Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-05-01; Planning Commission; Resolution 51701 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. 5170 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW AN APARTMENT PROJECT ON PROPERTY GENER4LLY LOCATED NORTH OF MARRON ROAD BETWEEN EL CAMINO REAL AND AVENIDA DE ANITA IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 2. CASE NAME: THE SUMMIT AT CARLSBAD CASE NO: ZC 00-1 1/SDP 00-1 7/HDP 00-1 3 WHEREAS, Marron Road Ventures, LLC, “Developer,” and has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Robert Patrick Kelly, Richard Carroll Kelly, and Azalea Partnership, “Owner” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 4838, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, June 18, 1976 as file/page no. 76-190384 of official records. That portion of Lot 3 of Section 32, Township 11 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino base and meridian, according to official plat thereof being in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. Those portions of Lots 3 and 4 in Section 32, Township 11 . South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of April 2002 and on the 1st day of May 2002 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and 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 considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program according to Exhibit "ND" dated February 28, 2002, and "PII" dated January 29, 2002, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findinps: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: A. It has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and B. The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and C. It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and D. Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Conditions: 1. Developer shall implement or cause the implementation of The Summit at Carlsbad Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. ... ... ... ... ... PC RES0 NO. 5 170 -2- 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 Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of May, 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Heineman, Segall, White, and Whitton NOES: Commissioner Dominguez ABSENT: ABSTAIN: n SEENA TRIGAS, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION - ATTEST: Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5 170 -3- - City of Carlsbad MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project AddresdLocation: North of Marron Road between El Camino Real and Avenida de Anita in the northeast quadrant. Project Description: A zone change fiom the One Family Residential , R-1-10000, zone to the Residential Density Multiple, RD-M, zone to allow multiple family units, and a site development plan and hillside development permit to allow grading and the construction of a 143 unit apartment project that includes 29 units affordable to low income families with 60% AMI on a 20.65 acre parcel located north of Marron Road between El Camino Real and Avenida de Anita in the northeast quadrant. The City’s Draft Habitat Management Plan identifies the site as a standards area; therefore the project includes an open space wildlife conidor to be preserved along the eastern boundary and within the northern portion of the property. The apartment project is clustered within the southwestern 8.61 acres of the site and the remainder of the property will be dedicated to the City as HMP open space. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4622. DATED: FEBRUARY 28,2002 CASE NO: ZC 00- 1 1/SDP 00- 17/HDP 00- 13 CASE NAME: THE SUMMIT OF CARLSBAD PUBLISH DATE: FEBRUARY 28,2002 MICHAEL J. HOBMILMR Planning Director 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 w.ci.carlsbad.ca.us 49 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: ZC 00-1 I/SDP OO-l7/HDP 00-13 DATE: January 29,2002 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: The Summit at Carlsbad 2. APPLICANT: All Phase Development, Inc. 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 6060 Sunrise Vista Drive, Suite 2200, Citrus Heights. CA 95610 PH: (916) 727-0779 4. DATE EL4 FORM PART I SUBMITTED: 12-21-00 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A zone change from the One Family Residential, R-1-10000, zone to the Residential Density Multiple. RD-M, zone to allow multiple family units, and a site develoument plan and hillside development uermit to allow wading and the construction of a 143 unit apartment Droiect that includes 29 units affordable to low income families with 60% AMI on a 20.65 acre parcel located north of Marron Road between El Camino Real and Avenida de Anita in the northeast quadrant. The City’s Draft Habitat Management Plan identifies the site as a standards area; therefore the proiect includes an open space wildlife corridor to be preserved along the eastern boundary and within the northern portion of the property. The apartment project is clustered within the southwestern 8.61 acres of the site and the remainder of the property will be dedicated to the City as HMP open space. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 0 Land Use and Planning TranSportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services 0 Population and Housing Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems 0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics water Air Quality 0 Hazards 0 Noise Cultural Resources 0 Recreation 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 03/28/96 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 0 0 0 IXI 0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. 2 Rev. 03/28/96 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect fi-om “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but &l potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. 3 Rev. 03/28/96 If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. 0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 4 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact 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) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) 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 landuses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or (#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) minority community)? (#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) 0 0 0 0 OIXI 0 0 OIXI om 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) 0 0 CI 0 OIXI OM 17 0 om 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) b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#1 :Pgs d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - e) Landslides or mudflows? (# 1 :Pgs 5.1 - 1 - 5.1 - 1 5) 9 Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1.15) 5.1-15) 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) g) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) 0 0 0 U 0 0 El OIXI DIXI 0 0 OIXI OM OM IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff! (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2- b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 11) 0 0 IXI om 00 5 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 IXI IXI IXI d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) r) 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) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2- i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs body? (#1 :PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) (#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 11) 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ixl Ixl Ixl 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) - 5.3-1 2) 0 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IXI IXI 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) 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) (#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) (#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) (#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) (#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) 5.7.22) IXI 0 o 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IXI IXI IXI IXI 0 0 0 IXI 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) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) 0 0 IXI IXI 0 0 0 0 6 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 0 0 Incorporated c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. 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) - 5.4-24;#2) 0 IXI 0 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 ineffkient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13- c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & proposal? (#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 1 - 5.13-9) 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 0 0 CI IXI IXI 0 0 0 0 IXI 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 d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, 5.10.1-5) hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) healthhazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) 0 UIXI 0 UIXI 0 0 OIXI 0 0 0 0 om 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- 151 1 - 5.9-15;#6) 0 0 OIXI on 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? ) e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) 0 0 0 0 0 IXI IXI IXI IXI XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: 7 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incornrated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IXI 0 0 0 a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & b) Communications systems? 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) IXI IXI 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IXI IXI IXI IXI XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs 0 c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5) 0 0 0 0 0 5.11-1 -5.11-5) 5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5) 0 0 0 Ixl IXI IXI 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) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs 5.8- e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the 10;#6) 10) 1 - 5.8-10) potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IXI IXI 0 0 0 IXI 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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-7) 5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7) 0 0 0 0 0 0 XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 0 0 0 IXI 8 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incoqkrated Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? 0 0 0 (“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)? Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 0 EARLIER ANALYSES. IXI Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)@). In this case a discussion should identi@ the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. IdentifL earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identifjr which effects fiom the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,“ describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site- specific conditions for the project. 9 Rev. 03/28/96 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Environmental Setting The project site is a currently undeveloped 20.65 acre parcel located to the north of Marron Road approximately ?4 mile east of El Camino Real. The property is bordered to the north by Haymar Road, to the south by Marron Road, to the east by undeveloped land and a golf driving range, and to the west by an existing commercial center. High tension power transmission lines extend approximately northwest to southeast through the northern portion of the site. Numerous dirt roads provide access to most of the site. Topographically, the property slopes moderately to steeply down to the north, south and west from a relatively flat mesa along the eastern site development boundary. Two small canyons drain to the west within the northwestern and southern portions of the site. An abandoned reservoir exists in the central portion of the site along the eastern boundary. Approximate elevations across the site range from a high of 110 feet above MSL to a low of 40 feet MSL. A 60 foot high 1 %:l manufactured cut slope exists along the western property boundary. The slope is covered with dry grass and many eucalyptus trees. Vegetation on the site consists primarily of disturbed habitat and ornamental plantings; however, plant communities onsite that are considered environmentally sensitive include coastal sage scrub, southern willow scrub, herbaceous wetlands and unvegetated stream channel. 1.m. LAND USEPOPULATION AND HOUSING The project does not conflict with the property’s RM General Plan designation existing on the property and although a density increase is required for the development, the project does not exceed local population projections. The project does propose to rezone the property from R-l- 10000 to RDM. The RDM zone, which permits both single family and multiple family units, is consistent with the underlying Residential Medium (RM) density General Plan Designation that allows a density range of 4 - 8 dwelling units per acre. The current R-1-10000 zoning would restrict development to single family units and would not permit project density to exceed the minimum density permitted by the range due to the 10,000 square foot minimum lot size. Existing development surrounding the project includes multi-family apartment and condominium projects to the south and a commercial center to the west. The proposed RDM zoning allows multi-family development that is more compatible with surrounding development. The density permitted on the site based on developable acreage is 75 dwelling units. The proposed 143 unit apartment project requires the granting of a 91% density increase as an incentive to enable the reservation of 29 of the proposed 143 apartment units to be made affordable to families with incomes that are 60% of the area median income (AMI). The City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires that 15% of the total units (21 units) be reserved as affordable housing units for low income households (80% of the AMI). The proposed reservation of 29 affordable units exceeds the minimum inclusionary housing requirement and the requested incentive (density increase) to enable the provision of more affordable units at 60% of the AMI is consistent with the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The proposed density increase is also consistent with City Council Policy 43 which sets priorities for the allocation of excess dwelling units existing in each quadrant in the City to avoid exceeding the Growth Management maximum dwelling unit cap. A finding that excess units are available must be made prior to granting density increases and the project must qualify as a priority project. The project satisfies criteria established by Policy 43 for first, second and third priority projects: it is an affordable housing project (first priority); it is a transit oriented development in close proximity to major transit facilities and commercial support services 10 Rev. 03/28/96 (second priority); and it is an infill multi-family project that meets all development standards and does not exceed the density of adjacent, existing multi-family projects (third priority). There has been no agricultural activity on the property for many years. 111. GEOLOGY The “Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation” prepared for the project by Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. dated January 20, 1999, states that the site is favorable for the proposed development provided the recommendations in the report are followed. Implementation of the report’s recommendations and standard City of Carlsbad erosion control measures will avoid unstable conditions and potential erosion impacts. N. WATER Additional impervious surfaces will be created with development of the project that will result in reduced absorption rates and increased surface runoff. The receiving water body for the proposed project is the Buena Vista Lagoon. The Buena Vista Lagoon is classified as impaired waters due to the following 303(d) pollutant of concern: . High Coliform Count The existing beneficial uses for Buena Vista Lagoon per the Watershed Management Plan are: . Contact Water Recreation (fishing fiom shore or boat only) . Non-Contact Water Recreation . Preservation of Biological Habitats of Special Significance . Estuarine Habitat (Potential Beneficial Use) . Wildlife Habitat . Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species = Marine Habitat The proposed project qualifies under several Priority Development Project Categories listed in Order 2001-01 of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB). The permit identifies as priorities: . Home subdivisions of 100 housing units or more. . All hillside development greater than 5,000 square feet (development on slopes of 25% or . All development located directly adjacent to or discharging directly to an . Parking lots 5,000 square feet or more. . Street, roads, highways and fieeways of 5,000 square feet or more. greater). environmentally sensitive area. During construction, the City Draft Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Plan (JURMP) will identi@ this site as a high priority potential threat to water quality. This classification is due to the site being over 5 acres, and discharging through a lined channel into Buena Vista Lagoon. To address the potential for pollutant discharge during construction, the project will be conditioned to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Due to the proximity to the lagoon, the project will be required to implement and maintain an enhanced level of Best 11 Rev. 03/28/96 Management Practices (BMPs). Specific BMPs will be identified in the preparation and City review of the SWPPP. After construction is complete, the proposed project is not anticipated to pose a major threat to coliform levels in Buena Vista Lagoon. The typical impact to coliform levels from residential development is fkom pet waste. Apartments typically have restrictions on pets, and the fact that the green areas are for common use encourages responsible waste management by pet owners. The project does have the potential to harm water quality through discharge of trash, oil and grease, fertilizers and other pollutants. These potential impacts will be mitigated by the use of structural BMPs identified in the SWPP (Post-construction Section) or through the preparation of a Water Pollution Control Plan (WPCP) or similar program. The site has been designed to drain a portion of the pavement through a grass swale to the north of the site and along the southern boundary to remove pollutants. Most of the rest of the site will drain through one point before discharge to a proposed public storm drain in Marron Road. Prior to discharge into the public storm drain, the stormwater will have to be treated by a “vortex” type system (Vortechso, Baykeeper@, Downstream Defender@), or other adequate system to remove pollutants. The treatment specifics, sizing and maintenance will be addressed in the SWPPP or WPCP prior the start of construction. In addition, the project will be required to identify non-structural BMPs to prevent pollutants from entering stormwater. Mitigation Preparation of a SWPP andor WPCP to identify necessary BMPs. V. AIR OUALJTY: In 1994 the City prepared and certified an EIR which analyzed the impacts which will result from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concludes that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts in the form of increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan build-out, a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked 12 Rev. 03/28/96 “Potentially Significant Impact”. This ‘project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MEIR Ths document is available at the Planning Department. VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION The 143 unit apartment project would generate 858 ADT. This represents some increase in ADT above the 750 trips that would be permitted by the 75 single family units permitted by the General Plan. A traffic analysis performed for the project for a 187 unit apartment project generating 1 122 ADT concludes that road segments and intersections impacted by the additional project trip generation would not exceed existing levels of service. The 2010 Forecast traffic volumes show the road segments and intersections serving the project operating at the acceptable level of “D” or better. Therefore, the addition of “net new” traffic from the project does not result in a significant impact, i.e., reduce the level of service on any road segment or intersection serving the site to below the City’s threshold. In 1994 the City prepared and certified a Master EIR which analyzed the impacts which would result from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concluded that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate build-out traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at build-out. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan build-out, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at build-out of the General Plan due to regional through-trafic, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MER This document is available at the Planning Department. A MEIR may not be used to review projects if it was certified more than five years prior to the filing of an application for a later project. The City is currently reviewing the 1994 MEIR to 13 Rev. 03/28/96 determine whether it is still adequate to review subsequent projects. Although the MEIR was certified more than five years ago, the City’s preliminary review of its adequacy finds that no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MEIR was certified. The only potential changed circumstance, the intersection failure at Palomar Airport Rd. and El Camino Real, is in the process of being mitigated to below a level of significance. Additionally, there is no new available information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the MEIR was certified. Therefore, the MEIR remains adequate to review later projects. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Although no plant or animal species listed as endangered by State and Federal wildlife agencies were detected at the site, the following sensitive plant communitieshabitat types were identified on the subject property: Acreages of Existing Plant Communities and Land Covers Plant Community Acreage Disturbed Coastal Sage Scrub 0.88 Southern Willow Scrub 0.06 Herbaceous Wetlands 0.03 Unvegetated Stream Channel 20.91 Total 17.70 Disturbed Habitat 2.20 Ornamental Plantings 0.04 Five of the six plant communities/land covers will be directly impacted by the proposed development: southern willow scrub (0.03 acre), herbaceous wetlands (0.06 acre), unvegetated stream channel (0.04 acre), ornamental plantings (0.30 acre), and disturbed habitat (9.2 acres). Figure 4 attached to this document illustrates the distribution of biological resources on the property and the locations where proposed grading would occur. The project site is identified as a standards area by the City’s draft Habitat Management Plan. The disturbed coastal sage scrub habitat located along the northern and eastern property boundary will not be impacted by the project because it is within an area now proposed as an HMP hardline conservation area, linking offsite adjacent lands to the east of the project site with areas of biological value to the north. This portion of the property also provides a suitable link for possible gnatcatcher and other avian dispersal between the Cities of Oceanside and Carlsbad. As designed, the project provides a core linkage area and is therefore consistent with the City’s draft HMP. The onsite wetland communities (southern willow scrub, herbaceous wetlands and unvegetated stream channel) are located within the drainage channel along the southwestem edge of the site within the area proposed for development. These communities are under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and the Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE). The limited southern willow scrub, herbaceous wetlands and unvegetated stream channel, located north of Marron Road and east of an existing commercial center, do not support sensitive plant and/or wildlife species and most likely do not aid in wildlife movement. 14 Rev. 03/28/96 Mitigation Wetlands are considered a sensitive habitat and it is anticipated that direct impacts would require a 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFG, a 401 Water Quality Certification from the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, and a 404 permit from the ACOE. Proposed mitigation for direct impacts to .03 acre of southern willow scrub is the creation of southem willow scrub at a ratio of 3:1, and direct impacts to .06 acre of herbaceous wetland and .04 acre of unvegetated stream channel is the creation or enhancement of southern willow scrub at a ratio of 1 : 1. Total mitigation required for these impacts is anticipated to be approximately .19 acre. The conceptual restoration plan would relocate the wetland area slightly to the south of its existing location. Indirect project impacts will be mitigated through implementation before and following construction to ensure that siltation and erosion are minimized within the remaining drainages onsite and will be incorporated into the final design of the project, as part of the required SWPPP, in order to ensure that water quality is not degraded. Additionally, open space areas within the conservation easement to the north will be protected by fencing along the top of slope to reduce trespassing and dumping of trash. Landscaping on descending manufactured slopes to the north of the project will be required to avoid the introduction of exotic and invasive species within the open space to a greater extent than currently exists. Exotic plant species not to be used include those species listed on Lists A & B of the California Exotic Pest Plant Council’s list of “Exotic Pest Plants of Greatest Ecological Concern in California as of October 1999.” This list includes such species as: pepper trees, pampas grass, fountain grass, ice plant, myoporum, black locust, capeweed, tree of heaven, periwinkle, sweet alyssum, English ivy, French broom, Scotch broom, and Spanish broom. X. NOISE The project consists of an apartment complex with no required outdoor recreational areas. The City’s 60 &A CNEL exterior standard applies to exterior yard andor patio areas required for single family and condominium ownership units. The project is subject to the 45 dE3A CNEL interior noise standard required by the City and State (California CCR Title 24 Noise Insulation Standards) applicable when openings to the exterior of the unit are open or closed. If openings are required to be closed to meet the interior noise standard, then mechanical ventilation must be provided. Units on all floor levels of buildings with a line of sight to SR 78 and El Camino Real will exceed the exterior noise standard at various locations due to traffic noise generated fiom these nearby roadways; therefore, mitigation necessary to attenuate interior noise levels is that an interior acoustical analysis will be required to determine acceptable construction materials (window, door and wall treatments) and building design measures to lower interior noise levels to the 45 &A CNEL standard. This analysis shall be completed and its recommendations incorporated into the project prior to issuance of building permits. XIII. AESTHETICS The project site is separated from existing development by Marron Road, and the proposed development would be surrounded by open space on two sides (north and east). The rear of an existing neighborhood commercial shopping center abuts the property to the west. Due to the dedication and widening of Marron Road along the property’s frontage, a significant separation fiom development to the south will result. The site requires 63,383 cubic yards of cut and fill to create a somewhat terraced pad that raises and lowers the existing topography approximately 15 15 Rev. 03/28/96 to 20’ from north to south. The aesthetic impacts to surrounding properties of these changes is not significant. XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES A single, large prehistoric cultural resource site was identified in the central area of the property (CA-SDI-6139) by RECON that required a significance evaluation to determine impacts and mitigation measures if necessary. A significance evaluation was performed by RECON which included surface collection, excavation of four 1 x 1 meter units, excavation of 12 shovel test pits, and analysis of the recovered artifacts and ecofacts. Sufficient information was collected during the significance testing at the site to demonstrate that it is not a significant cultural resource. The deposit integrity is poor as a result of agricultural activity, illegal dumping and mechanical blading or some form of soil removal that has altered the original topography of the property and possibly removed or substantially displaced the archaeological materials that may have been present on this property. Based on an absence of site integrity and the recovery of a limited number and diversity of cultural items, CA-SDI-6139 is not a significant cultural resource and no further work is recommended for the site. The close proximity of the project site to the highly fossiliferrous localities of Jeff s Discovery local fauna, a site discovered during the 1991 State Highway 78 road construction project, coupled with the presence of nonmarine sedimentary rocks of the Santiago Formation observed underlying the area indicate that the parcel has a high potential for yielding significant vertebrate fossils during earthmoving activities. The Santiago Formation is considered to be a highly sensitive paleontological resource. Construction activities necessary to develop the project will result in potentially significantly impacts these resources unless the following mitigation measures are incorporated into the project: 1. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of excavations and, if necessary, salvage exposed fossils. The frequency of inspections will depend on the rate of excavations, the materials being excavated, and the abundance of fossils. 2. The palentologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an exposed fossil to facilitate excavation and, if necessary, salvage. 3. Because of the small nature of fossils present in these rock units, matrix samples should be collected for processing through fine mesh screens. 4. Provisions for preparation and curation shall be made before the fossils are donated to their final reposity. 5. All fossils collected should be donated to a museum with a systematic palentological collection, such as the San Diego National History Museum. EARLIER ANALYSES USED The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008, (760) 602-4600. 16 Rev. 03/28/96 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update 2. “Draft Biological Resources Report and Impact Assessment for Summit at Carlsbad, City of 3. “Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation - The Summit at Carlsbad”, prepared by 4. “Preliminary Hydrology Calculations for The Summit at Carlsbad Apartments, City of 5. Concept Water Quality Plan 6. “Summit at Carlsbad Acoustical Study - Carlsbad, CA”, prepared by Investigative Science 7. “Significance Evaluations of CA-SDI-6139, The Summit Property, City of Carlsbad”, (MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department. Carlsbad”, prepared by Dudek & Associates dated May 2001. Geotechnical Exploration, Inc., dated January 20, 1999. Carlsbad”, prepared by Lohr + Associates, Inc., dated September 28,2001. and Engineering, Inc., dated April 25,2001. prepared by RECON, dated January 5,2001 17 Rev. 03/28/96 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) Mitigation measures shall be satisfied prior to issuance of grading permits or building permits, whichever occurs first: 1. Water Preparation of a SWPPP or WPCP to identify necessary BMP’s. 2. Biological a. Recreate a wetland area consisting of .19 acre of southern willow scrub. b. Install adequate fencing (open iron rail fence with stone pilasters) at top of slope around the perimeter of development. c. Landscape descending, manufactured slope to the north of project required to avoid the introduction of exotic and invasive species within the preserved open space. 3. Noise a. Prepare an interior acoustical analysis to insure interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dl3A Cnel. 6. Cultural Resources a. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of excavations and, if necessary, salvage exposed fossils. The frequency of inspections will depend on the rate of excavations, the materials being excavated, and the abundance of fossils. b. The palentologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an exposed fossil to facilitate excavation and, if necessary, salvage. c. because of the small nature of fossils present in these rock units, matrix samples should be collected for processing through fine mesh screens. d. Provisions for preparation and curation shall be made before the fossils are donated to their final reposity. e. All fossils collected should be donated to a museum with a systematic palentological collection, such as the San Diego National History Museum. ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) Rev. 03/28/96 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. 19 Rev. 03/28/96 Summit at Carlsbad Project - Biological Resources Report Biological Resources Map with limits of Grading Waters of the U.S. NOlE Data Station I CSS I Coastal Sage Scrub FI Disturbed Habitat Fl Southern Willow Scrub Fl Herbaceous Wetland NOTE: A lower case 'd In hont of a vegetalion typc designator Limits of Grading indicates that it is disturbed. wETJ.,AND RESTORATION AND SUMMIT AT CARLSBAD ENHANCEMENT EXHIBIT Cmm, CA -m PROJECT NAME: THE SUMMIT AT CARLSBAD FILE NUMBERS: ZC 00-111SDP 00-17IHDP 00-13 APPROVAL DATE: April 3,2002 CONDITIONAL NEG. DEC.: February 28.2002 The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City’s monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). Mitigation Measure Monitoring Type Prepare a SWPPP or WPCP to identify necessary BMP’s. Plancheck - Prior to issuance of grading permit a. Recreate a wetland area consisting of .19 acre of southern Plancheck - willow scrub. Prior to b. Install adequate fencing (open iron rail fence with stone issuance of pilasters) at top of slope around the perimeter of development. grading permit c. Landscape descending, manufactured slope to the north of project required to avoid the introduction of exotic and invasive species within the preserved open space. Prepare an interior acoustical analysis to insure interior noise Plancheck - levels do not exceed 45 dBA Cnel. Prior to issuance of building permit Monitoring DeDartment Engineering Planning Building/Planning Shown on Verified Plans Implementation Show evidence of permit from wildlife agencies. Remarks Exnlanation of Headinas: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. information. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation =When mitigation measure has been implemented, Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other this column will be initialed and dated. RD - Appendix P. Mitigation Measure a. b. C. d. e. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of excavations and, if necessary, salvage exposed fossils. The frequency of inspections will depend on the rate of excavations, the materials being excavated, and the abundance of fossils. The palentologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an exposed fossil to facilitate excavation and, if necessary, salvage. Because of the small nature of fossils present in these rock units, matrix samples should be collected for processing through fine mesh screens. Provisions for preparation and curation shall be made before the fossils are donated to their final reposity. All fossils collected should be donated to a museum with a systematic palentological collection, such as the San Diego National History Museum. Monitoring Type Plancheck - Prior to grading permit Monitoring Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Show evidence that a Paleontologist is contracted to do the work. Remarks Exolanation of Headinas: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. information. Shown on Plans =When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Veriied Implementation =When mitigation measure has been implemented, Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other this column will be initialed and dated. RD - Appendix P.