothus, summer holly, Nuttall’s scrub oak
and California gnatcatcher occurring onsite. In addition, the following mitigation measures wil
be implemented:
14 Rev. 03/28/96
0
To mitigate potential disturbances to the California gnatcatcher, the grading operations withi
100 feet of the proposed open space area will be restricted during the gnatcatcher breedin
season, or from February 15 to August 30 each year, unless it can be shown through fie1
reconnaissance by a certified biologist that no gnatcatchers are present on the property for tw
months prior to the start of grading.
The Developer shall establish a homeowner's association and corresponding covenant
conditions and restrictions. Said CC&Rs shall be submitted to and approved by the Plannin
Director prior to final map approval. Prior to issuance of a building permit the Developer sha
provide the Planning Department with a recorded copy of the official CC&Rs that have bee
approved by the Department of Real Estate and the Planning Director. At a minimum, th
CC&Rs shall contain the following provision:
a. The CC&Rs shall include provisions specifying maintenance responsibility fc
Open Space Lot 29. The CC&Rs shall stipulate that within the boundaries of th
HOA open space easement, structures or any other thing not shown on th
approved tentative map or landscape plans shall be prohibited.
The Developer shall dedicate to the Homeowner's Association on the final map, an open spac
maintenance easement over Lot 29 identified on the tentative map to enable maintenanc
activities within the easement area including but not limited to, landscaping and irrigatio
in accordance with the approved tentative map and landscape plans, removal of debris an
trash, minimal fire suppression thinning, and erosion prevention and remediation. A not
to this effect shall be placed on the non-mapping data sheet of the final map.
Removal of native vegetation and development of Open Space Lot(s) 29, including but no
limited to fences, walls, decks, storage buildings, pools, spas, stairways and landscaping, othe
than that approved as part of the grading plan, improvement plans, landscape plan, etc. as show
on the project exhibits, is specifically prohibited, except upon written order of the Carlsbad Fir1
Department for fire prevention purposes, or upon written approval of the Planning Director
based upon a request from the Homeowners Association accompanied by a report from I
qualified arboristhotanist indicating the need to remove specified trees and/or plants because o
disease or impending danger to adjacent habitable dwelling units. For areas containing nativs
vegetation the report required to accompany the request shall be prepared by a qualifiec
biologist.
Offsite Impacts
The letter quantifying the impacts that will occur as part of the construction of the offsite portior
of Poinsettia Lane, a major circulation element roadway indicates that there are two vegetatiol
communities present within the area proposed to be impacted. They are disturbed habitat an(
southern maritime chaparral. A total of 0.18 acre of southern maritime chaparral is located at thl
eastern edge of the offsite impact area. The remaining 2.7 acres of offsite area to be impacted i
disturbed habitat. This refers to areas that lack vegetation entirely. One species of plant listed a
endangered by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and proposed for listing a
endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was detected within the offsitl
impact area: Del Mar manzanita (Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. Crassifolia).
15 Rev. 03/28/96
0 e
Implementation of the proposed project would result in the direct loss of 2.88 acres of offsii
area including impacts to the following habitat types:
W 2.70 acres of disturbed habitat - - less than significant.
m 0.18 acre of southern maritime chaparral - significant.
In addition, implementation of the proposed project would result in the direct loss of th
following sensitive plant species:
1 6 individuals of Del Mar manzanita - significant.
The impact to the southern maritime chaparral vegetation community and the Del Mar manzanil
require mitigation.
Offsite Mitigation Measures
The de Jong project includes in the project design the granting of an irrevocable offer c
dedication for an open space easement over 93 percent (9.8 acres) of the southern maritim
chaparral on the property. The onsite impact to southern maritime chaparral is 0.7 acre. Whe
combined with the offsite impact, the total impact to this sensitive habitat type due to the projec
is 0.88 acre. The onsite preservation is greater than the 2:l mitigation ratio that is typical1
required by the resource agencies for the impact of southern maritime chaparral. With th
preservation of 9.8 acres onsite, the impact to southern maritime Chaparral is fully mitigatec
The open space easement also includes the preservation of 100 percent of the Del Mar manzanit
(the current focused survey indicates 21 individuals are present within the property; 2
individuals present in total), as well as wart-stemmed ceanothus, summer holly, and Nuttal’
scrub oak. Thus the impact to Del Mar manzanita from the offsite road impacts is hlly mitigatec
by the preservation of 78% of the Del Mar manzanita present within the property and the offsitl
areas combined and the large patch of southern maritime chaparral onsite.
IX. c) and d) Hazards
Agricultural chemicals have previously been used on the site according to the Zone 20 Progran
EIR. Because of this prior use there is the potential for soil contamination resulting from thl
varying degrees of degradation, prevalence in the environment, and toxicity of the agricultura
chemicals which may have been used. The following mitigation measures shall be implementec
to lessen this potential impact to a level of less than significant as required by the Zone 21
Program EIR:
1) Prior to approval of the final map or grading plan a detailed soils testing and analysi.
report shall be prepared by a registered soils engineer, and submitted to the City Planniq
and Engineering Departments as well as the County Department of Environmental Healtl
for review and approval. This report shall evaluate the potential for soil ContaminatioI
on-site due to historic use, handling, or storage of restricted agricultural chemicals. Thc
report shall also identifl a range of possible mitigation measures to remediate an:
potentially significant public health impacts if hazardous chemicals are detected at higl
concentrations in the soil. Such mitigation measures shall include, at a minimum:
a. Remove any contaminated soils and haul to a State-certified landfill.
16 Rev. 03/28/96
0 a
b. Cap the area of soil contamination with materials appropriate for the containmel
of the specific type of chemical, taking into account its rate of absorption an
toxicity level.
c. Place the area of soil contamination in an open space easement, with restrictior
on future construction of permanent buildings and human uses. Fencing an
warning signs shall also be installed, where appropriate, prohibiting potential u6
of the site.
2) The applicant shall noti@, in a manner satisfactory to the City Attorney, all tenantshser
of new development that these areas are subject to dust, pesticides, and odors associate
with adjacent agricultural operations, and that the tenantshers occupy these areas at the:
own risk.
X. b) Noise
A noise study was prepared for the project as required by a mitigation measure identified in th
Zone 20 program EIR. All projects located within 500 feet of existinghture Poinsettia Lane a
required to analyze the projected traffic noise impacts. The acoustical evaluation prepared fc
the project by Ogden Environmental and Energy Services concluded the following:
1) No ground floor receptors were found to be exposed to future traffic noise in excess o
the prescribed 60 dBA CNEL level set by the City. As a result of this finding, no ground
level exterior mitigation is required (e.g., noise walls).
2) The second floor noise for Lots # 1, 2, 3, and 8 were found to be in excess of th
prescribed 60 dBA CNEL level and would require an interior noise analysis il
accordance with CCR Title 24 to limit interior noise levels to 45 dBA CNEL.
3) No lots within the property boundaries were found to be within the 60+ dE3A CNEl
aircraft noise contours for the McClellan-Palomar Airport.
The following noise mitigation measures are required for the project:
1) The second floor noise for Lots # 1, 2, 3, and 8 were found to be in excess of thc
prescribed 60 dBA CNEL level and would require an interior noise analysis ir
accordance with CCR Title 24 to limit interior noise levels to 45 dBA CNEL. Prior tc
the issuance of a building permit for Lots # 1, 2, 3, and 8 the applicant shall submit i
copy of the required interior noise analysis documenting what construction materials o
measures must be utilized to meet the required interior noise levels. In addition a lette
signed by the acoustician and the project architect and containing the project architect’.
registration stamp shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit certiQing
that the recommendations of the interior noise analysis have been incorporated into the
building plans.
2) Prior to the recordation of the first final tract map or the issuance of building permits
whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this propen
may be subject to noise impacts from the proposed or existing Transportation Corridor, ir
17 Rev. 03/28/96
e e
a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney (see Noise Fon
#1 on file in the Planning Department).
3) Prior to the recordation of the first final tract map or the issuance of building permit:
whichever OCCLU-s first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this propert
is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating from McClellan-Palom:
Airport, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and the City Attorne
(see Noise Form #2 on file in the Planning Department).
XIV. a) Cultural Resources - Paleontology
According to the Zone 20 Program EIR the geologic formations present within the Zone 2
Specific Plan Area have the potential to contain significant fossils. There is a high potential fc
the discovery of fossils during future grading and construction activities. The followin
mitigation measures shall be implemented during future grading of the site to reduce potential1
significant impacts on the region’s paleontological resources to an acceptable level:
a. Prior to any grading of the project site, a paleontologist shall be retained t
perform a walkover survey of the site and to review the grading plans t
determine if the proposed grading will impact fossil resources. A copy of th
paleontologist’s report shall be provided to the Planning Director prior to issuanc
of a grading permit;
b. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of thl
site and to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the fossil
present in the geologic strata, it may be necessary to collect matrix samples fo
laboratory processing through fine screens. The paleontologist shall makl
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 a
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
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 o
the project shall be resolved by the Planning Director and City Engineer.
111. EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City o
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92009
(760) 438-1 161, extension 4446.
1. “Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plal
Update” (MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
18 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
2. “Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Zone 20 Specific Plan” (EIR 91
03), dated June 1992, Brian F. Mooney Associates.
3. “Biological Resources Report and Impact Analysis for the de Jong Property, City 1
Carlsbad, San Diego County, California”, dated February 11, 1998, Dudek & Associate
Inc.
4. “Offsite Impacts of the Proposed de Jong Property Development, dated July 27, 1991
Dudek & Associates, Inc.
5. “Acoustical Evaluation Study - de Jong Property” , dated February 18, 1998, Ogde
Environmental and Energy Services.
6. “Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation - de Jong Property” (Job No. 9’
7157), dated January 12, 1998, Geotechnical Exploration, Inc.
7. “Hydrology Study for de Jong Property in the City of Carlsbad” (W.O. 2074-l), Revise
July 30, 1998, Hunsaker & Associates, Inc.
19 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
1. The project design mitigates direct impacts to southern maritime chaparral and th
sensitive plant species that occur within this habitat. Included in the project design is th
granting of an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City of Carlsbad or an acceptabl
entity for an open space/conservation easement over Lots Number 29 and 30 of th
tentative map. This covers over 93 percent (9.8 acres) of the southern maritime chaparri
on the de Jong property. This is greater than the 2:l mitigation ratio that is typical1
required by the resource agencies for the impact of southern maritime chaparral. Th
open space easement also includes the preservation of 100 percent of the Del Ms
manzanita, wart-stemmed ceanothus, summer holly, Nuttall's scrub oak, and Californi
gnatcatcher occurring onsite.
2. The de Jong project includes in the project design the granting of an irrevocable offer c
dedication for an open space easement over 93 percent (9.8 acres) of the souther
maritime chaparral on the property. The onsite impact to southern maritime chaparral i
0.7 acre. When combined with the offsite impact, the total impact to this sensitive habita
type due to the project is 0.88 acre. The onsite preservation is greater than the 2:
mitigation ratio that is typically required by the resource agencies for the impact o
southern maritime chaparral. With the preservation of 9.8 acres onsite, the impact tl
southern maritime Chaparral is fidly mitigated. The open space easement also include
the preservation of 100 percent of the Del Mar manzanita (the current focused surve:
indicates 21 individuals are present within the property; 27 individuals present in total:
as well as wart-stemmed ceanothus, summer holly, and Nuttal's scrub oak. Thus th
impact to Del Mar manzanita from the offsite road impacts is fully mitigated by th
preservation of 78% of the Del Mar manzanita present within the property and the offsit
areas combined and the large patch of southern maritime chaparral onsite.
3. To mitigate potential disturbances to the California gnatcatcher, the grading operation
within 100 feet of the proposed open space area will be restricted during the gnatcatche
breeding season, or from February 15 to August 30 each year, unless it can be show:
through field reconnaissance by a certified biologist that no gnatcatchers are present 0:
the property for two months prior to the start of grading.
4. The Developer shall establish a homeowner's association and corresponding covenants
conditions and restrictions. Said CC&Rs shall be submitted to and approved by thl
Planning Director prior to final map approval. Prior to issuance of a building permit thl
Developer shall provide the Planning Department with a recorded copy of the officia
CC&Rs that have been approved by the Department of Real Estate and the Plannini
Director. At a minimum, the CC&Rs shall contain the following provision:
a. The CC&Rs shall include provisions specifying maintenance responsibility fo
Open Space Lot 29. The CC&Rs shall stipulate that within the boundaries of th'
HOA open space easement, structures or any other thing not shown on th'
approved tentative map or landscape plans shall be prohibited.
5. The Developer shall dedicate to the Homeowner's Association on the final map, a1
open space maintenance easement over Lot 29 identified on the tentative map tl
enable maintenance activities within the easement area including but not limited to
20 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
landscaping and irrigation in accordance with the approved tentative map an1
landscape plans, removal of debris and trash, minimal fire suppression thinninl
and erosion prevention and remediation. A note to this effect shall be placed on tb
non-mapping data sheet of the final map.
6. Removal of native vegetation and development of Open Space Lot(s) 29, including bi
not limited to fences, walls, decks, storage buildings, pools, spas, stairways an
landscaping, other than that approved as part of the grading plan, improvement plan:
landscape plan, etc. as shown on the project exhibits, is specifically prohibited, excel
upon written order of the Carlsbad Fire Department for fire prevention purposes, or up0
written approval of the Planning Director, based upon a request from the Homeownel
Association accompanied by a report from a qualified arboristhotanist indicating th
need to remove specified trees andor plants because of disease or impending danger t
adjacent habitable dwelling units. For areas containing native vegetation the rep0
required to accompany the request shall be prepared by a qualified biologist.
7. Prior to approval of the final map or grading plan a detailed soils testing and analysi
report shall be prepared by a registered soils engineer, and submitted to the City Plannin,
and Engineering Departments as well as the County Department of Environmental Healt:
for review and approval. This report shall evaluate the potential for soil contaminatio:
on-site due to historic use, handling, or storage of restricted agricultural chemicals. Th
report shall also identify a range of possible mitigation measures to remediate aq
potentially significant public health impacts if hazardous chemicals are detected at hig
concentrations in the soil. Such mitigation measures shall include, at a minimum:
a. Remove any contaminated soils and haul to a State-certified landfill.
b. Cap the area of soil contamination with materials appropriate for the containmer
of the specific type of chemical, taking into account its rate of absorption ant
toxicity level.
c. Place the area of soil contamination in an open space easement, with restriction
on future construction of permanent buildings and human uses. Fencing ant
warning signs shall also be installed, where appropriate, prohibiting potential US(
of the site.
8. The applicant shall notify, in a manner satisfactory to the City Attorney, all tenantsher
of new development that these areas are subject to dust, pesticides, and odors associatec
with adjacent agricultural operations, and that the tenantshers occupy these areas at thei
own risk.
9. The second floor noise for Lots # 1 , 2, 3, and 8 were found to be in excess of thl
prescribed 60 dBA CNEL level and would require an interior noise analysis i~
accordance with CCR Title 24 to limit interior noise levels to 45 dBA CNEL. Prior tc
the issuance of a building permit for Lots # 1, 2, 3, and 8 the applicant shall submit
copy of the required interior noise analysis documenting what construction materials o
measures must be utilized to meet the required interior noise levels. In addition a lette
signed by the acoustician and the project architect and containing the project architect’
registration stamp shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit certifiyin:
21 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
that the recommendations of the interior noise analysis have been incorporated into th
building plans.
10. Prior to the recordation of the first final tract map or the issuance of building permit!
whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this propert
may be subject to noise impacts from the proposed or existing Transportation Corridor, i
a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney (see Noise Forr
#1 on file in the Planning Department).
11. Prior to the recordation of the first final tract map or the issuance of building permit!
whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this propert
is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating from McClellan-Palomz
Airport, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and the City Attome
(see Noise Form #2 on file in the Planning Department).
12. a. Prior to any grading of the project site, a paleontologist shall be retained t
perform a walkover survey of the site and to review the grading plans t
determine if the proposed grading will impact fossil resources. A copy of th
paleontologist’s report shall be provided to the Planning Director prior to issuanc
of a grading permit;
b. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of th
site and to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the fossil
present in the geologic strata, it may be necessary to collect matrix samples fc
laboratory processing through fine screens. The paleontologist shall mak
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 a
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
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 oj
the project shall be resolved by the Planning Director and City Engineer.
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
22 Rev. 03128196
e e
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT r HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AN
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
//," 2t?-.- 9z
Date
23
Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL MI Ta TlON MONITORING CHECKLIS I) PAGE I OF 6
Obi Q,
n n
? $
00 Q,
I" 0 \ t- ? 00 ua
2 3 \ cv
03 Q,
Q
ul N? *
2
3s
00 Ea c/>o
WtB
3Q, zn n
EO
CI 0 a,
n E' - (II
I= a,
v)
.- CI
E
2
U S
7 0
'CJ Q,
w 2 2
I- b W i2 a
0;
n
6
..
W
W z d z e t n z 0 0
I- w
8
2
2
-I a
a
>
$2sa
.o, - E mro
.e v, a, E$ 2 o Ea -5 0 & .& -
L!L)$
.- E 2 cmm
$ €5 .- K '5 g0
aE LC .g a, r .- E LEE p -K '5 -$m ?a,!! gLm Q2 .r a .v, 3
rnz E 5 0 "a
u a, .=
0 ms 0 .o, a,
a: v, 5 me
.- a, 7 E$"
WEa $€ 2 0 u-
0 0s
0ajE
gk c.4 v,.o,aq 2W Y 3.r203 2% se
-0
O3Q
4-l
+
Q'E v1 -
Q- L
by K 000
- .-
.zz u h
K KO
.-
0-05
ga 5
g .z .E
.s 0 a, KQ
a,-ucu E 9s K KS 0s 0 Eo 'Eaoa,
-= v1 a,= EZao -moo $ Qv, rEa8 a,zJ= 2 €SF3
Earn, .z 5 gcr
a, g €2 0)'s c r; .z a, a- - 9 x .Go 2% E;;; 2 :.E=
g.& "y) .- sa,
cK3$
K K.SL 3
.e 03
l-z5ii
ri a,
S a,
I
- E
.- E"
S a, a, n
v)
.c m
2 3 v) m E
c 0
m CT
._ c
._ - ._ E
S a, 2
c 0 m
S a,
._ I
c
- 5
- 2
-0 a, E
> &
ai .- + >
m
3 - 5
gp
irjV
rd E .G 0
IO 'c
.- .I- i: 6 .$
-
Wl- x%
ENVIRONMENTAL MI a ATION MONITORING CHECKLI a ~ PAGE 2 OF 6
1 I
I 1
. j
I I I 1 < < 1
(
<
i
I
(
I
I
S <
I
f (
(
f i
j
7
3 < . /
P
4. 0 - i irii
z zc 5 m' g:
.- 5
;;
.;
c oi
%a
f I1 -a
ENVIRONMENTAL MI ie ATION MONITORING CHECKLI a - PAGE 3 OF 6
7
I
,
1
_I
I 1 1 d
1 1 d
1
( I 1
I 1
I I
I
d
I <
I
I (
c < I 1
7
5 2
#
I
+ C -
! ;;i
e !i .I
.P .$ ?io 5 I1
xf
sa
-a
Uk
ENVIRONMENTAL MI le ATION MONITORING CHECKLIS * . PAGE 4 OF 6
-c
K c
- E
._ E
K
a r
(I n: r e
9 U
E c ._ c n: .- c .- E
C z
.- E
II
c n:
S +
- $ - E
T
E s
$
2 kz
._ c (c -
cu 1; 6 .E
.- rijn 5 It
x9 "a,
Luk
ENVIRONMENTAL MI TQ ATlON MONITORING CHECKLI a PAGE 5 OF 6
u a,
C a,
-
- E
.- E
c a, a, .a cn
c m
F 2 ul m E
C 0
m U L.
._ c
.-
E
C a, 2 I1
C 0 m
C a,
.- c
I
- E E
P
73 Q)
-
E L
ai ._ >
m
3 - 4-4
G iio
%
=5
E6 .E gg
0 7;-
.- 0 .p ZQ 5 II
2%
'c
sa,
"a,
ut-
ENVIRONMENTAL MI e ATION MONITORING CHECKLI a , PAGE 6 OF 6
i
I , , J
I I J , !
1 I I I
I 1
( <
!
2
I (
I
I I
I c i
j -
7
‘i
C . *
9
E
c 0 -
iic
z 1 .s
.- : .E i;ja g II
x5 -a
WI-