HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-09-04; Planning Commission; Resolution 52371
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. 5237
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM TO SUBDIVIDE AND GRADE 53.65 ACRES OF
LAND LOCATED EAST OF SALK AVENUE AND WEST OF
EL CAMINO REAL IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 5
CASE NAME: FOX MILLER PROPERTY
CASE NO.: GPA 00-05/ZC 00-07/CT 00-20/PIP 00-02/
HDP 00-1 l/SUP 00-10
WHEREAS, Mission Beach, L.L.C, a Washington Limited Liability
Company, Mark F. Miller, Dean E. Miller, and Gordon B. Fox, “Developer”/“Owner,” has
filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
That portion of Lot “F” of Rancho Agua Hedionda, County of
San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof No.
823, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego
County, November 16, 1896, described in a grant deed
recorded August 13, 1992, as Document Number 1992-
0512626, and a portion of Parcel 3 of Parcel Map 17830, in the
City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego
County, March 21,1997 as file number 97-129122
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program was prepared in conjunction with said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of July 2002 and on
the 4th day of September 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
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
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
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program.
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 January 23, 2002, and "PII" dated December 20, 2001,
attached 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.
B.
C.
D.
It has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the environmental impacts
therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program 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
It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the city of
Carlsbad; and
Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PC RES0 NO. 5237 -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 4th day of September 2002, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez,
Heineman, Segall and White
NOES: Commissioner Whitton
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
U
SEENA TFUGAS, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HMZM@LER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5237 -3-
- City of Carlsbad
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddressLocation: West of El Camino Real, between College Ave and Faraday Avenue and
east of Salk Avenue. Property is identified as APN 212-020-23
Project Description: General Plan Amendment from Unplanned Area to Planned Industrial
and adjust existing Open Space designation, Zone Change from Limited
Control to Planned Industrial, Tentative Tract Map, Hillside
Development Permit, Special Use Permit, and Planned Industrial Permit
to subdivide and grade 53.65 acres of land into four lots for industrial
uses and one open space lot.
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 20
days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Van Lynch in the Planning
Department at (760) 602-461 3.
DATED: JANUARY 23,2002
CASE NAME: FOXMILLER PROPERTY
PUBLISH DATE: JANUARY 23,2002
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us 49
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
CASE NO: GPA 00-05/ZC 00-07/CT 00-20/SUP 00-lO/HDP 00-1 IMP 00-02
DATE: October 9,2001
RECIRCULATED: December 20,2001
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: FOXMILLER PROPERTY
2. APPLICANT: Bob Ladwig, Ladwig Design Group, Inc.
3. ADDRESSES AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 703 Palomar Airport Rd, Suite 300,
Carlsbad, CA 92009 (760) 438-3182
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: 10/17/00
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Tract MaD,
Hillside Development Permit, Special Use Permit, and Planned Industrial Permit to subdivide
and grade 53.65 acres of land into four lots for industrial uses and one open space lot on property
located adiacent and west of El Camino Real, between College Ave and Faraday Ave.
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 TransportationlCirculation
0 Population and Housing Biological Resources
Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources
Air Quality rn Noise
0 Public Services
rn Aesthetics
Cultural Resources
0 Recreation
u Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
0
IXI
0
0
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 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 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 Master Environmental
Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-01),
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.
e 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.
e
e
“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 from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City
must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a
less than significant level.
e “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
Based on an “EM-Part ZT”, 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).
e 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.
e A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 . Rev. 03/28/96
0 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 II 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).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18, #6)
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)
(#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
(#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
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
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
expose people to potential impacts involving:
Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2)
Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#1 :Pgs
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fills? (#l:Pgs
Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2)
Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2)
Unique geologic or physical features? (#1 :Pgs 5.1-1 -
0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 w 0 0
5.1-1 - 5.1.15, #2)
5.1-15, #2)
5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2)
5.1-15, #2)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
Less Than
Significant
Impact
IXI
0
0
0
0
c7
0
0
No
Impact
0
[XI
[XI
Ixl
[XI
w
IXI
w
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-
11, #7)
Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11)
0 IXI on
0 I7 om
5 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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)
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)
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)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11)
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11)
(#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5.2-11)
5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
1 - 5.3-12)
- 5.3-12)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
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)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (#l:Pgs
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -
5.7.22)
5.7-1 - 5.7.22, #3)
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
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, #4)
6
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0 0
la
0
0
IXI
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IXI
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#l:Pgs
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest,
coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1
5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24, #4)
- 5.4-24)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
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 &
(#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)
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)
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
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)
1 - 5.9-15)
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 - (#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
5.12.8-7)
7
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated 0
0
IXI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IXI
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No
Impact
IXI
IXI
0
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
ON
OIXI
OIXI
OIXI no
0
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
XILUTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
Communications systems? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
5.12.3-7)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
Have or demonstrate a negative aesthetic effect?
Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
(#l:PgS 5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
10, #8)
Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
10, #5)
Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs 5.8-
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
1 - 5.8-10)
Potentially Potentially Less Than NO
Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation
Incorporated
OH
OH OH OIXI OIXI
on on
OBI
no
OBI
OIXI om
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
0 0 OH
0 I7 OH 5.12.8-7)
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
8 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
0 UIXI Incorporated
9 Rev. 03/28/96
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)@). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from 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.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The proposed project is the subdivision of 52.33 acres of land into four industrial lots and one
open space lot on property located west and adjacent to El Camino Real, north of Faraday
Avenue, east of College Blvd., and east the easterly terminus of Salk Avenue. A general plan
amendment is to designate the property Planned Industrial from the existing Unplanned Area
designation and to amend the open space land use boundaries to conform the boundaries as
determined by the biological survey of the property. The zone change is to rezone the property
from the existing Limited Control designation to Planned Industrial, which conforms to the
Planned Industrial Land use designation. The project requires 500,000 cubic yards of balanced
grading over 36.5 acres to create the industrial pads and the continuation of Salk Avenue to El
Camino Real. The remaining 20.3 acres will be an open space lot that will contain native habitat
and habitat mitigation areas. Improvements consist of roadway and associated curb, gutter, and
sidewalk improvements and utility and drainage structures. The drainage structure will provide
for riparian habitat restoration. Storm water and runoff water quality control will occur on each
individual lot so as to not impact the riparian restoration basin. A passive park area is proposed
along the north side Salk Avenue.
The project site includes a portion of Letterbox Canyon with its associated drainages and the
adjacent upland slopes. The site is bounded by El Camino Real to the east and north, developing
residential north of El Camino Real, and existing industrial development surrounding the site.
The site is predominately covered with non-native grasslands, followed by non-native grassland
with thread-leaved brodiaea and Diegan coastal sage scrub. The project also contains small areas
of valley needlegrass grassland and jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetlands. Sensitive
wildlife found on the site consists of raptors and a pair of California gnatcatchers.
11. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The project falls within the scope of the City’s MEIR for the City of Carlsbad General Plan
update (EIR 93-01) certified in September, 1994, in which a Statement of Overriding
Considerations was adopted for cumulative impacts to air quality and traffic. An 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 except under certain circumstances. The City is currently
reviewing the 1994 MEIR to 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, has been 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. All feasible mitigation measures identified by the MEIR which are
appropriate to this project have been incorporated into the project.
B. Environmental Impact Discussion
I Land Use and Planning
The project site is presently land use designated Unplanned Area, which is an area where future
land use has not been completed or formalized. It has been determined that properties in
11 Rev. 03/28/96
proximity to Palomar Airport are not appropriate for residential development. The planned
industrial designation proposed would be consistent with the airport as well as the existing
adjacent industrial land use designated properties.
The existing zoning designation of Limited Control is proposed to be changed to Planned
Industrial, which would be consistent with and implement the General Plan planned industrial
land use designation.
111. Geologic Problems
The geotechnical investigation discusses the undocumented fills, upper 1 to 3 feet of topsoils,
and the on-site alluvium as dry, desiccated and potentially compressible. The soils are not
considered suitable for structural loads or support of fill soils in there present condition.
Remedial grading measures, such as removal and recompaction, will be necessary to mitigate
this condition. The project shall incorporate the recommended remedial grading measures in the
geotechnical report to reduce the potential for impacts due to expansive soils. Seepage waters
will need to be mitigated through the installation of sub-drains within the canyon bottoms.
The project proposes slopes of 11/2 to 1 along the El Camino Real frontage, which are steeper
than the standard 2:l slopes. The slopes were reviewed to ensure that there was adequate slope
stability with the increase in slope angle and that slope failure would not occur. The increase in
slope angle reduces the impacts to the non-native grassland with thread-leaved brodiaea.
N. Water
Letterbox Canyon is identified as being within hydrologic unit number 904.3 1. The development
of the site will result in increased runoff volumes generated by the increase in impervious
surfaces. Due to the capacity constraints of the existing downstream storm drain trunk line size
(48”), all tributaries would need to detain post-development runoff to produce a volume equal to
or less than the existing condition flows, based on the San Diego County 100 year storm criteria.
In order to achieve the desired reduced runoff volumes, a detention basin is proposed near the
westerly boundary of the project, within the Letterbox Canyon adjacent to proposed Salk
Avenue. The existing detention basin will be replaced and relocated to the east by another larger
detention basin to accommodate the additional flows and as a wetland mitigation site. The basin
would reduce peak flows from 126 Cubic Feet per Second (CFS) down to -35 CFS, with a total
outlet flow of 37 CFS. The existing flow is 59 CFS. Other off-site drainage occurs onto El
Camino Real at a projected rate of 36.2 CFS, which would increase, to 39.7 CFS. The combined
effect of the slight increase in the El Camino Real flows, and the decrease in the flows of
Letterbox Canyon is that the total site runoff generated under developed conditions will be less
than the site runoff generated under existing conditions. The development of the detention basin
will mitigate the potential runoff flow to a level below significant.
Temporary sedimentation basins shall be installed on each undeveloped, graded pad. Each
undeveloped building pad that is to remain undeveloped for a period greater than six months
shall be landscaped pursuant to the City of Carlsbad landscape manual. Both of these measures
will further mitigate the potential for off-site siltation.
V. Air Quality
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles
12 Rev. 03/28/96
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the
San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the
updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air
quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
VI. TransportatiodCirculation
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate
to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections
are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures
to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop
alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian
linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when
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. The
project will generate 1,800 average daily trips. Conditions of project approval will include
constructing Salk Avenue through to El Camino Real.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
13 Rev. 03/28/96
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a
“Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of
Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation
impacts is required.
VII. Biological Resources
The FoxMiller property is identified as a Special Resource Area in the Habitat Management
Plan (€IMP). The plan identifies the Brodiaea as a major population of a narrow endemic plant
population and an important species for conservation. The project complies with the hard-line
biological area specified within the HMP.
The project will impact 36 acres of area within the 52.33-acre project boundary, including 2.60
acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub, .19 acres of valley needlegrass grassland, 3 1.32 acres of non-
native grassland, and 1.89 acres of developed area. Impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub and
valley needlegrass grassland, both considered sensitive habitats, will require mitigation. Several
species are present on-site: thread-leaved brodiaea; California adolphia; California gnatcatcher;
white-tailed kite; northern harrier and Cooper’s hawk. Impacts to the sensitive plants or the nests
of breeding raptors, if present, will require mitigation. The proposed project will impact 0.19
acre of non-wetland jurisdictional waters and 0.03 acre of jurisdictional wetlands, which will
require mitigation. The linear distance of these features is approximately 2,500 feet. The table
below summarizes the discussion above.
Vegetation
5.2 (2:l) 2.96 2.6 5.56 Diegan coastal sage
Provided Preserved Impacts Acreage Community
Mitigation Acreage Acres Project Existing
scrub
Valley Needlegrass
15.66 (.5:1) 13.3 3 1.32 44.62 Non-native grassland
.57 (3:l) 0.07 .19 .26
Thread-leaved 10.67 (1 00%) 8.5* 2.17* 10.67*
Brodiaea
TOTAL 16.33 36.0 52.33
Disturbed Habitat 0 0 1.89 1.89
ACOE Jurisdictional
’ Contained within the Non-native grassland area.
0.39 0.02 0.22 0.24
Drainages
Mitigation measures include on-site restoration of disturbed habitat, revegetation of impacted
habitat, transplantation of sensitive plants, and creation of wetland habitat, which will reduce the
impacts to less than significant.
Of the 10.67 acres of thread-leaved brodiaea, 8.5 acres will not be disturbed (80% of the
population). Mitigation of the disturbed 2.17 acres of thread-leaved brodiaea habitat will include
the recovery of bulbs within the impacted non-native grassland habitat and transplantation of the
bulbs to the grassland slopes within the open space. The transplantation technique shall be by a
14 Rev. 03/28/96
method approved by the Wildlife agencies. A CDFG 2081(b) take permit and a USFWS
lO(a)(l)(A) permit shall be secured prior to grading permit issuance.
Impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub, which has determined to be occupied by the California
gnatcatcher, are mitigated at a ratio of 2: 1. Impacts to 2.6 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub will
be mitigated by the on-site preservation of 2.96 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub and the
conversion of 2.24 acres of non-native grassland to coastal sage scrub.
Impacts to 0.19 acres of valley needlegrass grassland will be mitigated at a ratio of 3: 1 through
the conversion of .57 acres of non-native grassland to native grassland habitat with brodiaea.
The project proposes to impact 31.32 acres of non-native grassland habitat. Non-native
grasslands are a significant habitat as this plant community can be a significant resource for
foraging raptors, may support sensitive plant species, and may serve as a habitat linkage. Non-
native grassland habitats are important components of the natural open space areas within the
City, and a mitigation ratio of .5:1 for non-native grasslands is consistent with the mitigation
requirements utilized in other parts of the County of San Diego. The project would require a
total of 15.66 acres of mitigation land. The project preserves 13.3 acres of the non-native
grasslands on site. The remaining 2.93 acres of habitat may be mitigated by preserving habitat
on-site or by the payment of an in lieu fee which is consistent with the Draft Habitat
Management Plan. Prior to approval of final map, applicant shall pay to the City $1 1,570.57 to
mitigate impacts to the non-native grassland habitat. If the HMP is approved prior to final map
approval, the funds shall be used for acquisition of acreage in the designated core area as
described in the City’s HMP. If the HMP is not approved, the City, in consultation with the
wildlife agencies, will determine the most beneficial use of funds including but not limited to one
or more of the following:
A. acquisition of acreage in designated County Core area;
B. other programs as determined by City to enhance habitat preservation in the City.
Impacts to 0.03 acre of wetland will be mitigated on-site at 2:l and impacts to .19 acre of non-
wetland jurisdictional water will be mitigated on-site at 1 :l. A 0.39-acre basin will be created
within the western portion of letterbox Canyon, remaining as open space and revegetated with
willow scrub species. This basin will be supported by natural water and runoff from the adjacent
developed areas. Impacts to wetlands will require a streambed alteration agreement from the
Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game, an individual 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
and a 401 certificate from the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Impacts to active raptor nests can be avoided by removing all vegetation, which will be impacted
by the development, within the project area outside the breeding season (September 1 to
January31). If vegetation must be removed within the breeding season (February 1 to August
31), a survey for active nests shall be performed by a qualified biologist prior to vegetation
removal. If an active nest is identified, no construction activity shall be performed within 500
feet of the nest until the young are independent of their parents. A biologist shall monitor any
active nests during construction to determine whether the activity is interfering with the nest and
to determine when the young are independent of their parents.
Impacts to active coastal California gnatcatcher nests can be avoided by removing the Diegan
coastal sage scrub within the project area outside the breeding season, which is February 15 to
August 31. If vegetation must be removed during the breeding season, a pre-construction
15 Rev. 03/28/96
clearance survey should be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that no nest are located
in, or within, a 200-foot buffer around the proposed footprint. A biologist shall monitor all
vegetation removal to ensure there are no direct impacts to individual birds. If an active nest is
identified, work may need to be postponed until the young are independent from the nest.
The project shall use native plants to the greatest extent feasible in the landscape areas adjacent
to and /or near mitigatiordopen space areas and/or wetlandlriparian areas. The applicant should
not plant, seed, or otherwise introduce invasive exotic plant species to the landscaped areas
adjacent to and /or near mitigatiodopen space areas and/or wetlandriparian areas. Exotic plant
species not to be used include those species listed on Lists A and 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 is found on their website at www.caleppc.org.
X. Noise
The project site is located outside the 60 CNEL of the Palomar Airport. The project site is
adjacent to El Camino Real, a circulation element roadway. The project incorporates a condition
to record against the property a disclosure that the project is adjacent to a circulation element
roadway and the potential for noise fiom the roadway. The developer shall provide a noise study
prior to building permit issuance which shows that the interior noise levels of the future buildings
will not exceed 65 &(A)
XIII. Asthetics
The project is located adjacent to El Camino Real, which is designated a scenic corridor.
Grading of the site to accommodate industrial development adjacent to the scenic corridor would
create an impact to the existing aesthetic character of the project area. The proposed project
would require 501,500 cubic yards of cut and 498,200 of fill over 36.5 acres. The southeastern
portion of the site adjacent to El Camino real would be graded to a flat pad, which on the
northern end would be 10 feet higher than the roadway and the southern end 10 feet lower than
the roadway. The future Salk Avenue intersection with El Camino Real will create an upslope
condition adjacent to El Camino Real. Presently there are unlandscaped slopes that exceed the
city’s 2:l slope standard. Proposed Lot 1 is separated from El Camino Real by the sensitive
brodiaea habitat area. The slopes will be visible from El Camino Real.
Mitigation measures that include implementation of the project’s landscape concept plan and
grading plan which includes tree plantings along El Camino Real and manufactured slope
plantings and contour grading to naturalize the manufactured slopes to existing slopes will
mitigate the negative visual impacts to below a level of significance. Future development of the
industrial pads adjacent to El Camino Real will require the processing of a Special Use Permit
and show compliance with the El Camino Real Corridor Development Guidelines.
16 Rev. 03/28/96
XIV. Cultural Resources
Paleontological resources were found during the survey and significant fossil remains have been
collected adjacent to the property (Carlsbad Research Center and Terraces at Sunny Creek). It is
probable that significant paleontological resources exist on the property. Development of the
property could adversely impact these resources. A mitigation program which involves review
of the grading plans, attendance of a paleontologist at grading meetings and during the grading
operation with the authority to direct grading operations to salvage resources, and curation, at the
direction of the property owner, of the resources will mitigate the impacts to a less than
significant level. Portions of the site will not be disturbed because of sensitive biological
resources. These undisturbed areas have the potential to have paleontological resources that will
remain undisturbed unless future mitigation of the biological resources allows for the grading
and exploration of those resources. Areas left on a natural state will also mitigate the impacts to
the paleontological resources.
111. 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) 602-46 13.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
2. Geotechnical Investigation update FoxMiller Property adiacent and southwesterly of El
Camino Real, North of Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, Dated July 6, 2000, Agra
Earth & Environmental.
3. FOXMILLER PROPERTY, CARLSBAD, Dated October 16, 2000, WPA Traffic
Engineering.
4. Revised Biological technical Report for the Fox Property proiect, Carlsbad, California,
Dated April 5,2001, RECON.
5. Fox Property Archaeological Study (RECON Number 3028A1, Dated September 2, 1998,
RECON
6. San Dieno County Important Farmland 1992, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program, California Department of Conservation
7. Drainage Report for FoxMiller Property CT XX-XX Carlsbad, California, dated
September 12,2000, Buccola Engineering, Inc
8. Archaeological and Paleontological Constraints for the Fox Property, Recon Number
2078A, dated September 13, 1989, supplemented by Fox Property Archaeological Study,
Recon Number 3028A, Dated September 2,1998
9. Habitat Restoration and Mitipation Plan for Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub, Valley
Needlegrass. with thread-leaved Brodiaea, and Southern Willow Scrub Wetland for the
Fox Propertya Carlsbad Ca., dated August 17,2001, RECON
17 Rev. 03/28/96
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES
1. The project shall implement the Habitat Restoration and Mitigation Plan for Diegan Coastal
Sage Scrub, Valley Needlegrass, with Thread Leaved Brodiaea, and Southern Willow Scrub
Wetland for the Fox Property, Carlsbad, California prepared by Recon dated August 17,
2001.
2. Prior to approval of final map, applicant shall preserve an additional 2.93 acres of non-native
grassland habitat on site or pay to the City $1 1,570.57 to mitigate impacts to the non-native
grassland habitat. If the HMP is approved prior to final map approval, the fimds shall be
used for acquisition of acreage in the designated core area as described in the City’s HMP. If
the HMP is not approved, the City, in consultation with the wildlife agencies, will determine
the most beneficial use of funds including but not limited to one or more of the following:
A. Acquisition of acreage in designated County Core area;
B. Other programs as determined by City to enhance habitat preservation in the City.
3. Prior to approval of a final map or issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first, the
Developer shall execute a document or documents to the satisfaction of the Planning Director
and the City Attorney which accomplish at a minimum the following:
A. Continued ownership of open space lot 5 by the Developer or its successor in interest;
B. While in continued private ownership, active maintenance to protect and preserve the
quality of the habitat (including but not limited to reasonable prevention of trespass);
C. Maintenance shall include the removal of any existing trash, debris, and illegal
migrant worker housing; and
D. Transfer of ownership and maintenance responsibility at some future date to the City
or its designee simultaneously with transfer of funding or other acceptable financial
mechanism to provide for management and conservation in perpetuity. (The cost of
management is currently estimated to be approximately $85.00 per acre per year).
4. The following paleontological mitigation measures shall be implemented;
A. Prior to any grading of the project site, a paleontologist shall be retained to perform a
walkover survey of the site and to review the grading plans to determine if the
proposed grading will impact fossil resources.
B. A copy of the paleontologist’s report shall be provided to the Planning Director prior
to issuance of a grading permit.
C. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of the site
and to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the fossils present
in the geologic strata, it may be necessary to collect matrix samples for laboratory
processing through fine screens.
D. The paleontologist shall make periodic reports to the Planning Director during the
grading process.
E. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an
exposed fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage artifacts.
F. All fossils collected may be donated to a public, non-profit institution with a research
interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum.
18 Rev. 03/28/96
G. Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading activities of the
project shall be resolved by the Planning Director and City Engineer.
5. Temporary sedimentation basins shall be installed on each undeveloped, graded pad. Each
undeveloped building pad that is to remain undeveloped for a period greater than six months
shall be landscaped pursuant to the City of Carlsbad landscape manual.
6. The project shall use native plants to the greatest extent feasible in the landscape areas
adjacent to and /or near mitigatiodopen space areas andor wetlandriparian areas. The
applicant should not plant, seed, or otherwise introduce invasive exotic plant species to the
landscaped areas adjacent to and /or near mitigatiodopen space areas andor wetlandriparian
areas.
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
See attached
19 Rev. 03/28/96
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEmD THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
20 Rev. 03/28/96
1
PROJECT NAME: Fox/Miller Propertv FILE NUMBERS: GPA 00-05/ ZC 00-07/ CT OO-l3/SUP 00-10/
HDP 00-1 1/ PIP 00-02
APPROVAL DATE: MITIGATED NEG. DEC.: December 20,2001
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 31 80 (Public Resources Code Section 21 081 .e).
waters.
The project shall implement the Habitat Restoration and Project
Mitigation Plan for Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub, Valley
Needlegrass, with Thread Leaved Brodiaea, and Southern
Willow Scrub Wetland for the Fox Property, Carlsbad,
California prepared by Recon dated August 17, 2001.
EXDlanatiOn of Headings: 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
The following paleontological mitigation measures shall be
implemented;
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Prior to any grading of the project site, a paleontologist
shall be retained to perform a walkover survey of the site
and to review the grading plans to determine if the
proposed grading will impact fossil resources.
A copy of the paleontologist's report shall be provided to
the Planning Director prior to issuance of a grading
permit.
A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform
periodic inspections of the site and to salvage exposed
fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the fossils
present in the geologic strata, it may be necessary to
collect matrix samples for laboratory processing through
fine screens.
The paleontologist shall make periodic reports to the
Planning Director during the grading process.
The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct
grading in the area of an exposed fossil in order to
facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage artifacts.
All fossils collected may be donated to a public, non-
profit institution with a research interest in the materials,
such as the San Diego Natural History Museum.
Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and
the grading activities of the project shall be resolved by
the Planning Director and City Engineer.
ExDlanation 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.
'reject Planning No
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.
18. Temporary sedimentation basins shall be installed on Project
each undeveloped, graded pad. Each undeveloped
building pad that is to remain undeveloped for a period
greater than six months shall be landscaped pursuant to
the City of Carlsbad landscape manual.
feasible in the landscape areas adjacent to and/or near
mitigation/open space areas and/or wetland/riparian
areas. The applicant should not plant, seed, or
otherwise introduce invasive exotic plant species to the
landscaped areas adjacent to and/or near
mitigatiodopen space areas and/or wetlandlriparian
9. The project shall use native plants to the greatest extent Project
Engineering
Planning No
ExDlanation of Headinqs: 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.