HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-10-06; Planning Commission; Resolution 46260 e
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. 4626
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMENDING
APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM FOR A ZONE CHANGE FROM L-C TO R-1-7,500-
Q AND 0-S AND TO SUBDIVIDE 27.7 ACRES INTO 21
SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND ONE OPEN SPACE LOT WITH
21 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED NORTH OF POINSETTIA LANE BETWEEN
AVIARA PARKWAY AND BLACK RAIL ROAD IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 20.
CASE NAME: ZC 98-12/LCPA 98-09/CT 98-19/SDP 99-
CASE NO.: ROESCH PROPERTY SUBDIVISION
WHEREAS, Standard Pacific Corporation, “De~eloper’~, has filed z
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Ronald L. Roesch, ‘
described as
O5/HDP 98-21/CDP 98-86
That portion 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 official plat thereof, as
described in Certificate of Compliance record March 11, 1997 as
File No. 1997-0106633 official
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monito
Reporting Program was prepared in conjunction with said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 6th day of Octobe
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all 1
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered 2
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and I;
Program.
I
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
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
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program acc
Exhibit “ND” dated July 29, 1999, and “PII” dated February 21, 1999:
hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered Mitigated Negative Declarz
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the environmenta
therein identified for this project and any comments, thereon
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accorda
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State C
and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; anc
c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of th
Carlsbad; and
d. based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Conditions:
1. The Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of the Roesch
Subdivision Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
...
...
...
...
...
...
PC RES0 NO. 4626 -2-
1
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
~
l
e 0
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 6th day of October, 199
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Vice Chairperson Compas, Commissioners L’Heureux,
Segall, Trigas, and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT: Chairperson Heineman
ABSTAIN:
WILLIAM COMPAS, Vice Chgirperson
CA€U,SBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 4626 -3-
r
"
-
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: North of Poinsettia Lane between Aviara Parkway and Black R
Road in the southwest quadrant within the Zone 20 Specific PI
area.
Project Description: A Local Coastal Program Amendment, Zone Change, Tentatl
Tract Map, Site Development Plan, Hillside Development Pern
and Coastal Development Permit to change the zoning kc
Limited Control (L-C) to One Family ResidentiaL'Qualifi
Ovcrlay Zone/Open Space (R-1-7,5OO-Q/OS) and to subdivide t
27.7 acre parcel into 21 standard single family 7,500+ square fc
lots and one open space lot. Single family homes are a1
proposed on each lot.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described projt
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act a
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, t
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 t
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 tk
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 from tl
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within :
days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Plannil
Department at (760) 438-1 161, extension 4477.
DATED: JULY 29,1999
CASENO: . ZC 98-12/LCPA 98-09/CT 98-19/HDP 98-21/CDP 98-86/SDP 99-05
CASE NAME: ROESCH PROPERTY SUBDIVISION
PUBLISH DATE: JULY 29,1999
Planning Director
2075 La Paimas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-1 161 - FAX (760) 438-08!
0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: ZC 98-12LCPA 98-09/CT 98-19/HDP 98-21/CDP 98-86/SDP 99-
DATE: February 21. 19
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Roesch Prouertv
2. APPLICANT: Standard Pacific Homes
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 9335 ChesaDeake Drive. San Die:
CA 92123
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED:
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A urouosed Local Coastal Program Amendment and Zone Chan
to change the land use designation for the site from Limited Control (L-C) to One-Fam
Residential, 7,500 sauare foot minimum lot size. Qualified Develoument Overlay Zone (R.
7.500 -0) and Ouen Space (OS) on a 27.7 acre Darcel. Also urouosed is a Tentative Tract Mau
create 21 residential lots and 1 ouen mace lot. a Site Development Plan, Hillside Develoumt
Permit, and Coastal Development Permit. The Droiect site is located in the southwest auadr:
north of Poinsettia Lane between Black Rail Road and Aviara Parkway within the boundaries
the Zone 20 Suecific Plan..
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this projel
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 Ix] TransportatiodCirculation [7 Public Services
Population and Housing IX1 Biological Resources c] Utilities & Service Systems
c] Geological Problems Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 Water Hazards Cultural Resources
[XI Air Quality [7 Noise [7 Recreation
1 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03128196
0 0
DETERMINATION.
(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.
[7 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. A Mitigat!
Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to 1
addressed.
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 Environmenl
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.
L * 7/U/qji
Planner Signature Date
.I IZb#/qq
Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the Cil
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significa
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 1
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negatih
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’ a
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. A
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, (
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 fi-om “Potentially Significant Impact” to
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and th
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 significar
effect on the environment, but &I potentially significant effects (a) have been analyze,
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicabl
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 up0
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to c
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 requirec
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIF
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement o
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
0 A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence tha
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
a 0
If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing <
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, a~
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In tf
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporate1
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
a An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and includi~
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, a~
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less th,
significant; (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 redul
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is n
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 oft!
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attentic
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determinl
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18; #2 Pgs 111-74 - I11 -87)
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? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18; #2 Pgs 111-74 - I11 -
87) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18; #2 I11 -
- 87)
(#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18; #2 Pgs I11 -74 - I11 -87)
74 - I11 -87)
0
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impat Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
om
0 UIXI
UKI
17 OB
0 0 OIXI
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
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)
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; #4)
Pgs 111-1 12 - 111-1 1'8; #4)
((#l:PgS 5.1-1 - 5.1.15; #2: Pgs 111-112 - 111-118; #6)
5.1-15;#2: Pgs 111-1 12 - 111-118; #4)
Pgs 111-1 12 - 111-1 18; #4)
5.1-1 - 5.i-15; #2: pgs 111-1 12 - 111 -1 18; #4)
111-1 12 - 111-1 18; ##4)
- I11 -118; #4)
5.1-15; #2 Pgs I11 -112 - I11 -118; #4)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
El
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0. 151 o[xI
UIXI
OH
OH
ON nIxI
05 nIXI
ON
OH Elm
5 Rev. 03/28/96
0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources),
4
b)
c)
dl
e>
0
8)
h)
i)
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff! (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-
11; #5)
Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11; #5)
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
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 - 5.2-11; #5)
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; #5)
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
oxygen or turbidity)? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11; #5)
body? ((#1 :PgS 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1; #5)
((#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5.2-11; #5)
11; #5)
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-
1 - 5.3-12)
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)
- 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?
f, Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -
proposal result in:
5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #2: PgS 111-58 - 111-69, #7)
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)
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #2: Pgs 111-58 - 111-69)
5.7.22; #2: Pgs 111-58 - 111-69)
6
a
Potentially
Significant Impact
0
0
0
-0 o
17
Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0
0 0
0 17
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
0
0 0 0
Kl 0 0
0 0
0
0 0
No
Impac
IXI
la
la
Ixl
Ix1
IXI
lxl
Ixl
la
0
IXI
Ixl
Ixl
(x]
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 nu
0 OIXI
0 om
0 UIxl uIx1
OBI
OIxl
Rev. 03/28/96
0 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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-
37 - 111-57; #3) 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 (eg marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1
(#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, #8)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
I7
0
0
-
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
[XI
IXI
0
[XI
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)
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
1 - 5.13-9)
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
& 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, 0 0
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 - cl
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5; #2: Pgs 111-97 - 0 El
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5; #2: Pgs 0 IXI
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) 0 0
5.10.1-5)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
III- 105)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
111-97 - 111-105)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
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; #6) 0
1 - 5.9-15; #2: Pgs 111-88 - 111-96; #5) 0 0
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) 0
7
Less Than No
Significant Impac Impact
on
urn nn
OH on
01SI
01SI
urn
OH
n[xI
nu
on
-0 El
OIXI
ON
o[XI
Rev. 03/28/96
0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4)
C) Schools? (#1 :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)
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:Pg~111-119-111-151)
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
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 53-10; #2: 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)
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 -
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#1 :Pgs
5.12.8-7)
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
8
Potentially Significant
Impact
17 o 0
0
0
0 I7
0 0 0
0
El
0
o
I7
0
0
0
o
I7
0 Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impa
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless Impact
175 17 OIX 0 OH
0 05
OK
0 OK 0 OK
17 OK 0 OK 17 OK 0 05
0 om
0 ON
OB
IXI no om
0 ON
0 nw
0 OB
0 ON
0 UIXI
Rev. 03/28/96
e
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Impact
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
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
prehistory? lzl
0
9
0
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impac
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless Impact
[x] nu
no
0 om
Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
XVII. EARLIER 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 (ME1
93-01) . The MEIR is cited as source #1 in the preceding checklist. This proposal is consiste:
with the applicable portions of the General Plan and is considered a project that was describc
in MEIR 93-01 as within its scope. All feasible mitigation measures identified in MEIR 934
which are appropriate to the project have been incorporated into this project.
,The project site is Iocated in an area which is subject to the requirements of the Zone z
Specific Plan approved by the City Council in 1994. A program EIR was certified for the ZOI
20 Specific Plan. The Zone 20 Program EIR identified, analyzed, and recommended mitigatic
to reduce potentially significant impacts to insignificant levels. The Zone 20 Program El
(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 fi-om the development of the Specific Plan area. The Program El
is intended to be used in the review of subsequent projects within Zone 20. The proje
incorporates the required Zone 20 Program EIR mitigation measures, and through the analys
of the required additional biological, geotechnical, hydrology, and noise analysis
determination has been made that no additional significant impacts beyond those identified a1
mitigated by the Program EIR will result from this project. The following environment
evaluation briefly explains the basis for this determination along with identifying the sour(
documents which support the environmental determination. The Zone 20 Program EIR a
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 DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project site is approximately 27.7 acres in size and is located at the north of Poinsettia La
between Aviara Parkway and Black Rail Road . The project consists of 21 residential lots wit1
minimum lot area of 7,500 square feet and one 21.87 acre open space lot. The site conta:
coastal sage scrub, southern maritime chaparral, native grasslands, southern willow scn
California gnatcatchers, sensitive plant species, and areas which have been used for agriculture.
A total of 27.7 acres of the site are designated as Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM C
DU/AC). The project site is zoned Limited Control (L-C). A zone change and local coas
program amendment are proposed to designate the site as One-Family Residential, 7,500 squi
foot minimum lot size, Qualified Development Overlay Zone (R-1-Q) and Open Space (OS)
correspond to the existing generai plan land use designations. An irrevocable offer of dedicati
will be required over the open space lot. A portion of the residential density from these parcels
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 and coas
development permit approval are being requested.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
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 Gene
Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles travelt
These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organ
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 S
Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are consider
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in t
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 varic
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisio
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) meam
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Dema
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including ma
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable a
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into tl
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is markt
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, tl
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by Ci
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Ovemding Considerations’’ for 2
quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects withi
the scope of the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no furthl
environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at tl
Planning Department.
VI. a) TransportatiodCirculation
The implementation of projects that fall within the scope of and are included in the updated 195
General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate 1
accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severe:
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. The:
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsba
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 develo
alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestria
linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies whe
12 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highw
onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. T
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either be
incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. T
project will be conditioned to dedicate a segment of the future citywide trail within the west<
portion of the site (SDG&E access road), and to pay its fair share of the cost of the Poinset
Lane road segment through Zone 20.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of t
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefo
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 t
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, includ
a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement (
Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects that fall within the scope of the General Plar
Master EIR, including this project.
The City has received its annual Growth Management Traffic Monitoring Report. The Rep0
has recorded an unanticipated intersection “level of service” (LOS) failure at Palomar Airpo:
Road (PAR) and El Camino Real (ECR) during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, Th
potentially creates a changed circumstance negating reliance on previous environment;
documentation. Pursuant to $15 162 of the CEQA Guidelines a lead agency must prepare
“Subsequent” environmental documentation if substantial evidence (i.e., the recorde
intersection failure) determines that a changed circumstance exists. However, case law hz
interpreted this section of the CEQA Guidelines to not require the preparation of a “Subsequer
EIR’ if mitigation measures are adopted which reduce the identified impacts to a level G
insignificance.
A mitigation measure has been identified which, if implemented, will bring the peak hours LO!
into the acceptable range. The mitigation measure involves construction of two dual right tun
lanes-northbound to eastbound and westbound to northbound. This project has bee:
conditioned to pay its fair share of the intersection “short-term improvements,” thereb:
guaranteeing mitigation to a level of insignificance.
VII. a, c. & d) Biological Resources
The Zone 20 Program EIR identified the mitigation requirement that future site specif
biological survey studies that focus on the impacts created by individual subsequent developme
projects be prepared. The additional biological studies are required to consider the baseline da
and biological open space recommendations of the Zone 20 Program EIR and provide mo.
detailed and current resource surveys. The site specific biological survey is required to identij
mitigation for any project specific impacts.
A report entitled, “Biological Resources Assessment of the Rosech Site Located in the City (
Carlsbad, San Diego County, California,” dated December 8, 1998 by Natural Resourc
Consultants has been prepared for the project. In addition, a separate sensitive plant survey on
portion of the Roesch property has been conducted to analyze the biological impacts associatr
with the proposed project grading and fire suppression zones.
13 Rev. 03/28/96
e e
The biology report for the Roesch property determined that implementation of the project wou:
result in the direct loss of 6.61 acres or approximately 24% of the site including impacts to tl
following habitat types and sensitive plant and animal species :
5.02 acres of agricultural - less than significant
H 0.0 acre of coastal sage scrub - less than significant
H 1.37 acre of southern maritime chaparral - significant
H 4.98 acre of annual non-native grassland - less than significant m .28 acres of ruderal - less than significant
H .01 acres of eucalyptus woodlands - less than significant
I approximately 296 whte coast ceanothus
H 20 Nuttall's scrub oak = 1591 square feet of western dichondra
H 484 square feet of ashy spike moss
Based on cumulative data pertaining to the site, it is assumed the site supports two gnatcatch(
pairs within the coastal sage scrub and chaparral areas. The California gnatcatcher observe
onsite were located on the north and south sides of the site withn chaparral and coastal saE
scrub vegetation. There will be no impact to its preferred habitat, coastal sage scrub. Indirel
impacts may result in the reduction of the carrying capacity of the native habitats, however, tf
patch of habitat onsite is connected to additional habitat offsite.
The proposed plan results in the preservation of approximately 21 acres (76 percent), 14.5 acre
of which are native habitats, in natural open space, including 100% of native grasslands, coast:
sage scrub, disturbed coastal sage scrub, and southern willow scrub, and 67% of souther
maritime chaparral. The following onsite impacts associated with implementation of th
proposed development plan are considered significant:
a) Loss of 1.37 acre of southern maritime chaparral.
The Roesch property is identified as a standards area within Linkage Area F of the Carlsba
Draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP). Standards areas require a minimum preservation of 6
percent of coastal sage scrub and 75 percent of gnatcatchers as well as 100% conservation o
narrow endemic species. Additionally, within Zone 20, a goal is established for no net loss o
wetland habitats, southern maritime chaparral, maritime succulent scrub and coastal sage scrub
The proposed project meets the standards area conservation requirements outlined by the Draf
Carlsbad HMP: the project ensures the hctioning of preserve linkages due to the preservl
design and native habitats that are contiguous with open space on adjacent parcels is preserved
Although the project results in the loss of 1.37 acre of southern maritime chaparral, it does no
contain narrow endemic plants and is located to the east of the linkage corridor proposed by thl
Roesch project. The project contributes to the preservation of resources and the ultimat,
development of the subregional preserve system by contributing open space, a total of 21 acres o
predominately native habitats, in a continuous configuration through Linkage Area F. On a~
overall project-level basis, the property is proposed to preserve 76 percent of the site, with tht
sensitive native habitats onsite proposed to receive approximately 100 percent preservatior
except for southern maritime chaparral. The potential indirect impact to the 2 pair of gnatcatcher:
observed onsite resulting from grading activities would be mitigated through direct surveys tc
locate active gnatcatcher nests. If nests are present, no grading or removal of habitat may takt
place within 200 feet of active nesting sites during the nestinghreeding season (mid-Februaq
through mid-July).
14 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
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 pla
species that occur within this habitat. Included in the project design is the granting of ;
irrevocable offer of dedication to the City of Carlsbad or an acceptable entity for an op~
space/conservation easement over Lot 22 of the tentative map. This covers over 67 perce
(2.79 acres) of the southern maritime chaparral on the Roesch property. This satisfies the 2
mitigation ratio that is typically required by the resource agencies for the impact of southe
maritime chaparral. The open space easement also includes the preservation of 100% of nati
grasslands, coastal sage scrub, disturbed coastal sage scrub, southern willow scrub as well I
the majority of wart-stemmed ceanothus, Nuttall's scrub oak, western dichondra, ashy spil
moss, and California gnatcatcher occurring onsite. In addition, the following mitigatic
measures will be implemented:
To mitigate potential disturbances to the California gnatcatcher resulting fi-om grading activitie
prior to the commencement of grading activities, direct surveys to locate active gnatcatcher nes
shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. If nests are present, no grading or removal of habit
may take place within 200 feet of active nesting sites during the nestinghreeding season (mi'
February through mid-July).
The Developer shall establish a homeowner's association and corresponding covenanl
conditions and restrictions. Said CC&Rs shall be submitted to and approved by the Plannir
Director prior to final map approval. Prior to issuance of a building permit the Developer sh:
provide the Planning Department with a recorded copy of the official CC&Rs that have bet
approved by the Department of Real Estate and the Planning Director. At a minimum, tk
CC&Rs shall contain the following provision:
a. The CC&Rs shall include provisions specifying maintenance responsibility fc
Open Space Lot 22. The CC&Rs shall stipulate that within the boundaries of tl-
HOA open space easement, structures or any other thing not shown on tk
approved tentative map or landscape plans shall be prohibited.
The Developer shall dedicate to the Homeowner's Association on the final ma]
an open space maintenance easement over Lot 22 identified on the tentatij
map to enable maintenance activities within the easem'ent area including bl
not limited to, landscaping and irrigation in accordance with the approve
tentative map and landscape plans, removal of debris and trash, minimal fi1
suppression thinning, and erosion prevention and remediation. A note t
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) 2;
including but not limited to fences, walls, decks, storage buildings, pools, spa!
stairways and landscaping, other than that approved as part of the grading plar
improvement plans, landscape plan, etc. as shown on the project exhibits, i
specifically prohibited, except upon written order of the Carlsbad Fire Departmer
for fire prevention purposes, or upon written approval of the Planning Directo:
based upon a request from the Homeowners Association accompanied by a repo:
from a qualified arboristhotanist indicating the need to remove specified tree
and/or plants because of disease or impending danger to adjacent habitabl
15 Rev. 03/28/96
0 m
dwelling units. For areas containing native vegetation the report required
accompany the request shall be prepared by a qualified biologist.
IX. c) and d) Hazards
Agricultural chemicals have previously been used on the site according to the Zone 20 Progra
EIR. Because of this prior use there is the potential for soil contamination resulting from t:
varying degrees of degradation, prevalence in the environment, and toxicity of the agricultm
chemicals which may have been used. The following mitigation measures shall be implement.
to lessen this potential impact to a level of less than significant as required by the Zone i
Program EIR:
1) Prior to approval of the final map or grading plan a detailed soils testing and analys
report shall be prepared by a registered soils engineer, and submitted to the City Plannir
and Engineering Departments as well as the County Department of Environmental Heal
for review and approval. This report shall evaluate the potential for soil contaminatic
on-site due to historic use, handling, or storage of restricted agricultural chemicals. TI
report shall also identify a range of possible mitigation measures to remediate a~
potentially significant public health impacts if hazardous chemicals are detected at hi;
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 containme1
of the specific type of chemical, taking into account its rate of absorption ar
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 ar
warning signs shall also be installed, where appropriate, prohibiting potential UI
of the site.
2) 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 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 ar
required to analyze the projected traffic noise impacts. The acoustical evaluation prepared b
' Investigative Science and Engineering concluded that the all noise levels at receptor point
would be below the 670 dBA CNEL threshold established by the City; therefore no mitigation i
required.
In accordance with mitigation required by the Zone 20 EIR, the following condition shall b
applied to the project:
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 propert:
16 Rev. 03/28/96
e e
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 Attorn
(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
Specific Plan Area have the potential to contain significant fossils, There is a high potential 1
the discovery of fossils during future grading and construction activities. The followi.
mitigation measures shall be implemented during Euture grading of the site to reduce potential
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
perform a walkover survey of the site and to review the grading plans
determine if the proposed grading will impact fossil resources. A copy of t:
paleontologist’s report shall be provided to the Planning Director prior to issuan
of a grading permit;
b. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections oft
site and to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the foss
present in the geologic strata, it may be necessary to collect matrix samples fi
laboratory processing through fine screens. The paleontologist shall mal
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 i
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 Museurr
e. Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading activities 1
the project shall be resolved by the Planning Director and City Engineer.
111. EAlUIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City (
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92001
(760) 438-1 161, extension 4446.
1. “Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Ple
Update”, (MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
2. “Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Zone 20 Specific Plan” (EIR 9C
03), dated June 1992, Brian F. Mooney Associates.
3. “Biological Resources Assessment of the Roesch Site Located in the City of Carlsbac
San Diego County, California”, dated December 8, 1998, Natural Resource Consultants.
4. “Geotechnical Investigation - Roesch Property” (Job No. 06074-12-02), dated May f
1998, Geocon, Inc.
17 Rev. 03/28/96
0 e
5. “Hydrology Study for Roesch Property in the City of Carlsbad” (W.O. 2240-05), datr
June 24, 1998, Hunsaker & Associates, Inc.
6. “Standard Pacific Roesch Property Acoustical Study (SE Report #98-035)” datc
December 2, 1998, Investigative Science and Engineering.
7. “1998 Traffic Monitoring Report” for the City of Carlsbad, Valley Research and Hami
8. “Draft Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad” dat,
Associates.
April, 1999.
18 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
1. The project design mitigates direct impacts to southern maritime chaparral and t
sensitive plant species that occur within this habitat. Included in the project design is t
granting of an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City of Carlsbad or an acceptat
entity for an open space/conservation easement over Lot 22 of the tentative map. TI
covers over 67 percent (2.79 acres) of the southern maritime chaparral on the Roes
property. This satisfies the 2:l mitigation ratio that is typically required by the resow
agencies for the impact of southern maritime chaparral. The open space easement a1
includes the preservation of 100% of the of native grasslands, coastal sage scm
disturbed coastal sage scrub, southem willow scrub, and 2 pair of California gnatcatchc
occurring onsite, and the majority of white coast ceanothus, Nuttall’s scrub oak, weste
dichondra, ashy spike moss.
2. To mitigate potential disturbances to the California gnatcatcher resulting from gradi~
activities, prior to the commencement of grading activities, direct surveys to locate acti
gnatcatcher nests shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. If nests are present, 1
grading or removal of habitat may take place within 200 feet of active nesting sites duril
the nestinoreeding season (mid-February through mid-July).
3. The Developer shall establish a homeowner’s association and corresponding covenant
conditions and restrictions. Said CC&Rs shall be submitted to and approved by tl
Planning Director prior to final map approval. Prior to issuance of a building permit tl
Developer shall provide the Planning Department with a recorded copy of the offici
CC&Rs that have been approved by the Department of Real Estate and the Plannir
Director. At a minimum, the CC&Rs shall contain the following provision:
a. The CC&Rs shall include provisions specifying maintenance responsibility fi
Open Space Lot 22. The CC&Rs shall stipulate that within the boundaries of tl
HOA open space easement, structures or any other thing not shown on tl
approved tentative map or landscape plans shall be prohibited.
4. The Developer shall dedicate to the Homeowner’s Association on the final map, a
open space maintenance easement over Lot 22 identified on the tentative map 1
enable maintenance activities within the easement area including but not limited tc
landscaping and irrigation in accordance with the approved tentative map an
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 th
non-mapping data sheet of the final map.
5. Removal of native vegetation and development of Open Space Lot(s) 22, including bl
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, excer
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 Homeowner
Association accompanied by a report from a qualified arboristhotanist indicating th
need to remove specified trees and/or plants because of disease or impending danger t
adjacent habitable dwelling units. For areas containing native vegetation the rep01
required to accompany the request shall be prepared by a qualified biologist.
19 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
6. Prior to approval of the final map or grading plan a detailed soils testing and analy:
report shall be prepared by a registered soils engineer, and submitted to the City Planni:
and Engineering Departments as well as the County Department of Environmental Heal
for review and approval. This report shall evaluate the potential for soil contaminatil
on-site due to historic use, handling, or storage of restricted agricultural chemicals. T
report shall also identify a range of possible mitigation measures to remediate a:
potentially significant public health impacts if hazardous chemicals are detected at hi
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 containme
of the specific type of chemical, taking into account its rate of absorption a
toxicity level.
c. Place the area of soil contamination in an open space easement, with restrictio
on future construction of permanent buildings and human uses. Fencing a1
warning signs shall also be installed, where appropriate, prohibiting potential u
of the site.
7. The applicant shall notify, in a manner satisfactory to the City Attorney, all tenantshe
of new development that these areas are subject to dust, pesticides, and odors associatt
with adjacent agricultural operations, and that the tenantshers occupy these areas at the
own risk.
8. 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 proper
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 Attorn<
(see Noise Form #2 on file in the Planning Department).
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 tk
site and to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the fossi
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 ol
the project shall be resolved by the Planning Director and City Engineer.
20 Rev. 03/28/96
0
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
21 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AN
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
/Z/ /994 -
Date
-
Signabe +W-~T~~~P~F~CAW~~
22 Rev. 03/28/96
ENV
?
ob
n n h
cn
a
co cn
T I
I- 0 a
a3 cn
\
?
2 s 0
T
Cil cnm
00, ?
NO,
&jn a
sg n wa w
=Jcn Cj
nz
0 k n z 0 0
arq 0;
za IJJ
59 < -7 LLN z
c 0
v) > m P
v)
=I
> t:
Q,
.- .- .-
a 0,
r 0
Q, v)
K 0
w+ w $25
I-d
!+ar
z
0> 0
On arn aa
'IRONMEI
$X&
.PC E mra .= IJJ a,
m
L c- uo
8 .- c
E23
3 .o Q
;gi
.E i p + g €5
" t: '3
PO
.g .P a,
Q.: 2
t 5 .e E
+ b : 2 -0s 282 2603
a .u, s
000 v)s E
El O-W
m a, .= t: ru 0 .P a, 0 mG e v) 5 mE
.- tSb SF 5 gm m 0 u- b us sa c
oajE o@
.- t os
& .o .- 3k !=FA v).Fmq
$.5G& v)+ 30
€ $2 t
g),o on
Q+ .E a- L
+Y t - .-
.= u x .-
om5 .+I
aF6p
cum
mo 7 a,-ocu
o Eo .=moa,
-= v) a,n
-mag EZao
3.:: g amr 2 Esg!=r
galv)g .z k gar
a, g €2 03.5 c zi
'5 a,%& c c.G 3
- 9 -0 .PO
a,c c @.E= FO5E
~2 Qg
.- tal
Cc30
sgz:
rl TAL MITIC(hl0N MONITORING CHECKLIST,
% $
v)
IY
c 0 .- * %Z
SE) &E >a,
E -
c 2? $g
v)
-(5, (5,s
LE c .E Q) .G
6 Br -E m E
u) C
C C m
.-
E 2:
(5, C La Q .-
.- sp SI- 5: .- ZF f m s .= 1-
LL C3R
yj Cb
3% & Gr>
'sob a,gv)
sg, -22
0 v)g
5 ad 2
0 g.?
a)om
.- OCD
a0
S Q.2 m
.- - mr va,
2
t OE2 .= .- * 0
L+ifi g QsE mu-
c ox.;
rn
2 s: gs O
ma" g
02
6sL m?
O 0-
';=a E
m *= Ea,--
.h 0 0
> QN
mA
"0
p% s
6% g 5; 8
2.2% g
gsm- my; m
5.2 E g kg- a, a mUI &Cs g z .P "zi'mba, a,?" 0
*c) -
Q!=
.g 'E -g Q .- .L 0 my: C C EN g,g
fa, mo
a,C a, a,
3m3 s- 2e gg g
sZ&j
0.25 Ej zI-go
!?? 0 ,-o my gg a a, '3 .c
&e E b Q,m
-C xf
2 0.g3 K23g
a,= L p UI a,L
Y-
-KC
a,
C ,= a, a, v) m_t
-0 0. a, UI-3F f
r m-
v) f5 3
u)s 0 m Fa, r,-
3 (5,o
;3Qia, v)
~ $Oca UI.= 3 pd55
.% i 82
a, Q, q s :$=I
-%I- v),uz 0- m Vi $4" mu 3
v) ms
Z2QmF
U-U" mm a, 0a)fUoj
c a L-05 g ..p 3 L- m - moE mso 0 a, 2 "a,& $9 zz $L
2 5': 3 x
a, a,N O g
osa"
E 0 52.2
sov)
oms
QUI Q-L z Hz&
a,- .--a
2322
.- 0 UI-u
L &%+?E%S BE :.;-zg
m ar gg g &Eg QN m .s E ,o 2 .E (J7 fEpmG 0 0 (5,+?.'s .z m z, m a,.? C 0 Q) ma, =
o5Ck;E
0, a .Qs s%?-ij a, C
L m 7JJL.S 2.g ggs g
v) 0" .o > t on m
6 .a, x.a, a.= a,*%
+ 0 3 =In!=- 5.2 zij= (5, .
.- v) m UI uz '5 f
-D 073 mlCsJ7 5.G Q) x0 ==en- UIO
-0 m8 E 5 mgy; 0 s2 -a,>'Zr
--%I- 0 0 LZ5 a, 2.2: L.-
-=cmQ(5, .- $
EYm-u.2a =.E?.& a, 2
0 v, 22 FC a, I- 2 mv) mmLL
mQLa,2 YEa,v, t
a, a,
8 6;U Es a,
QEZ 3 $ Fz
m moo@ m(5, C
I1 I1 I ~~
AGE 1 OF 5
cn
S
m al I
0
S 0'
mi S m
P
..
5
c
.- c -
GI
ENVIRONMENTAL MITI&ON MONITORING CHECKLIST~AGE 2 OF 5
5 m
E 2
C 0 .- p c(
.- c 2a, a,E >",
E -
8 om S6 sii
v)
13)s
E 'E m
e &E c .r Q) .E -13)
-r m sg
13) 8 .- - 'ox E? .-
z
umLa,ua,m tcf.gsgs EL IT Q
so L-- 0 x om 03 ey~EFE~~m .:E .- 002 g $11 nj &z e 20 aJ=% g ,t 2 "m.= 2 (ns 0 a, Lu i NZSm o$mrieQQt~o.v,,grn a,'E = 0- '5 m.E Qm a, 0 r +.= 0- gmn ps =-ZP 0 a,.m Sfpb 5 E.? xs Qn a, rn Qtj 8-u 13)L
m vj mo '5 h.k.5 rn s.G5- p g an E-tj fJY a, rn Q, m Q2g 8 Q) Lz+g.Gg
pm g-2 rn Q0K.g a, xc a,U uiu 0" L LI) a, 3 s? g & .o s sc0-J aQga, ?&i:g@~m~pa,a,E Q) mm c2cLy-r tV E a, aE.G $" L. > 2 g2a omnzg a, 2% U- u:E v, gm (.g 0 mE5 g
J v) Qd$a,L% ogka, Q.E 2 E c- 6n .go 3 aQgB.2 6 a
a Erxrn> y- CUozmc -a,bsEm rnG2
g =gum.G 3 mrs5 5 3"U s'gpes u"uE"a,= 0.0 mrz
%% 8 a, .P s Qnc $3 0 c rn 8 13)rn
s m.o?-zEz~.r e~ag . ~~msa,a,a,ong.2 m z11 m---L 0 a, m" a, a,= ex mrn +ao>m
t;i .EskZEm 6 -zz3as 11 hU a,uqga,,.tiEP.L- 13)L .L m E -.- 8 'o 3 $ tj
.p $Qm.Oa,E$U cmmrna >2.- >a,O=ornm"m=a,
U Lsdzs 07 QQ a, a,r a, U = L 0.18 QZCZ? 0 rn =
g p-zn om >-&a2 kP a, c aon COT g m.=$&g .= aou5 gam -6mda mN-gz.~ L=oz.g v) %Pa, - mr,orn>--m aca, c a38 J= a, > o (u gcf Ei a 011 y-(y g 65s c ? "ft?g$s-
Qp'Em, oa, ScfO& &lbjUcCx2~:gizCmE-~
f g:~ xz E g 201 SE CCO~S am ~,,PSI 0-m.- rn rnn nE L UP
a, p.zz %m.E cd
a, a, ma, s m-u a, mu-zz a, m a, L L ou.
mbQ,~ 3 +-Ern a,- ss m QECU .za,--EO L >opa,
v"U
.bd
a, gm a, oz - mi;= Q-0 -a(nSEns rnQ naoE,
rn QS.5 rn% rn
oconm mas, m-
-0 E.goom~gz ="E
e=
0 a, 8"
QZ 0.k m3
m>' 9 k:gcf4 g5 g sz OzZ;.rEc QL 0 a,.G 8 c rn O)St x ~8g~-* a, .-Q--,ocO o smQo% C0-l ~13)03Q~3Uzooam
'3 a Qa, Es
- e 0 m;
0" am @ .r 4 a
nmomo r
I- u mzn 80 E
E oy m.- -' 3 m ,Szs moo-, 6 Q) Qa, 8 p$ EL Q) 0 ~
m Uuu 3 a,= E'U a, m
me 5 Q3.E d
J= or
.. In
C .- Z'
I Q)
r
.- - - 1;
WI
ENVIRONMENTAL MITl&ON MONITORING CHECKLISTOAGE 3 OF 5
,
I
-
-
- -
z v)
m 5 CL 1 Y- a t
>u
!=s 0, $2 6. .rr CmS b E 'E C
? ba
2.E E+
Em
- Q"' s EEs iz 2 z
c~mmm-uz~ ssmza " *azos@s 'E's.-C sug .-x*sOs 25- 3 0 E a ar U a0 a- a e- + ce" QZG 0 tJl b a ae WTJJu) .m .z $j s4j -5 t I.E,$ -0 Q, UU~E- r L Q!= m v) Qrs, a m- a 2.E s z 5% E :L a :: ${is f.2.25
-v) EES E $gsX
BsC.km 'CS: c. m : $E :av)U- zz.zs e+z I= mo"8 =am.- 2 .r izg
P::EggogE.ES= ([I 0s 0qga)v) -maeq
QB.EQ)~$~~Q~E - $5 CG.G K! .- 0' :g c
Z~S-O v) Q
8 a m o:-% 2 m5 m .g .o s mp 15)'o Q c$z m auW= =$ a" r3 v) " &?E:
QY
am a~g) a.gw Kmm2S~, > > ai
L src -a &$sa f E
!= O."S
Q) 0 c LZ.2 r" v) 9 ).a,E *S 0-J m 3Z.E * 0
5%$ .G+Q e 2s m ?)'E Cy a'- Emso E
3 €%L "!=a
3a; mgum
m ,cQg S*=Q LQ= m? xnr a u ar U a .E 2.0 E 2 a 2
s E mu.2-.='o Q Clf Q) ="'& 5 €.o 8 m_ :: ggg gz.g$
.- .cI 0 qps7a"F Ezgn~o~s+$ u $%Z Uta - Q am7ag.9s-Es !Z U 0 Q.P= s c. Qm cas 0 sa2 v)?&E =+. Loa0
r gz mu E a OE a5 - a% ::
mcU5 >go 0 O.zn b m.Pa a 8 0,ES aam 5 0 s ='E v).; do.s c Q Q '$ - h; 3 3 8 * t *z 2 h marc k2Ee
L @JF&.E= aa ?&$.$%2 F xu2 5 ?EO sa m.rg a,SxJ=
=E r Q) CcmO L L-
3 oc s xz "".E$ 3 o~ 2 EaaQ ~a.g=b.~ u 8gim
0 ao$Fz5' f- r= 5.i E 2 S Q mmz Q z a
c Q.= .E C -& a.~u-t-mcE 5 maQ)
.- .- Ob 0 CQ
15)
%c2z Qc'a 5 KT ~~~~0~~~ __ c m gcnc m'.kQ.f s = ~VJS~~.E.&~ x0 m -QL.CI LQQeO
zg$m(Il-E Qm - E
C
= OLS
u aQ) QP) "zE'i g5 ULUUu([J m 0 0 -= a U>&
-ogmmO - SC ~,,E~&~~aCZ .- rc (0-k C 2
'g Lmcv)~a~mG2m - 0-g 3 $': gz QU Q m-; sg agz ro E a ? aBp f'5z3
Q c $jg!$,g ?.g=v)'omQ arcs2 = 9 v) EQ @
m5bE'zFa,zmo G9c a,s C a E s Gg a*dJg n2iz" 0.-
~oo~~Bmumv)€~~an~nommo~ dm ~pm dano m3a
LL.~=QLstmetc 2 WJQ)rcz 0-0 Q.oZ Kg o"e5 liE.Et; a c .- x CNz -am 22 "'= a C a, aE L$ E==
PP O'C'EQm a v) 0 ha,.- Em -0 c t Lz $ 2 .E
- -
-
-
-
- I
-
!
t
! irii
st E{
XI ZI
c
.- c( /I s;
-
Wk x! - -
ENVIRONMENTAL MITI~ION MONITORING CHECKLIST:~GE 4 OF 5
r
v) %
2 E
S 0 p .- c)
.- c *a, b€ >a,
E -
C
cc Ov) zE
in
aE
c &E
F .- c a,
gn c s .- -r
.z 0 C
S S m
.-
sg h
.- FS &a,- .- -am
c g .r m r"
c1
LL ;k c .=
ua
a, a-=u 0 a, .= xtn- ems2 u$)ga, a,J=-=C a, tu m5 u Z%"O 2: me F
5 E cn $s&G r.a,--o &"OWE2 S$m2 m s L.-O a,n on2 v) > % h2- Q,"Z;8% m
oc 3 v) a=J 3rc .- v)g CnT a,= .- 'ii; $? Qa, E gn.oZca,
x: 3 8 a, :.E €5 5 gSz-= 0 .$L 5
,or a, 2 ,oggZ% xu=% 0) zs OPg,
0-% a, 0 - != 3rc a: m*v,.g L2F.G 2 Qa, g.EF E sg.Gr 0 E 32 Cuss 5
3EZS E5 -2, (lJ v)z ga mu5 nc' gg p Q,,a,m Q)a,Cma,L EO
L Q) "g-mS 3 $zv)c 5% nmg m5z-;E -r= g: m76S
6% $Z g E 3 8.3 :.E s muoa, m a, ~SZ .E~O.EC a,a,a,bcn
E ST5 u- .G 5 rn 5 ma, Q) Qo m n gkp ~
K - g5.k.G Q, zz2zz = .- 0 mgm3 m5.2 '3 a,XQF, v, a, 0 .- m2s vj.E
cu- vi5 goQlu-ab &zGsS v)v)v)a,a)c .- g) "au a,2.LOoEa, >u- m L - osz a, tu
s &gm v)E c %q$E 5=a,,-r a, 0" a0 .E- a, 0 k"
r.O m gsz u-tu.r=5F - ET 5 . 03g,o 0 mu-,o a, a,
=SQ$.E =3uum3y F)(Gsoz g.g: L=
cza,vii or cs
rtummr p m -um &C.GU? eLUP.k E a, ha, - a, * € $63
.= S0.k 2EU.F 05m a% Q -- 0 01 0 y- a, Pr tu= a, c v) 2: a xaga.g .g 0 a, a,- a - .- oms 2nm,-amn 62s Qgz z a L c a? gan= rJ 0 pE.pJ5.G 3% ?'en uz cn v).-
a, 2 v)+ m 0.- a, a,- uoG aa= LS E aE .z 3 L > m.ks -E3 m v) am hog 0
u-- 0763 s.ss 'ma nsza, .- - 76 322.5 .-
En a,
c m mv)e
v)
L mu sa, a,
.- a, 0.
v) ky-& a.5 K>ba, m .k .E 0 3 as
m - tau- e
U rmmzcr
.- +
owv) OL
(I] E--= L
*"'<b3 2038: Q5WW3v) tua,ov) OEEE~'~~ -2 a0
0 m-- a,
0"
QS.%2 + - LL a me= c s .e % a," --
1-4 m m cu L E bEs cd.~ m"EFa,2 v) E aQa an QOCLDCL
c33v) L.z- 3 a, :; g - LS gy g $ g
T
K -
- f
.- z
C
a x
U n x a k
r/ R
-
E
.- 5 - 0: .- c .- F
s 5
I
<
,; .. r
C * i
- f -
7
E . . z
a
+ n - E iriz I! s ra: .r
.E '2 ma g II
+o
"a: $2
ENVIRONMENTAL MITI~ION MONITORING CHECKLIST~GE 5 OF 5
I
tn s
(u Di
F
S 0 .- c $-m
ke, .- s
&I€ >a,
E -
C :z $2
CD
-
ce, Z E
cnE
.- Sr cm 2:
0) K .- bg .- - sc 2
.- fk ss e,e,
0) o- cs 2$ 55 cm ne, o E!= g5 :-." cn .g ctn c $3 ._o - J= 02 me,
00 gF riii mxi e, .r f! .& .- > "0 E2
3 :E om e,=
v) -0 $E 52 me, g ab g5 ztn
C Q -D .E sg $ .- 0 zc 8t;; e, ,o .r
m Ll% .- Egs 5 c
U = tnl? 5.Gg cnaw I ll-m mo" 13 .rs,x mo5 $s?2 P 0
.v,tnm Ge,$ % z - oecn agt;; Fz m se,: amy l?ab
$mtn =.-a E" Kc3 trig- .ggz c .L .E -Y- $35 gza go8 mm pcm 2F$ =- .PZ zcnc ma
Fa~ azg 45.:
45s ci.ra +ma t;; .a, ps
- -m .- tnu
.t m o> -
La q SZ
e, -
E
m u-
Y
- L " e,
U m e, .- e, .^ - ncn .- .-
-0
000 ua
a0
7
I I
mi -
c
a 'L
(1 0 .c a k
(I 0 E
C .- e R .- .- + E
C f
II
.- 1 .- s
c
- 5 - e
U Iu E
> t
.- 9
5
g 5'
- - m
3
; 0.
5 .E cd,
.P '9
f II
= a1
ma. - 0:
w
wl-. i:. x ax: