Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-05-21; Planning Commission; Resolution 54121 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. 5412 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADDENDUM AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ADAMS STREET SOUTH OF PARK DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASE NAME: ST. CLAIRE RESIDENCE PROGRAM TO ALLOW A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ON CASE NO.: CDP 02-24 WHEREAS, John St. Claire, “Developer,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Sean B. E. Kelly, “Owner,” described as Parcel 1 in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, as shown at Page 10178 of Parcel Maps, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, June 27, 1980 (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 21st day of May 2003, 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 relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) B) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby ADOPTS the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program according to 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 Exhibits “NOI” dated April 4, 2003, “ND” dated May 21, 2003, and “PII” dated March 27, 2003, 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: It has reviewed, analyzed and considered Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program - CDP 02-24, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to APPROVING 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 EL4 Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The mitigation measures included in the revised Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and as discussed in the May 13,2003 Addendum EIA for CDP 02-24 - St. Claire Residence are equivalent or more effective in mitigating or avoiding potential significant effects and will not cause any potentially significant effects on the environment. PC RES0 NO. 5412 -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 21st day of May, 2003, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Heineman, Montgomery, Segall, and White NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Whitton ABSTAIN: Commissioner Dominguez c 6. Chairperson COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOBILLS Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5412 -3- - City of Carlsbad NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: ST. CLAIRE RESIDENCE CASE NO: CDP 02-24/SDU 02-23 PROJECT LOCATION: West side of Adams Street, south of Park Drive (APN 206-192-38) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for approval of a Coastal Development Permit and Second Dwelling Unit Permit for the construction of a single-family residence and attached second dwelling unit. PROPOSED DETERMINATION: 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 (EM 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 will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Director. A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration are 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 the date of this notice. The proposed project and Mitigated Negative Declaration are subject to review and approvaVadoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council. Additional public notices will be issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Barbara Kennedy in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4626. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD APRIL 4,2003 TO MAY 4,2003 PUBLISH DATE APRIL 4,2003 1635 Faraday Avenue 0 Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us January 30,2003 - City of Carlsbad MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: ST. CLAIRE RESIDENCE PROJECT LOCATION: CASE NO: CDP 02-24 West side of Adams Street. south of Park Drive (APN 206-192-38) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for approval of Coastal Development Permit to allow a single- family residence on a 0.64 acre lot. DETERMINATION: 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 (EL4 Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows: 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. 0 The proposed project MAY have “potentially significant impact(s)” on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 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. (Mitigated Negative Declaration applies only to the effects that remained to be addressed). [7 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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing Mer is required. A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. ADOPTED: May 21.2003. uursuant to Planning Commission Resolution 5412 \ ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOLmILLER” Planning Director @ 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us MAY 13,2003 ADDENDUM EIA FOR CDP 02-24 - ST. CLAIRE RESIDENCE The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15074.1 and Section 15073.5 addresses the circumstances under which substitution of mitigation measures in a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) can occur and when re-circulation of a proposed MND is required. Pursuant to these sections, mitigation measures may be substituted or added which will avoid or reduce the significant effect to at least the same degree as, or to a greater degree than the original measure and will create no more adverse effect of it’s own than would the original measure. No re-circulation of the proposed MND is required when 1) Mitigation measures are replaced with equal or more effective measures pursuant to Section 15074.1; 2) New project revisions are added in response to written or verbal comments on the project’s effects identified in the proposed MND which are not new avoidable significant effects; 3) Measures or conditions of project approval are added after circulation of the MND which are not required by CEQA, which do not create new significant environmental effects and are not necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect; and 4) New information is added to the MND which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the MND. This addendum is in response to a joint comment letter from USFWS and CDFG received on May 5, 2003, which is attached for reference to this addendum. New information is included which clarifies and responds to the comment letter and additional mitigation measures are included as follows: 1. Reswonse: The biological report submitted for the project analyzed both the subject parcel and the parcel immediately adjacent to the north. The report indicates that approximately 100+ individual plants of summer holly occur on this site and 200+ individual plants occur on the adjacent site. The report firther states that approximately 50 individual plants would be directly impacted within the 50’ brush management zone (total for both parcels). According to a follow-up conversation with the biologist, there is an even distribution of the impacted summer holly between the two parcels. Therefore, approximately 25 of the loo+ individual plants would be impacted which would result in conservation of over 75% of summer holly on the subject site, consistent with the goals and conservation measures under the draft HMP. No additional mitigation required. 2. Response: The Mandatory Finding of Significance statement of the MND stating “the project does not contain any fish or wildlife species.” is a typographical error and should read “The site does not contain any fish or simificant wildlife species.” The CSS habitat in this location is an isolated parcel surrounded by residential development. The biological report prepared for the project states that regionally, CSS provides habitat for numerous sensitive plant and wildlife species. Animals confined primarily to this habitat include California gnatcatcher, cactus wren, orange- throated whiptail, and San Diego homed lizard. The CSS habitat in this location likely does not function as a habitat corridor due to its lack of connectivity at its northern and southern termini. The habitat may act as a linkage, owing to its geographical proximity to Agua Hedionda Lagoon, providing a stepping stone for species dispersal. A Gnatcatcher Field Survey was conducted for the site and no 1 Gnatcatchers were detected. The biology report states that because of the geographic position of the site in the context of surrounding development and the dominance of steep slopes, it is unlikely that the property receives significant use from larger mammals such as mule deer, coyote, and bobcat. The project will impact 0.116 of the 0.36 acres of CSS and impacts will be mitigated through conservation of 67% (0.244 acres) of CSS, consistent with the City’s draft HMP. A subsequent Gnatcatcher survey will be conducted prior to grading to mitigate potential disturbances to breeding pairs. If active nests are found, no grading or removal of habitat may take place within 200 feet of active nesting sites during the nestinghreeding season. With these mitigation measures in place, the project does not 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. Given the above discussion, City staff and the project biologist agreed that a zoological study was not required since the site is a small isolated pocket of vegetation surrounded on all sides by residential development. The Wildlife Agencies are requesting a general zoological survey of the site. In follow-up conversation with John Martin, USFWS, this survey can be performed prior to issuance of a de minimis permit for take of CSS habitat from the Wildlife Agencies, if after further review and discussion, it is still required by the Wildlife Agencies. 3. Response: The originally proposed mitigation measures require a qualified biologist to survey the site prior to commencement of grading activities to locate active gnatcatcher nests. If nests are present, no grading or removal of habitat may take place within 200 feet of active nests during the Gnatcatcher breeding season. The requested mitigation measures would restrict clearing and grubbing in existing vegetation during the bird breeding season whether Gnatcatchers were observed or not, to avoid impacts to other nesting migratory birds. This condition would only affect clearing and grubbing necessary for grading and thinning of the fire suppression zone, not the actual grading operation itself. The second request would require noise attenuation of construction activities (grading and building) only if active Gnatcatcher nests are found within a distance that would be affected by noise from these activities. Mitigation measures will be included. 4. Resvonse: included. Mitigation measure requiring shielding of outdoor lighting will be 5. Response: Mitigation measure requiring the use of native plants, to the greatest extent feasible, in the landscape areas adjacent to and/or near the mitigationlopen space areas will be included. 2 -.wILDLm US Fish and Wildlife Service Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 6010 Hidden Valley Road Carlsbad, California 92009 California Department of Fish & Game South Coast Regional Office 4949 Viewridge Avenue San Diego, California 92 123 (760) 43 1-9440 FAX (760) 43 1-9624 W4 In Reply, Refer to: @ FWS-SDG-3482.1 Ms. Barbara Kennedy City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Re: Comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the St. Claire Residence Project in the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California Dear Ms. Kennedy: The California Department of Fish and Game (Department) and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) (collectively, “Wildlife Agencies”) have reviewed the above-referenced mitigated negative declaration (MND), dated April 4,2003 and received on April 2,2003. The Wildlife Agencies have identified concerns regarding the potential effects of this project on wildlife and regional conservation planning. The comments provided herein are based on the information provided in the MND; the Results of a California Gnatcatcher Field Survey for the Adams Street Single Family Residence (SFR) Project, prepared by Vince Scheidt and dated April 18,2001; the Updated Biological Resources Impact Assessment for the Adams Street Residential Parcels 206- 192-34 and 206-192-38, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, prepared by Jeff L. Thomas and dated October 24,2002; addenda to the Biological Resources Impact Assessment, also prepared by Mr. Thomas and dated November 15,2002 and January 14,2003; the Wildlife Agencies’ knowledge of sensitive and declining vegetation communities in San Diego County (County); and our participation in regional conservation planning efforts, . The primary concern and mandate of the Service is the protection of public fish and wildlife resources and their habitats. The Service has legal responsibility for the welfare of migratory birds, anadromous fish, and endangered animals and plants occurring in the United States. The Service is also responsible for administering the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The Department is a Trustee Agency and a Responsible Agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is responsible for ensuring appropriate conservation of fish and wildlife resources including rare, threatened, and endangered plant and animal species, pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). The Department also administers the Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) program. The City of Carlsbad (City) is currently participating in the NCCP program through the preparation of a draft Multiple Habitat Conservation Program Habitat Management Plan (HMP). Ms. Barbara Kennedy (FWS-SDG-3482.1) 2 The proposed project is the construction of a dehched single-family home and attached second dwelling unit on an 0.64-acre site (parcel 206-192-38) in the City. The project site is located west of the intersection of Park Drive and Adams Street, approximately 280 yards from the north shore of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. A strip of native habitat, approximately 150 to 300 feet wide by 1,500 feet long, runs north to south and includes habitat in the western side of the project site. Residential development surrounds the strip of native habitat and exists north and east of the project site. Mr. Thomas’ January 14,2003 revised addendum to the Updated Biological Resources Impact Assessment identifies the following vegetative communities on-site: 0.36 acre of Diegan coastal sage scrub (CSS), 0.06 acre of developed land, and 0.22 acre of ruderal land. Surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila califomica califarnica; gnatcatcher), conducted in February and March 200 1 , were negative. Approximately 100 individual California adolphia (Adolphia califomica) and 100 individual summer holly (Comarostaphylis diversifolia) were found on the project site. According to the MND, the proposed development would directly impact approximately 0.166 acre of CSS, all of the ruderal land, 50 California adolphia, and 50 summer holly. To mitigate impacts to CSS, the applicant proposes to conserve 0.244 acres of CSS on-site in an open space easement. The Wildlife Agencies offer our recommendations and comments to help the City adequately analyze and mitigate potentially significant project impacts to biological resources pursuant to CEQA, and ensure that the project is consistent with ongoing regional habitat conservation planning efforts. We have the following concerns about the proposed project as described in the MND: 1. The CEQA Guidelines, Section 15070, establish criteria for which an MND may be prepared, including: “...There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.” Although the project may have been revised to avoid a portion of the sensitive plants on-site, we reconmend that the project minimize impacts to summer holly and be consistent with the conservation goals and measures for species proposed for coverage under the draft HMP. The draft HMP states that at least 75 percent of the major population of summer holly in the vicinity of Agua Hedionda Lagoon will be conserved, yet only half of the individual summer holly on-site are proposed to be conserved. Increasing the conservation from 50 percent to 75 percent would substantially improve the species’ conservation on-site. 2. The October 24,2002 Updated Biological Resources Impact Assessment states that “expected wildlife use of the site was not formally determined and site specific wildlife surveys were not conducted...”, yet the Mandatory Findings of Significance section of the Initial Study Checklist for the MND states that, ‘The project site does not contain any fish or wildlife species. Therefore, the project will not reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species.” Before the MND is finalized, please clarify this discrepancy and provide us with a list of species with the potential to occur on-site and the results of a general zoological survey of the site. Ms. Barbara Ktnotdy (PWS-SDQ-3482.1) 3 3. We recommend that all clearing and grubbing in existing vegetation avoid &e bird breeding season (Febxuary 15 to August 31), in order to avoid take of migratory birds. Nesting birds and their young are susceptible to impacts from clearing, grubbing, grading, or other constmction activity. Nesting birds include those that have nests with eggs, juveniles (nestlings), and dependemt juveniles of limited mobility (fledglings). In addition prior to construction activities, a qualified biologist should survey the habitat areas adjacent to the project site to determine if any gnatcatcher nests are within a distance potentially affected by noise from these activities; If no nesting gnatcatchers are located, no additional rnwwes will need to be taken to mitigate indirect impacts. However, if nesting gnatcatchers a= observed, no activity will OCCUT without noise attenuation (e.g., noise baniem) to ens= that noise levels within occupied gnatcatcher habitat do not exceed 60 dBA Lq, 4. In order to reduce the potential for indirect lighting effectsfrom the proposed project, we recommend that all outdoor lighting be shielded and directed away from the open space. 5. The Wildlife Agencies recommend the use of native plants to the greatest extent feasible in the landscape anm adjacent to andlor near mitigatiodopen space areas. The applicant should not plant, seed or otherwise inoroduce invasive exotic plant species to the landscaped area3 adjacent and/or near the mitigatidopen space area. Exotic plant species not to be used include those species listed on fists A & B of the California Exotic Pest Plant Council's list of "Exotic Pest Plants of Greatest Ecological Concern in California RS of October 1999." This list includes such species as: pepper trees, pampas grass, fountain grass, ice plant, rnyoporum, black locust, capewaxl, tree of heaven, periwinkle, sweet alyssum, Enghsh ivy, French broom, Scotch broom, and Spanish broom. A copy of the complete list can be obtained by contacting the California Exotic Pest Plant Council at 32912 Calle del Tesm, San Juan Capistrano, California - 926754427, or by accessing their web site at .o . The Wildlife Agencies appreciate the opportunity to comment on the St. Claire MND and are available to work with the City, the applicant, and their consultants to address our concern. Please contact John Martin of the Service at (760) 431-9440 or Nancy Froat of the Department at (858) 637-55 11, if you have any questions or comments concerning this letter. eter C. Sotensen hY .Acting Assistant Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service cc: State Clearinghouse Sincerely, William E. Tippets Environmental Program Manager California Department of Fish and Game ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 11 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CDP 02-24/SDU 02-23 DATE: March 27.2003 BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. CASE NAME: St. Claire Residence LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: Faraday Ave.. Carlsbad. CA 92008 CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Barbara Kennedy, 760-6024626 PROJECT LOCATION: West side of Adams Street, south of Park Drive (APN 206-192-38) PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: John St. Claire 1839 Freda Lane Cardiff, Citv of Carlsbad, Planning Department; 1635 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RLM (Residential Low-Medium - 3.2 ddac) ZONING: R-1-15.000 (Single-family Residential-15.000 sf min lot size) OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (Le., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): State Deuarhnent of Fish and Game, U. S. Fish and PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SEIITING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: Reauest for approval of Coastal Development Permit and Second Dwelling Unit Permit for the construction of a single-family residence and attached second dwelling unit. The 0.64 acre site is located on the west side of Adams Street, south of Park Drive. The site is a uanhandle lot and access to the develouable portion of the site currently exists along a paved driveway. The developable portion of the site has been previously aaded and the site is bordered by existing single family residences to the south, east and west. The lot north of the site is also vacant. The west portion of the site slopes steeply uuward and is covered with costal sage vegetation, the maioritv of which will be preserved. 1 Rev. Q7lO3fQ2 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 Aesthetics 0 Geology/Soils 0 Noise 0 Agricultural Resources 0 Hazards/Hazardous Materials 0 pOPulatiOn and Housing 0 Air Quality 0 Hydrology/Water Quality 0 Public Services Biological Resources Land Use and Planning 0 Recreation 0 Mineral Resources TransportatiodCircUation 0 Cultural Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems 151 Mandatory Findings of Significance 2 Rev. 07/03/02 DETERTvUNATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 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 IMF'ACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EWONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. koL 3 31 IO? ~lahner Signature Date 3/3ilu3 Date 3 Rev. 07/03/02 ENVTRONMENTAL 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 significantly adverse, 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. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly adverse. Based on an “EM-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but potentially significant adverse 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. When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant adverse 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 adverse effect on the environment. If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse 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. 4 Rev. 07/03/02 a An EIR be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse 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 adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR, (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the EIA-Part 11 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. 5 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTRAL RESOURCES - (In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model-1997 prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY - (Where' available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.) Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 O 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant No Impact Impact OB OB DIXI OIXI OB 6 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological intenuption, or other means? Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 c3 0 0 0 0 17 Potentially Significant Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact Unless Less Than 0 mu om 0 01x1 0 IXIO 0 7 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: 0 0 OIXI 0 0 OB 0 OIXI 0 0 OH Cause a Substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 5 15064.5? Cause a Substantial adverse change in the signifi- cance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi- cal resource or site or unique geologic feature? Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other Substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? Result in Substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1 994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IXIO 8 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially . Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 0 I7 UIXI e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? W. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: 0 0 0 0 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 0 OB Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment? For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 0 om 0 0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 0 om Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 0 OB Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 0 Vm. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 0 0 9 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Impacts to groundwater quality? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off- site? Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Increased erosion (sediment) into receivirig surface waters. Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cl 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 IXI IXI 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Impact IXI IXI IXI 0 IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI 10 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? 0 0 0 IXI 0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? U 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 IXI p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 17 0 IXI IXI b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 0 0 c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: 0 0 IXI a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of fbture value to the region and the residents of the State? 0 IXI b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: 0 0 UIXI o 0 OIXI a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? 0 IXIO c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 0 IXIO d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 11 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Xm. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact Unless Less Than 0 OIXI 0 OIXI 0 0 0 12 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFC - Would the project: Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Result in inadequate emergency access? Result in insufficient parking capacity? Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn- outs, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 13 Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .n 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 IXI IXI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumula- tively 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 Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 IXI 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 El El No Impact IXI IXI IXI 0 XVIII. 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) b) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. 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. Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures, whch were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. c) 14 Rev. 07/03/02 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION # AESTHETICS No Impact. The project will have not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista since the site is located in an existing residential area and will be constructed in compliance with the maximum 30’ height limitation allowed in the R-1-15,000 zone. Development of the site with a single family residence and attached second dwelling unit would be consistent with the surrounding development pattern. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES No Impact. There will be no impact on agricultural resources due to the proposed project as the site is not designated as or used as farmland. The subject site is zoned for single-family residential projects (R- 1-15,000) and is not subject to a Williamson Act Contract. The project would not result in other changes to the environment that would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. The project would be characterized as infill development and has been surrounded by residential development for many years. AIR QUALITY-Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a federal and state non- attainment area for ozone (03), and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM,,,). The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothill areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SNAG). A plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state-mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other California non- attainment areas having serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November 9th through 10th in 1994, and was forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996. The proposed project relates to the SIP and/or RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that are incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city’s and the County’s general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the project presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact. . Section 15125(B) of the State of California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the following: Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area? Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan? 15 Rev. 07/03/02 The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where ‘a RAQS is being implemented. The project is consistent with the growth assumptions of the City’s General Plan and the RAQS. Therefore, the project is consistent with the regional air quality plan and will in no way conflict or obstruct implementation of the regional plan. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is in the City of Oceanside. Data available for this monitoring site through April, 2002 indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (one day in both 2000 and 2001) and one day in 2001 for the federal 8-hour average for ozone and one day for the 24-hour state standard for suspended particulates in 1996. No violations of any other air quality standards have been recorded recently. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less Than Significant Impact. The Air Basin is currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine particulates. The proposed project would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with the proposed project would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the proposed project, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 (a)(4), the proposed project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. d) ’ Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No Impact. As noted above, the proposed project would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or concentrations. In addition, there are no sensitive receptors (e.g., schools or hospitals) located in the vicinity of the project. No impact is assessed. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact. Construction of future residential development could generate fumes from the operation of construction equipment, which may be considered objectionable by some people. Such exposure would be short-term or transient. In addition, the number of people exposed to such transient impacts is not considered substantial. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated: According to the biology report, the 0.64 acre site contains 0.36 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub, 0.22 acres of ruderal land, and 0.06 acres of developed land (existing driveway). California adolphia and summer holly are found in significant numbers throughout the coastal sage scrub habitat on this site and on the adjacent 0.78 acre undeveloped site to the north. Approximately 50 individuals of each species would be impacted directly within the 50 foot brush management zone (total for both projects). However, according to the report, these impacts are I 16 Rev. 07/03/02 considered less than significant due to the regional presence of these species within other conserved portions of the City’s draft Habitat Management Plan. The project would not encroach into sensitive vegetation andor habitats except for disturbance to a total of 0.1 I6 acre of CSS to be removed by grading. The proposed mitigation for the removal/disturbance of CSS consists of the preservation onsite of 0.244 acres of CSS. The undisturbed coastal sage scrub will be preserved within a dedicated open space easement. To mitigate potential disturbances to the California gnatcatcher resulting from grading activities, prior to the commencement of grading activities, direct surveys to locate active gnatcatcher nests shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. If nests are present, no grading or removal of habitat may take place within 200 feet of active nesting sites during the nestinghreeding season (mid-February through mid-July). b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact (b & c) - The project site contains no riparian or wetland habitat or wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less than Significant Impact - The biology report states that because of the geographic position of the site in the context of surrounding urban development and the dominance of steep slopes, it is unlikely that the property receives significant use from larger mammals such as mule deer, coyote, and bobcat. The CSS habitat in this location most likely does not function as a habitat corridor due to it’s lack of connectivity at it’s northern and southern temini. This habitat may act as a linkage, owing to its geographical proximity to Agua Hedionda Lagoon, providing a stepping stone for species dispersal. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact - The project 1s consistent with the preservation and mitigation requirements of the City’s Draft Habitat Management Plan which is used as a standard of review for biological impacts. 0 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Less than Significant. The subject site is a previously graded infill site which is surrounded by residential development and is designated as an “Urbafleveloped” area on the City’s Draft Habitat Management Plan. The proposed development would occur primarily within the previously graded ruderal lands. The project is consistent with the HMP standards in that it preserves 67.7% of the CSS habitat existing on the site. The HMP does not require off-site mitigation for projects which conserve at least 67% of the habitat on-site, therefore, additional off-site mitigation should not be required. g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? No Impact - The site does not contain any environmentally sensitive tributary area. 17 Rev. 07/03/02 CULTURAL RESOURCES No Impact. The subject site is a previously graded infill site which is surrounded by residential development and there will be no impacts on cultural resources. There are no known historical, archeological, paleontological, or human remains on the project site. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. I Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than Significant Impact (a.i. to a.iii.). There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zones within the City of Carlsbad and there is no other evidence of active or potentially active faults within the City. However, there are several active faults throughout Southern California, and these potential earthquakes could affect Carlsbad. The project site is located in an area of stable soil conditions and the risk of seismic-related ground failure or liquefaction is very minimal (according to City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992). In addition, a project specific Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation was prepared by Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc., dated February 11, 2002. The report states that faults or sheer zones are not indicated on or near proximity to the project site. iv. Landslides? No Impact. The report prepared by Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc., stated that landslides or other forms of slope instability were not indicated in surface exposures nor were they suggested in project exploratory test excavations. Inclined structure along which bedding failures could develop is not in evidence at the property. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than significant impact. According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992, the project site is in an area of low to moderate erosion potential. The applicant is required to prepare a grading and erosion control plans prior to any construction and it is anticipated that the latest technologies will be used to eliminate the potential of soil erosion and sedimentation from the site, both during and post construction. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? No Impact. .The report prepared by Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc. showed no evidence of landslides or other forms of slope instability on the subject site. The report also included laboratory test results of soil samples taken from the site. These results showed the onsite soils are generally non- 18 Rev. 07/03/02 expansive to very low expansive sandy deposits. Underlying bedrock and terrace deposit are predominantly dense and stable units which will provide good support for planned improvements and engineered fill sections. However, some of the underlying terrace deposits locally occur in a weathered soft condition near the surface and will be removed and recompacted as part of the project remedial grading operations as recommended. No substantial risk to life or property is anticipated due to hazards typically found in expansive soils. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. Sewers are available to the subject site and the project will be served by a public wastewater system. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS No Impact. Based on the nature of a residential land use, there is no routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials associated with residential uses. Therefore, there is no potential of a significant hazard associated with the project fiom accidents involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment, or from the emission of hazardous substances within the proximity of a school. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted. However, the project site is located approximately 2.3 miles from the McClellan-Palomar Airport (public general aviation airport). The project site is not located within any flight, crash, or safety hazard zones associated with the airport. Therefore, the project will not result in a safety hazard for people residing on the project site. The project will not impair the implementation or physically interfere with any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation since the project site is an infill site surrounded by urban development which is adequately served by emergency services. There are no wildlands adjacent to the site that could expose people to significant risk &om wildland fires. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? No Impact. An erosion control plan and storm water management plan will be prepared prior to construction of the project. These plans will ensure acceptable water quality standards will be maintained both during the construction phase as well as post-development. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Impacts to groundwater quality? No Impact. This project does not propose to directly draw any groundwater. The project will be served via existing public water distribution lines adjacent to the site. Groundwater was not encountered in any of the exploratory borings made during the soils investigation. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 19 Rev. 07/03/02 No impact. The project does not propose to alter existing drainage patterns or the course of a stream or river that would result in erosion or siltation on or off site. e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off- site? Less than significant impact. On-site drainage will generally flow in the same direction as it flowed before - down the access portion of the panhandle to Adams Street. No flooding is anticipated due to an increase in runoff as the percent grade proposed is more than adequate for proper flow of water. In addition, the street and storm drain system on Adams Street and Park Drive is designed to accommodate the quantity of water anticipated at buildout. f) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less than significant impact. The existing storm drain system as identified in the City’s Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan will adequately convey runoff from the subject site. According to the Master Plan, no additional upgrades to the storm drain system are necessary as the existing system can accommodate runoff from a drainage basin developed to its fbll potential. g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? No ,Impact. The proposed project will not substantially degrade water quality of adjacent receiving waters. h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact (h & i) - The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according to the Flood Insurance Rate Map. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in housing or structures within a 100-year flood hazard area. j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact (j & k) - According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992, the project site is not located within any dam failure inundation area, or area subject to inundation by seiche or tsunami. 1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? 20 Rev. 07/03/02 n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? 0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? No Impact (1, my n, o & p) - The project site is not located immediately adjacent to any body of water. Drainage from the site is subject to the City’s drainage and storm water pollution control standards (”DES and best management practices), which ensure that sediment and pollutants discharged fiom development of the site will be reduced to the maximum extent possible. Also, the City’s drainage and storm water pollution control standards ensure that development does not reduce water quality of any marine, fresh or wetland waters or groundwater. Therefore, the project will not adversely impact water quality. LAND USE AND PLANNING No Impact. The subject site is a previously graded infill site which is surrounded by single-family residential development on the south, east, and west and by a vacant residential parcel land on the north. Future residential development of the site will be compatible with and will integrate into the existing community. The project does not conflict with the property’s General Plan designation (RLM). The density permitted on the site (3.2 du./ac.) would allow development of the proposed residence and accessory dwelling unit. The City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires that 15% if the units be reserved as affordable housing units for low income households (80% of the AMI) or allows the developers of projects with less than seven units to pay an Impact Fee. The developer may either designate the Second Dwelling as an affordable unit by entering into an affordable housing agreement with the City or the Impact Fee may be paid to satisfy the Inclusionary Housing requirement. The subject site does not conflict with any habitat conservation plans or natural communities plans in that the property is designated as “Development” area in the City’s Draft Habitat Management Plan. The project as proposed and conditioned is consistent with the applicable policies and implementation standards for land use consistency, preservation of steep slopes and vegetation, drainage, stormwater runoff and erosion control of the Mello I1 segment of Carlsbad’s Local Coastal Program (LCP). A winter grading restriction will be added as a project condition of approval. The project is consistent with the dual criterion provisions allowing a maximum of 10% removal of CSS from steep slopes in that the project proposes a 7.1% encroachment into dual criteria slopes to allow access and reasonable use of the property- MINERAL RESOURCES No Impact. According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992, the project site does not contain any mineral resources. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or mineral resource recovery site. NOISE No Impact (a & b). Based upon the nature of the proposed residential use, the project will not result in any activity that would generate excessive noise levels, groundbourne vibration, or groundbourne noise 21 Rev. 07/03/02 levels. In addition, the project site is not located adjacent to any use that generates excessive noise or vibration levels. Less Than Significant (c & d). Other than traffic generated noise, typical residential land uses do not generate a substantial amount of noise. With regard to temporary or periodic increase in noise levels, the only potential increase in noise would be fiom construction activity associated with a future development project. The City incorporates standard regulations on all project construction activity to ensure that noise and other potential impacts to surrounding properties are not significant. Therefore, the proposed land use and zone change will not result in a substantial permanent or temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. No Impact (e & f) - The project site is located approximately 2.3 miles fiom the McClellan-Palomar Airport. However, the site is not located within an area impacted by excessive noise levels generated by the airport. The site is not located near any other public or private airport. Therefore, the proposed project will not expose people to excessive noise levels generated fiom an airport. POPULATION AND HOUSING No Impact. The project would result in the development of one single family residence and a second dwelling unit on an infill site that is served by existing roads and utilities and therefore, the project would not induce substantial growth either directly or indirectly. The project is proposed on a vacant lot and would not displace any existing housing or individuals. PUBLIC SERVICES No Impact. The project will result in the construction of one residence and an accessory dwelling unit which is consistent with the Growth Management Control Point of 2.3 ddac which would allow the proposed development. The provisions of public facilities within the Zone 1 LFMP including fire & police protection, parks, libraries and other public facilities, have been planned to accommodate the projected growth in that area. Because the project will not exceed the total growth projections anticipated within the Zone 1 LFMP, all public facilities will be adequate to serve the proposed residential development on the site. Therefore, the project will not result in substantial adverse impacts to or result in the need for additional government facilities. RECREATION No Impacts. As part of the City's Growth Management Program, a performance standard for parks was adopted. The park performance standard requires that 3 acres of Community Park and Special Use Area per 1,000 population within a park district (quadrant) must be provided. The project site is located within Park District #1 in the Northwest 0 Quadrant. The necessary park acreage to achieve the GMP standard (3 acres/1,000 population) for Park District #1 was based upon the GMP dwelling unit limitation for the Northwest Quadrant. The project is consistent with the density permitted by the GMP and parks demand in the NW quadrant currently does not exceed that supply. Therefore, parks facilities are sufficient to accommodate the project. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Less Than Significant Impact (a). The project will generate 10 Average Daily Trips (ADT) and one peak hour trip. This traffic will utilize Adam Street. Existing traffic on this street based on an October 2002 count is 1,158 ADT. Since Adams Street is a collector street and collector streets are designed to accommodate up to 10,000 ADT, the existing street can accommodate the insignificant amount of traffic generated by the project The proposed project would not, therefore, cause an increase in traffic that is 22 Rev. 07/03/02 substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. The impacts from the proposed project are, therefore, less than significant. Less Than Significant Impact @). SANDAG acting as the County Congestion Management Agency has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The Existing and Buildout average daily traffic (ADT) and Existing LOS on these designated roads and highways in Carlsbad is: Existing ADT* - LOS Buildout ADT* Rancho Santa Fe Road 15-32 “A-C’’ 28-43 El Camino Real 21-50 “A-C” 32-65 Palomar Airport Road 10-52 “A-B” 29-77 SR 78 120 “F” 144 1-5 183-198 “D 2 19-249 *The numbers are in thousands of daily trips. The Congestion Management Program’s (CMP) acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard is “E”, or LOS “F” if that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (e.g., SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS “F” in 1990). Accordingly, all designated roads and highways are currently operating at or better than the acceptable standard LOS. Note that the buildout ADT projections are based on the full implementation of the region’s general and community plans. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan and, therefore, its traffic was used in modeling the buildout projections. Achievement of the CMP acceptable Level of Service (LOS) “E” standard assumes implementation of the adopted CMP strategies. Based on the design capacity(ies) of the designated roads and highways and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at acceptable level(s) of service in the short-term and at buildout. No Impact (c, d, e, f). The proposed project does not include any aviation components. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the McClellan-Palomar Airport and would not, therefore, result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. All project circulation improvements will be designed and constructed to City standards; and, therefore, would not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and zoning and would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and Police Departments. The project complies with the City’s parking requirements to ensure an adequate parking supply. The project is located in an area which is not planned to be served by public transportation. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS No Impact - The proposed residential development will be required to comply with all Regional Water Quality Control Board Requirements. In addition, the Zone 1 LFMP anticipated that the project site would be developed with a residential use and wastewater treatment facilities were planned and designed to accommodate future residential uses on the site. All public facilities, including water facilities, wastewater treatment facilities and drainage facilities, have been planned and designed to accommodate the growth projections for the City at build-out. The proposed development on the site will increase the demand for these facilities. However, the proposed density would not result in an overall increase in the City’s growth projection in the NW quadrant. Therefore, the project will not result in development that will result in a significant need to expand or construct new water facilities/supplies, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage facilities. 23 Rev. 07/03/02 The project has been reviewed by the local solid waste disposal provider (Coast Waste). Existing waste disposal services are adequate to serve the proposed residential use on the site without exceeding landfill capacities. In addition, the proposed residential development will be required to comply with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. 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? Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated -The proposed residential project will not degrade the quality of the environment. The project site does not contain any fish or wildlife species. Therefore, the project will not reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species. The project site is a vacant site which was previously graded and is surrounded by single-family development. The site will conserve 67% of the coastal sage scrub, consistent with the City’s draft Habitat Management Plan, and this area will be preserved under a dedicated open space easement. In order to mitigate potential disturbances to the California gnatcatchers resulting from grading activities, direct surveys will be performed prior to grading operations. If nests are present, grading will not be permitted during the nestinghreeding season. Therefore, the project will not threaten or reduce the number a plant or animal community. There are no historic structures on the site and there are no known cultural resources on the site. The project will not result in the elimination of any important examples 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?) . Less than Significant Impact - San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projects regional growth for the greater San Diego area, and local general plan land use policies are incorporated into SANDAG projections. Based upon those projections, region-wide standards, including storm water quality control, air quality standards, habitat conservation, congestion management standards, etc, are established to reduce the cumulative impacts of development in the region. All of the City’s development standards and regulations are consistent with the region-wide standards. The City’s standards and regulations, including grading standards, water quality and drainage standards, traffic standards, habitat and cultural resource protection regulations, and public facility standards, ensure that development within the City will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact. There are two regional issues that development within the City of Carlsbad has the potential to have a cumulatively considerable impact on. Those issues are air quality and regional circulation. As discussed above, the project would contribute to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with the residential development would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the residential development of the site, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the residential development is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15 130 (a)(4), the project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. Also, as discussed above, the County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The CMA has determined, based on the City’s growth 24 Rev. 07/03/02 projections in the General Plan, that these designated roadways will function at acceptable levels of service in the short-term and at build-out. The pfoject is consistent with the City’s growth projections, and therefore, the cumulative impact from the project to the regional circulation system is less than significant. With regard to any other potential impact associated with the project, City standards and regulations will ensure that residential development of the site will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less than Significant Impact - Based upon residential nature of the project and the fact that future development of the site will comply with City standards, the project will not result in any direct or indirect substantial adverse environmental effects on human beings. EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES 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. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Final Master Environmental Imuact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update WEIR 93-01), City of Carlsbad Planning Department, March 1994. Citv of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Maminer Study, November 1992. Preliminaw Geotechnical Investigation, Undeveloued Hillside Lots 4588 Adams Street, Vinje & Middleton engineering, February 1 1,2002. Updated Biological Resources Imuact Assessment for the Adams Street Residential Parcels, Jeff Thomas, October 24,2002. Addendum to Uudated Biological Resources Impact Assessment for the Adams Street Residential Parcels, Jeff Thomas, January 14,2003. Results of a California Gnatcatcher Field Survey for the Adams Street SFR Proiect. PRE 99-54, Vincent N. Scheidt, April 18,2001. 25 Rev. 07/03/02 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES 1. 2. 3. Impacts to 0.36 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub habitat (CSS) will be mitigated through the preservation of 67%(0.244 acres) of the CSS on the site as shown on the development proposal. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, all necessary agency permits shall be issued by the USFWS, CDFG, and City of Carlsbad. f The coastal sage scrub not impacted by the project shall be preserved within a dedicated conservation easement. To mitigate potential disturbances to the California gnatcatcher resulting from grading activities, prior to the commencement of grading activities, direct surveys to locate active gnatcatcher nests shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. If nests are present, no grading or removal of habitat may take place within 200 feet of active nesting sites during the nestinghreeding season (mid- February through mid-July). 26 Rev. 07/03/02 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE haIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDlTION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. 27 Rev. 07/03/02 PROJECT NAME: ST. CLAIRE RESIDENCE FILE NUMBERS: CDP 02-24 APPROVAL DATE: CONDITIONAL NEG. DEC.: 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 21 081.6). REVISED Mitigation Measures 1. Impacts to 0.1 16 acres of the site total of 0.36 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub habitat (CSS) will be mitigated through the preservation of 67%(0.244 acres) of the CSS on the site as shown on the development proposal. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, all necessary agency permits shall be issued by the USFWS, CDFG, and City of Carlsbad. If required by the Wildlife Agencies, a general zoological survey of the site shall submitted. 2. The coastal sage scrub not impacted by the project shall be preserved within a dedicated conservation easement. 3. All clearing and grubbing in existing vegetation shall avoid the bird breeding season (February 15 to August 31). In order to avoid take of migratory birds. Nesting birds include those that have nests with eggs, juveniles (nestlings), and dependent Explanation of Headinas: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. infomation. Shown on Plans =When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Monitoring Type Plan check- Prior to issuance of a grading/ building permit Dedicate easement prior to issuance of a grading permit Note on grading permit Monitoring Department Planning Planning/ Engineering Planning/ Engineering Shown on Plans Verified lmplementatio n Remarks 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. REVISED Mitigation Measures 4. To mitigate potential disturbances to the California gnatcatcher resulting from grading activities, prior to the commencement of grading activities, direct surveys to locate active gnatcatcher nests shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. If nests are present, no grading or removal of habitat may take place within 200 feet of active nesting sites during the nesting/breeding season (February 15 to August 31). 5. Prior to construction activities, a qualified biologist shall survey the habitat areas adjacent to the project site to determine if any gnatcatcher nests are within a distance potentially affected by noise from these activities. If no nesting gnatcatchers are located no additional measures will need to be taken to mitigate indirect impacts. However, if nesting gnatcatchers are observed, no actability will occur without noise attenuation (e.g. noise barriers) to ensure that noise levels within occupied gnatcatcher habitat do not exceed 60 dBA. 6. All outdoor lighting shall be shielded and directed away from the open space in order to reduce the potential for indirect lighting effects fro the proposed project. Monitoring 1 Type Prior to issuance of a grading Permit Prior to k~uance of a grading/ building Permit Note on building plans. Prior to issuance of building permits Use native plants to the greatest extent feasible in the landscape areas adjacent to and/or near mitigation/open space 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. Exotic plant species not to be used include those species listed on List A & B of the California Exotic Pest Plant Council’s list of “Exotic Plants of Greatest Ecological Concern in California as of October 1999.” 7. Note on building Plans Remarks Monitoring Shown on Verified Department Plans lmplementatio Exlplanation 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.