HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-09-01; Planning Commission; Resolution 57091
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. 5709
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM TO SUBDIVIDE A 13.47 ACRE SITE AND
DEVELOP AN INDUSTRIAL OFFICE COMPLEX WITH
THREE BUILDINGS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF COLLEGE BOULEVARD,
SOUTHWEST OF ASTON AVENUE, AND NORTH OF THE
MANAGEMENT ZONE 5.
CASE NAME: PALOMAR POINTE
MC CLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT IN LOCAL FACILITIES
CASE NO.: GPA 04-08/ZC 04-03/LCPA 04-07/CT 04-06/
PUD 03-02/PIP 03-02/CDP 03-06/HDP 03-02
WHEREAS, T. Lawrence Jett, “Developer,” has filed a verified application with
the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by James L. Hieatt and Mildred E. Hieatt,
Trustees of the Hieatt Family Living Trust, dated April 18, 1990 as to an undivided 75%
interest and T. Lawrence Jett as to an undivided 25%, as Tenants in Common, “Owner,”
described as
That portion of Lot F of the Rancho Agua Hedionda, in the
City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to map thereof no. 823, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego, November 16,1896
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with
said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 1st day of September 2004,
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.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Palomar Pointe Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, Exhibit “ND” according to “NOI” dated July 12,2004 and “PII” dated
July 7, 2004, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following
findings:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration for
03-02, PIP 03-02, CDP 03-06, and HDP 03-02, the environmental impacts
therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
PALOMAR POINTE - GPA 04-08, ZC 04-03, LCPA 04-07, CT 04-06, PUD
b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines
and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
c.
d. based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Conditions:
1. The Developer shall implement or cause the implementation of the Palomar Pointe
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
...
...
...
...
PC RES0 NO. 5709 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of September 2004, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez,
Heineman, Montgomery, and Segall
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5709 -3-
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME:
CASE NO:
PROJECT LOCATION:
PALOMAR POINTE
GPA 04-08/ZC 04-03LCPA 04-07/CT 04-06PUD 03-02PIP 03-02/HDP 03-
02/CDP 03-06
Southeast of College Blvd., Southwest of Aston Ave., and north of the
McClellan Palomar Airuort (APN - 212-120-33)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Local
Coastal Program Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Non-Residential Planned Development Permit, Planned
Industrial Permit, Hillside Development Permit, and Coastal Development Permit for the development of an
office/industrial project consisting of three buildings and associated parking areas with a total building area
of 84,240 sf.
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:
0
0
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.
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).
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 further is
required.
A copy of the initial study (EL4 Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on file
in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008.
ADOPTED: October 19.2004. pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 2004-339
AREST:
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER~
Planning Director
@ 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
- City of Carlsbad
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME: PALOMAR POINTE
CASE NO: GPA 04-08/ZC 04-03/LCPA 04-07/CT 04-06PUD 03-02PIP 03-
02/HDP 03-021 CDP 03-06
PROJECT LOCATION: Southeast of College Blvd., Southwest of Aston Ave., and north of the
McClellan Palomar Aimort (APN - 212-120-33)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone
Change, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Non-Residential Planned
Development Permit, Planned Industrial Permit, Hillside Development Permit, and Coastal
Development Permit for the development of an officehndustrial project consisting of three
buildings and associated parking areas with a total building area of 84,240 sf.
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 (EL4 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 (EL4 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
approval/adoption 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 July 12,2004, to August 12,2004
PUBLISH DATE July 12,2004
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.cjiicz&s&~#.us @
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: GPA 04-08/ZC 04-03/LCPA 04-07/CT 04-06/PUD 03-02/PIP 03-02/HDP 03-02/CDP 03-06
DATE: July 7,2004
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
CASE NAME: Palomar Pointe
LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad. 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad.
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Barbara Kennedy - (760) 602-4626
PROJECT LOCATION: Southeast of College Blvd., Southwest of Aston Ave., and north of the
McClellan Palomar Airport (APN - 212-120-33)
PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: T. Lawrence Jett, Lanikai Management Co, 18 15 Aston Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 476-1 808
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: PI (Planned Industrial)
ZONING: PM (Planned Industrial)
OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing
approval or participation agreements): US Fish & Wildlife, State Department of Fish & Game,
and California Coastal Commission
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
Request for approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Local Coastal Program
Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Non-Residential Planned Development Permit, Planned
Industrial Permit, Hillside Development Permit, and Coastal Development Permit for the
development of an office/industrial project consisting of three buildings and associated parlung
areas with a total building area of 84,240 sf. The site is located southeast of College Blvd., south
of Aston Ave., and north of the McClellan Palomar Airport and currently consists of a vacant lot
totaling 13.45 acres. Access to the site would be fi-om a new public street south of Aston Avenue
on the southeast side of College Boulevard. The buildings will comply with all standards of the
PM Zone and McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Plan. The project includes a General Plan
Amendment, Zone Change, and Local Coastal Program Amendment to designate the habitat preservation areas as Open Space. The Tentative Tract Map and Non-Residential Planned
Development Permit applications would allow for individual ownership of each building and
common ownership of the common parking areas and landscaping. The project is located in the
Mello I1 Segment of the Local Coastal Program and therefore requires approval of a Coastal Development Permit. Development will be limited to the flatter portions of the site and the
steeper slopes with native vegetation and the vernal pool areas will be preserved.
Rev. 07/03/02 1
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.
[7 Aesthetics [7 Geology/Soils Noise
0 Agricultural Resources 0 Hazardshlazardous Materials 0 PoPulation and Housing
0 Air Quality 0 HydrologylWater Quality 0 Public Services w Biological Resources Land Use and Planning II] Recreation
Cultural Resources 0 Mineral Resources 0 TransportatiodTraffic
0 Utilities & Service Systems Mandatory Findings of
Significance
2 Rev. 07/03/02
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0
IXI
0
0
0
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have
been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have “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
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required.
Planner Signature Date
Planning Director’s Signature Date
3 Rev. 07/03/02
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 “EIA-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 ths 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
0 An EIR
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 I1 analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect,
or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a
level of significance.
be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to
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?
11. AGRICULTURAL 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?
111. 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
0
0
0
Potentially Significant
Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact
Unless Less Than
ow
0 ow
0 OH
0 OH
0 ow
0
0
0
0
OBI
OBI
OH
wo
6 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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)?
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
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 interruption, 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
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
Unless Less Than
0 HCI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OH
OH
00
00
OH
7 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
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 0 15064.5?
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique pale
ontological 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:
a) Expose people or structures to potential Substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving:
1.
11.
... 111.
1v.
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.
Strong seismic ground shaking?
Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
Landslides?
b) Result in Substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
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 - l-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating
Substantial risks to life or property?
Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
0
0
0
Ixl on
0 ON
0 0
0
0 0
0 0
0
0 0
0 0
NO
NO
8 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -
Would the project:
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?
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, withm 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?
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?
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
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?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
9
Potentially Significant Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Significant
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
Unless Less Than
0 OH
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
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 receiving 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
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact
Unless Less Than
0 om
0
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
OH mo
OIXI
Ixlo
OH
om
om
OH
Ixln
10 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
Potentially
Significant Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than
Significant Impact
Ixl
Ixl
la
No
Impact
0
0
0
o 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?
0
0 p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of
beneficial uses?
IX.
X.
XI.
LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? 0
0
0
0
IXI
la 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?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan? 0 0 la
MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region
and the residents of the State?
0 0 la
0 0 la 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?
NOISE - Would the project result in:
IXI
0
0 0 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?
0 la Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise
levels?
0 IXI 0 A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
0 IXI 0 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 Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan 0 BI 00 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?
o 0 OH f) 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:
0 0 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)?
o 0 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
0 0 c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
XIII. 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
0 0 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?
OH
OH
OH
ow
OH
OH
OH
12 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b) 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/TRAFFIC - 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 tum-
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
Significani Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Significant
Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact
Unless Less Than
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OBI
IXIO
ON
OIXI
ON
OIXI
OBI
OBI
OBI
OBI
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
0
Potentially
Significant
Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact
Unless Less Than
0
0
0
Ixl
0
[XI
0
0
0
IXI
0
[XI
IXI
0
0
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)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets:
a> Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis.
Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,”
describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document
and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
14 Rev. 07/03/02
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Environmental SettindSite Description
The project site is a 13.45 gross acre site located in the northwest quadrant of the City. The site is located southeast
of College Blvd., south of Aston Ave., and north of the McClellan Palomar Airport. Elevations on the property
range from about 284 feet above mean sea level (msl) at the northeast comer of the site to 329 feet msl at the
southwest corner of the site. Slopes with a 15 - 40% gradient are located along the northern and northwestern edges
of the property. The flatter areas of the site are located to the south of the site.
A number of sensitive vegetation communities were identified on-site and within the off-site access road area
including Southern Maritime Chaparral, Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub, and San Diego Mesa Claypan Vernal Pools.
Sensitive plant species observed on-site were Blochman’s dudleya and Nuttlall’s scrub oak. Sensitive wildlife
species observed on site include coastal California gnatcatcher and San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit. Protocol
surveys for Quino checkerspot butterfly and San Diego fairy shrimp were also conducted with negative results. (See
Biological Resources discussion below for a more detailed discussion.)
The applicant has been working with the City of Carlsbad, California Coastal Commission, and wildlife agencies to
identify areas of the site to be preserved. The “hardline” preserve areas and developable areas have been agreed to
and are represented as an exhibit in the City’s draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP). Development will be limited
to the flatter portions of the site while the steeper slopes with native vegetation and areas containing vernal pools
will be preserved.
Project Description
The Palomar Pointe project consists of three industrial office buildings totaling 84,240 square feet and related
parking and landscape areas. Buildings “A”, “B”, and “C” contain 32,800 sf, 17,000 sf, and 34,400 sf, respectively.
The project will require off-site development of a new public road which will be accessed from the south side of
College Boulevard, south of Aston Avenue. The new street will also serve portions of the future Carlsbad
Municipal Golf Course. Development is proposed primarily within the central and southeast portions of the site in
the more level areas of the site. Approximately 6.5 acres will be preserved as open space. The open space area
corresponds with the “hardline” preserve area shown in the draft Habitat Management Plan.
The site it located in the Mello I1 Segment of the Local Coastal Zone and has a General Plan designation of Planned
Industrial (PI) and a zone designation of Planned Industrial (PM). The applicant is proposing a General Plan
Amendment and Zone Change to designate the open space preserve areas as open space (OS) on the General Plan
and Zone Maps, and a Local Costal Program Amendment (LCP) to reflect these changes on the LCP land use and
zone maps.
AESTHETICS
No Impact. The project will not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista since the site is located in an
area which is currently developed with office and industrial buildings. The three buildings will be constructed in
compliance with the maximum height iimitation allowed in the PM zone and height limitations as set forth in the
McClellan-Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) and would be consistent with the surrounding
development pattern.
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
No Impact. There will be no impact on agricultural resources as the site is not designated as or used as farmland.
The subject site is zoned for Planned Industrial (PM) uses 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 idill development and has been surrounded by office and
industrial development for many years.
AIR QUALITY-Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
15 Rev. 07/03/02
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, ths 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 (SANDAG).
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 andor 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:
0 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?
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. The project would involve
minimal short-term emissions associated with grading and construction. Such emissions would be minimized
through standard construction measures such as the use of properly tuned equipment and watering the site for dust
control. Long-term emissions associated with travel to and from the project will be minimal. Although air pollutant
emissions would be associated with the project, they would neither result in the violation of any air quality standard
(comprising only an incremental contribution to overall air basin quality readings), nor contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation. Any impact is assessed as less than significant.
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.
16 Rev. 07/03/02
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
HABITAT TYPE/
PLANT COMMUNITY
Diegan coastal sage scrub
Southern maritime chaparral
Disturbed
San Diego mesa claypan
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.
Total On-site Off-site Access
Acreage Impacts Road Impacts Total Impacts
Present (acres) (acres) (acres)
10.3 8 5.96 0.45 6.41
3.24 0.81 0.01 0.82
0.68 0.19 0.40 0.59
0.03 0 0 0
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
TOTAL
No Impact. The construction of the proposed project 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.
14.33 6.96 0.86 7.82
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Revised Biological Technical Reports and Impact Analysis dated November 6, 2002, February 3, 2004, and July 7,
2004 were prepared for the project by RECON. The report dated November 6, 2002 included revisions to the
original report based on redesign of the project footprint. The second revised report dated February 3, 2004
incorporates the results of protocol dry season fairy shrimp surveys conducted on the five pooling areas within the
impact footprint. The final revised report dated July 7, 2004 incorporates minor technical corrections. Focused
surveys were conducted (prior to preparation of the original report) for coastal California gnatcatcher, Quino
checkerspot butterfly, and botanical surveys to search for sensitive plants, in particular to locate a population of
Blochman’s dudleya previously identified. The Biological Resources Report identified three plant communities on
the 14.1-acre survey area and project impacts to those communities as follows:
The project will include grading the center area and northeast end of the irregularly shaped lot and grading for an
off-site access road. The project will impact approximately 7.82 acres of the survey area, including 6.96 acres
within the project boundaries and 0.86 acre off-site. All of the vernal pools, the Blochman’s dudleya population,
and the majority of the southern maritime chaparral will be preserved on site.
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 reports prepared for the project, two
sensitive animals (coastal California gnatcatcher and San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit) and two sensitive plants
(Blochman’s dudleya, Nuttall’s scrub oak) were observed on site. The proposed project will not significantly impact
any of the vernal pools, Blochman’s dudleya, Nuttall’s scrub oak, or San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit. Significant
impacts will occur to southern maritime chaparral, Diegan coastal sage scrub, and habitat for the coastal California
gnatcatcher.
Impacts to 0.82 acres of southern maritime chaparral will be mitigated at a 3:l ratio for a total of 2.46 acres. This
will be accomplished through acquisition of 1.65 acre of mitigation credits within the Whelan Ranch Conservation
Bank and through the off-site creation or substantial restoration of 0.81 acre of southern maritime chaparral. The
1:l creation component for the on-site impacts (0.81 acre) withm the coastal zone will satisfy the “no net loss”
mitigation required by the California Coastal Commission for loss of ESHA.
Impacts to 6.41 acres of occupied Diegan coastal sage scrub would be mitigated at a 2:l ratio for a total mitigation
of 12.82 acres. This will be accomplished through acquisition of 6.86 acres of mitigation credits within the Whelan
Ranch Conservation Bank and through the off-site creation or substantial restoration of 5.96 acres of Diegan coastal
17 Rev. 07103102
sage scrub. The 1:l creation component for the on-site impacts (5.96 acres) within the coastal zone will satisfy the
“no net loss” mitigation required by the California Coastal Commission for loss of ESHA.
Mitigation credits have been purchased at the Whelen Ranch Conservation Bank in Oceanside. The adequacy of
these credits was affirmed by the California Coastal Commission staff in a letter to Larry Jett from Peter Douglas
dated June 24, 2002, which also states the understanding that these credits also satisfy the federal and state wildlife
agency requirements.
The final location of the proposed creation or substantial restoration of Diegan coastal sage scrub and southern
maritime chaparral as required by the California Coastal Commission will be subject to review by the City of
Carlsbad prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Per the letter of agreement from the California Coastal
Commission, this creation or substantial restoration need not occur within the coastal zone and need not involve the
purchase of land on which the restoration will be carried out. A restoration plan will be prepared outlining the
proposed mitigation and submitted to the appropriate agencies for review and approval. The area to be created or
restored will not be used as mitigation to meet the requirements of any other project.
All land conserved or created as mitigation for project impacts (both on-site and off-site lands) will be professionally
managed by an appropriate land management entity and maintained with adequate funds.
Direct impacts to nesting coastal California gnatcatchers can be avoided by removing the Diegan coastal sage scrub
withn the project area outside of the breeding season. The non-breeding season is September 1 through February
14. A biologist permitted to survey for coastal California gnatcatchers shall monitor all vegetation removal to
ensure no direct impacts to individual birds. The loss of breeding habitat for this species and the displacement of at
least one breeding pair will be mitigated by the off-site acquisition of Diegan coastal sage scrub as described above.
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?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. All three plant communities identified: southern
maritime chaparral, Diegan coastal sage scrub and vernal pools, are considered sensitive by the City of Carlsbad,
USFWS, and CDFG. Two sensitive plant communities will be impacted through implementation of the project:
southern maritime chaparral and Diegan coastal sage scrub. Implementation of the mitigation measures noted in
Response (IVa) above will reduce the impacts to a less than significant level.
The report states that thirteen pooling areas were identified during surveys conducted in 1998 (RBRiggan and
Associates 1998) during an El Nino year when rainfall was higher than normal. A comprehensive plant survey was
also conducted in 1998 within each of the basins to determine the species composition of the pooling areas. Only
eight of the pooling areas contain indicator species as identified by USACE and are classified as vernal pools.
These pools account for approximately 0.03 acres of the site and are found within the Diegan coastal sage
scrubinative grassland on the mesa top. The five remaining pooling areas are not considered to be vernal pools. The
vernal pools present on-site and the majority of their associated watersheds will be preserved. The hardline for the
proposed project as presented in the draft HMP was negotiated by the applicant, City of Carlsbad and USFW,S staff
in a series of meetings held between April and June 29, 1999. USFWS staff requested a 50-foot buffer around each
vernal pool. A redesign was submitted that included a 50-foot buffer around all but one vernal pool. Vernal pool #2
has a reduced 25-foot buffer in order to allow for access onto the property. USFWS staff subsequently approved the
hardline boundary with the reduced buffer around this one basin.
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. The project has been designed to avoid impacts to vernal pools and incorporates a minimum 50-foot
buffer around all but one vernal pool, which has a 25-foot buffer, per previous agreements with USFWS staff. No
impact assessed.
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?
18 Rev. 07/03/02
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Biological Techcal Report and Impact Analysis prepared for
this project, there will be no impact to wildlife movement corridors as a result of this project. The site is surrounded
by industrial development on the west and north sides of the property and by the McClellan-Palomar Airport on the
south side. The areas to the southwest is currently open space, however it is the future site of the Carlsbad
Municipal Golf Course, which will reduce the amount of open space adjacent to the project. There is currently
movement between the Palomar Pointe property and the adjacent lands; however, the site does not function as a
wildlife movement corridor because of the surrounding development.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
and
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? f)
No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with any HCP, NCCP, or other approved habitat conservation
plan, or local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The project is identified as a “hardline” area in
the City’s Draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP). The project has been designed to avoid development impacts
within the hardline preserve areas. In addition, all preserve areas will be designated as open space on the City’s
General Plan and zone map. In accordance with the City’s HMP, open spaces areas which are conserved or created
as mitigation for project impacts (both on-site and off-site) will be professionally managed by an appropriate land
management entity and maintained with adequate funds.
g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive?
No Impact. See response 1V.b (above).
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A Phase I cultural resource survey of the property
including site record and archival searches was completed by RECON as identified in the November 28, 2001
Cultural Resource Survey for the Hieatt/Jett Property. The report indicates that a single prehistoric site was located
during the on-foot survey of the property. The site consists of 8 pieces of stone debitage and a core scattered over a
600-foot by 225-foot area along a knoll. The report indicates that while it is likely that the site is not important, the
presence of subsurface artifacts has not been determined. Therefore, a mitigation measure is included to require
limited subsurface testing to determine if the site contains a subsurface component. If subsurface components are
detected, additional testing may be necessary.
Although no paleontological resources have been identified on the project site, there is the potential for fossil
resources to be discovered during excavation. A mitigation measure is included to have a paleontologist on site
during excavation.
VI. 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. 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
19 Rev. 07/03/02
is very minimal (according to City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November
1992). In addition, a project specific Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation was prepared by NorCal Engineering
dated November 5, 2001. The report states that the potential for liquefaction is considered to be very low due to the
near surface bedrock conditions at the subject site.
iv. Landslides?
No impact. The report prepared by NorCal Engineering indicated that the site is located on competent bedrock and
stated that the sandstone is massive and major slope failures are unlikely. Additionally, the City of Carlsbad
Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992, indicates that the project site is in an area of
stable soil conditions that are not subject to landslides.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less than significant impact. The City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November
1992, indicates that the erosion potential of the site is variable to high. A conceptual Water Quality Plan and Storm
Water Management Plan was submitted for the project which defines BMP’s that satisfy 1) the Carlsbad Municipal
Code Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance, 2) Standard Specifications for Public Works
Construction, and 3) NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity
issued by the State Water Resources Control Board. A grading and erosion control plan will be required 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?
Less than significant impact. The geotechnical report indicates that the site is located on a Pleistocene age, marine
cut terrace surface with a thin veneer of older colluvium in the lower areas on the east side of the property. The
underlying bedrock is massive white to gray claystone. The bedding is indistinct but there were some red veins that
had a slight dip to the east. The bedding was a very hard sandstone and conglomerate with a softer, weathered stone
that varied in depth to several feet or more. The report indicates that the site is considered feasible for development
from a geologic standpoint and the dip of the bedding does not appear to be an adverse geologic condition.
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?
Less than significant impact. The City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November
1992, indicates that the soil and bedrock may be highly expansive. The Geotechnical report for the project
identified Claystone bedrock on the site which may be expansive and may have an unfavorable strength
characteristic. Based on the results of soils tests, separate footings may be necessary. Standard conditions require
incorporation of the Soils Engineer’s recommendations for footings as described in the Geotechnical Report for the
project. Footings shall be approved by an engineering geologist.
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. Sewer connections will be available to the subject site and the project will be served by a public
wastewater system.
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
No Impact. The project proposes an officelindustrial use, with no routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous
materials associated with the uses. Therefore, there is no potential of a significant hazard associated with the project
from 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 located on the north side of the McClellan-Palomar Airport (public general aviation airport) and is
covered by the McClellan-Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP). The project site is not located
within the Flight Activity Zone, but is located within the Airport Influence Area associated with the airport. The
proposal was submitted for review by the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (SDCRAA) and was found
20 Rev. 07/03/02
to be conditionally consistent with the CLUP. Mitigation measures for noise attenuation and to limit use of Building
C to industrial uses only, as required by the SDCRAA, will be included as conditions of approval for the project.
Therefore, the project will not result in a safety hazard for people working at 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 office and industrial development which is
adequately served by emergency services. The project is required to have adequate fire suppression zones around
the perimeter of the building therefore reducing the risk of exposing people to significant risk from wildland fires.
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY-Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
No Impact. The applicant is required to comply with Order 2001-01 issued by the Regional Water Quality Control
Board. A Conceptual Water Quality Plan and Storm Water Management Plan, dated December 2003, was prepared
by K & S Engineering to address existing and proposed pollutants of concern and what measures will be
implemented to ensure that pollutant loads are not increased as a result of this project, to the maximum extent
practicable.
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 (Le., 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)?
No Impact. This project does not propose to directly draw any groundwater for potable or irrigation use. The
project will be served via public water distribution lines that will be extended within the new road to the site. The
project also includes a detention basin. The purpose of this basin is to reduce peak run-off to pre-development
conditions, which encourages water percolation back to the groundwater.
c) Impacts to groundwater quality?
No Impact. This project is required to implement measures to reduce urban pollutants prior to discharge, thus
groundwater quality will not be affected by this project.
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?
Less Than Significant Impact. This project does not propose to significantly alter existing drainage patterns, nor
any stream or river that would result in erosion or siltation on or offsite.
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. The project includes a detention basin on-site to reduce peak run-off to pre-
development flows.
f) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm
water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
No Impact. The existing storm drain system as well as the planned system as identified in the City’s Master
Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan will adequately convey runoff from the subject site. Since
this project generally maintains peak runoff to predevelopment flows, there is no additional impact to consider.
Compliance with NPDES requirements ensure that the off-site flow does not increase pollutant discharges.
8)
Less than significant impact. As a result of the project: 1) implementing source BMP measures to avoid pollutant
contact and; 2) installing treatment BMP measures to remove pollutants from storm water, this project is not
anticipated to contribute additional pollutants, to the maximum extent practicable.
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
21 Rev. 07/03/02
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?
No Impact. The proposed project is not located 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. Therefore there will be no impacts
regarding flooding.
i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact. The proposed project would not place structures within 100-year flood hazard areas. Therefore there
will be no impacts from flooding.
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)?
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?
PI The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or
degradation of beneficial uses?
Less than significant impact (1, m, n, o & p) - The project site is not located immediately adjacent to any body of
water. The project is within a watershed that ultimately drains to Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Agua Hedionda Lagoon
is not listed as an impaired water body per the 303(d) list adopted February 4, 2003. The project will be required to
comply with Order 2001-01 and the Storm Water Management Plan for this project. Drainage and development will
be controlled via best management practices to ensure that pollutants loads are not increased to the maximum extent
practicable. Therefore, the project will not adversely impact water quality.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING
No Impact. The subject site is an infill site which is surrounded by officehndustrial uses to the north and east, the
McClellan-Palomar Airport to the south, and future City Golf Course to the west. Proposed office/industrial
development of the site will be compatible with the existing development pattern.
The subject site does not conflict with any habitat conservation plans or natural communities plans in that the
property is has been included as a “hardline” area in the City’s Draft Habitat Management Plan and the development proposal conforms with the preserve and developable areas indicated in the “hardline”. Areas which will be
preserved as natural open space will be set aside as conserved areas and will also receive new Open Space (OS)
General Plan and zoning designations. The project is located in the Mello I1 Segment of the Local Coastal Program
(LCP) and an LCP amendment is proposed to reflect the new OS designation on the LCP land use and zoning maps.
X. MINERAL RESOURCES
22 Rev. 07/03/02
No Impact. There are no known mineral resources, of local importance or otherwise, on the project site. Therefore,
the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of such resources.
XI. NOISE
Would the project result in:
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?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. An Acoustical Analysis report was prepared for the
proposed project by Investigative Science and Engineering, Inc., dated August 14, 2003. The repbrt indicates that
the project site will be subject to traffic noise along College Boulevard as well as future aircraft activity at
McClellan-Palomar Airport. A standard of 50 dBA CNEL is typically applied to interior office space. The primary
source of future noise would be predominantly from the combination of aircraft noise and to a lesser extent,
vehicular traffic along College Boulevard. The project falls between the 60 CNEL and 70 CNEL contours of the
airport. The aircraft and vehicular noise levels reach 70 dBA at the proposed Building C faqade, 68 dBA at the
faqade of Building B, and 65 dBA at the Building A faqade. The worst-case required structural attenuation would
then be 70.0 - 50.0 dBA or 20 dBA, which is easily attainable through specialized glass treatments.
Based on the model results, the estimated interior noise levels would be as high as 61 dBA CNEL with the windows
open and would require a closed window condition to comply with the CCR Title 24 requirements. Mechanical
ventilation would be required. Therefore, mitigation measures requiring a closed-window condition and acoustical
treatments as recommended in the Acoustical Analysis are included as mitigation measures for the project. With
these measures in place, noise impacts will be mitigated below a level of significance.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise
levels?
No Impact - Based upon the nature of the proposed officelindustrial use, the project will not result in any activity
that would generate excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels. In addition, the project site is
not located adjacent to any use that generates excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels.
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
Less than Significant Impact (c & d) - Other than traffic generated noise, typical officehdustrial 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 from construction activity associated with the development of the site. 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 project will not result in a substantial
permanent or temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project.
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?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is located north of the McClellan-
Palomar Airport and is within an area covered by an airport land use plan. The project was reviewed by the San
Diego County Regional Airport Authority (SDCRAA). A letter was received by the SDCRAA conditionally
approving the project such that any building containing office uses must be attenuated to have an interior noise
levels no greater than 50 dBA. This condition is consistent with the City’s recommended mitigation measures for
noise impacts. Additionally, the project will be conditioned to comply with the SDCRAA conditions of approval
which require that any building containing office uses must be attenuated to have an interior noise levels no greater
than 50 dBA and that the developer must grant an avigation easement in favor of the County of San Diego. .
f) 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?
23 Rev. 07/03/02
No Impact - The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
No Impact. The project would result in the development of three officeJindustria1 buildings on an infill site
surrounded by existing office/industrial development that is served by existing roads and utilities. Although the
project will be served by a new road, the road is only intended to serve the project site and a portion of the future
City Golf Course located to the west of the project site. 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.
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
No Impact. The project will result in 84,240 square feet of office/industrial buildings on 13.45 acres. The
provision of public facilities within the Zone 5 LFMP, including fire & police protection, parks, libraries and other
public facilities, have been planned to accommodate the projected growth in that area. The project will not exceed
the total growth projections anticipated within the Zone 5 LFMP, all public facilities will be adequate to serve the
proposed development on the site. Therefore, the project will not result in substantial adverse impacts to or result in
the need for additional government facilities.
XIV. RECREATION
No Impacts. The project is located in the City’s Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) Zone 5. Zone 5 is
composed entirely of non-residential uses. As part of the City’s Growth Management Program, a performance
standard for parks was adopted for Zone 5. The park performance standard requires payment of a Park-In-Lieu fee
for all non-residential development of $0.50 per square foot. This fee will be collected prior to issuance of a
building permit for the project.
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC-Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of
the street system?
Less Than Significant Impact. A traffic analysis was prepared for the project by Linscott, Law & Greenspan,
dated March 18, 2003, to evaluate the impacts of the project on the level of service of the surrounding roadways and
intersections. The project proposes to construct a new street connecting to the south side of College Boulevard with
right-idright-out access. The project is estimated to generate 1,700 Average Daily Trips (ADT), with 238 AM peak
hour, and 221 PM peak hour trips. This project is served by College Boulevard, which is a major arterial roadway.
Existing traffic on the segment of this arterial extending from Faraday Avenue to Palomar Airport Road is estimated
at 12,780 ADT according to the 2002 Traffic Monitoring Report. While the increases in traffic from the proposed
project may be slightly noticeable, the street system has been designed and sized to accommodate traffic from the
project and cumulative development in the City of Carlsbad.
The report indicates that intersections in the study area are currently operating acceptably and will continue to
operate acceptably with project traffic and cumulative project traffic added. The proposed project would not cause
an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to existing traffic load and capacity of the street system.
Therefore, the impacts from the proposed project are less than significant.
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
Less Than Significant Impact. The traffic analysis conducted for the project concludes that with the addition of
project traffic, all four key signalized intersections are calculated to continue to operate at LOS C or better in the
AM and PM peak hours. The unsignalized project driveway intersection (street) at College Boulevard was analyzed
and it was found that the minor street movement at this intersection calculated to operate at LOS B in the AM and
PM peak hours. Therefore, no significant impacts are calculated.
c) 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?
24 Rev. 07/03/02
No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components. The project is located just north of
the McClellan-Palomar Airport and is located within the boundaries of Airport Land Use Plan. However, the
proposed street does not provide access to the airport nor will the project result in a change of air traffic patterns or
result in substantial safety risks. No impact assessed.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses?
No Impact. 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.
Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use. No impact assessed.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and Police
Departments. No impact assessed.
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
No Impact. The project complies with the City’s parking requirements of one parking space per 250 square feet of
office/R&D space and one parking space per 1,000 square feet of warehouse uses to ensure that adequate parking is
provided for the proposal. No impact assessed.
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)?
No Impact. The proposed project does not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation.
XVI. 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 .5 LFMP anticipated that the project site would be developed
with a officelindustrial uses and wastewater treatment facilities were planned and designed to accommodate future
development 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 development
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
facilitiesisupplies, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage facilities.
Existing waste disposal services are adequate to serve the proposed officelindustrial use on the site without
exceeding landfill capacities. In addition, the proposed 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?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated - The project would result in impacts to sensitive
vegetation communities and sensitive wildlife species. However, mitigation measures are incorporated to reduce
these impacts to a less than significant level through a combination of on-site preservation of habitat, off-site habitat
creation or substantial restoration, and purchase of off-site mitigation credits. No impacts to vernal pool areas will
occur since these areas will be avoided and adequate buffers will be provided as agreed to by the applicant, City,
wildlife agencies, and California Coastal Commission. Direct impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher will be
avoided by removing Diegan Coastal Sage scrub outside of the breeding season.
25 Rev. 07/03/02
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 development would be minimal. Given the limited
emissions potentially associated with the officelindustrial development of the site, air quality would be essentially
the same whether or not the development is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 (a)(4),
the project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than
significant.
The County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino
Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two hghway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system.
The CMA has determined, based on the City’s growth 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 project 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
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?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated - The project could have substantial adverse noise
impacts on human beings since the project site is in an area subjected to significantly high noise levels from aircraft.
However, as discussed above, any potential impact from noise can be mitigated to a less than significant level.
Those mitigation measures will be incorporated as conditions of project approval. Any future development on the
site will be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, regional and City regulations, which will ensure the
development of the site will not result in an adverse impact on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
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. Comprehensive Land Use Plan McClellan-Palomar Airport, SANDAG, Adopted April 1994.
2. Conceptual Water Oualitv Plan & Storm Water management Plan for Palomar Pointe, K&S Engineering,
December 2003.
3. Cultural Resource Survev of the Hieatt/Jett Property, RECON, dated November 28,2001.
4. Fire Flow Analysis for Palomar Pointe, K&S Engineering, December 23, 2003.
5. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, NorCal Engineering, dated November 5,2001.
6. Hvdrologv Report for Palomar Pointe, K&S Engineering, October 17,2003.
26 Rev. 07/03/02
7. Traffic Imuact Analysis - Palomar Pointe, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, March 18,2003.
8. Revised Biological Technical Report and Imuact Analysis for the Palomar Pointe Property, RECON, dated
July 8,2004.
9. Structural Acoustical AnalvdCCR Title 24 Survey-Palomar Pointe Office Buildings, Investigative
Science and Engineering, Inc., August 14,2003.
10. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01).
City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994.
11. City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapuing Study, November 1992.
27 Rev. 07/03/02
LIST OF MITIGATION MEASURES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
On-site impacts (within the coastal zone) to 0.81 acres of southern maritime chaparral would be
mitigated at a 3: 1 ratio for a total mitigation of 2.43 acres as follows:
a) Through acquisition at a 2: 1 ratio of 1.62 acres of mitigation credits within the Whelan Ranch Conservation Bank in Oceanside, &;
b) Through the off-site creation or Substantial restoration at a 1:l ratio of 0.81 acres of southern maritime chaparral. The off-site creation or Substantial restoration component will satisfy the
California Coastal Commission for loss of ESHA a 1:l ratio. This creation or Substantial
restoration need not occur within the coastal zone and need not involve the purchase of land
on which the restoration will be carried out.
Off-site impacts (outside of the coastal zone) to 0.01 acres of southern maritime chaparral would
be mitigated at a 3: 1 ratio for a total mitigation of 0.03 acres as follows:
a) Through acquisition at a 3:l ratio of 0.03 acres mitigation credits within the Whelan Ranch
Conservation Bank in Oceanside.
On-site impacts (within the costal zone) to 5.96 acres of coastal California Gnatcatcher occupied
Diegan coastal sage scrub would be mitigated at a 2: 1 ratio for a total mitigation of 11.92 acres as
follows:
a) Through acquisition at a 1 : 1 ratio of 5.96 acres of mitigation credits within the Whelan Ranch
Conservation Bank in Oceanside, a&
b) Through the off-site creation or substantial restoration at a 1: 1 ratio of 5.96 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub. The off-site creation or Substantial restoration component will satisfy the
California Coastal Commission for loss of ESHA a 1:l ratio. This creation or Substantial
restoration need not occur within the coastal zone and need not involve the purchase of land
on which the restoration will be carried out.
Off-site impacts (outside of the coastal zone) to 0.45 acres of coastal California Gnatcatcher
occupied Diegan coastal sage scrub would be mitigated at a 2: 1 ratio for a total mitigation of 0.90
acres as follows:
a) Through acquisition at a 2:l ratio of 0.90 acres of mitigation credits within the Whelan
Ranch Conservation Bank in Oceanside.
The final location of the proposed creation or substantial restoration of Diegan coastal sage scrub
and southern maritime chaparral as required by the California Coastal Commission will be
subject to review by the City of Carlsbad prior to the issuance of a grading permit. A restoration
plan will be prepared outlining the proposed mitigation and submitted to the appropriate agencies for review and approval. The area to be created or restored will not be used as mitigation to meet
the requirements of any other project.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the approximately 6.5 acres of open space “hardline”
preserve, shown on the tentative map as open space Lots 4 and 6, shall be preserved within a
dedicated open space conservation easement.
All land conserved or created as mitigation for project impacts (both on-site and off-site lands)
will be professionally managed by an appropriate land management entity and maintained with
adequate funds.
28 Rev. 07/03/02
8. Direct impacts to nesting coastal California gnatcatchers can be avoided by removing the Diegan
coastal sage scrub within the project area outside of the breeding season. The non-breading
season is September 1 through February 14. A biologist permitted to survey for coastal
California gnatcatchers shall monitor all vegetation removal to ensure no direct impacts to
individual birds. The loss of breeding habitat for this species and the displacement of at least one
breeding pair will be mitigated by the off-site acquisition of Diegan coastal sage scrub as
described above.
9. All outdoor lighting shall be shielded and directed away from the open space in order to reduce
the potential for indirect lighting effects from the proposed project.
10. Use native plants to the greatest extent feasible in the landscape areas adjacent to the 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 open space areas. Exotic plant species not to be
used include those species listed on List A & B of the California Exotic Pest Council’s list of
“Exotic Plants of Greatest Ecological Concern in California as of October 1999”.
11. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, additional testing of the identified prehistoric site shall be
required. This work shall include limited subsurface testing to determine if the site contains a
subsurface component. The subsurface testing shall consist of shovel test pits placed in various
locations across the scatter limits. Shovel scrapes shall be used to determine if low visibility
areas contain cultural material. A site map of all surface artifacts and any other cultural material
or impacts to the site shall also be prepared.
12. Prior to any grading of the project site:
a. A paleontologist shall be retained to perform a walkover survey of the site and to review
the grading plans to determine if the proposed grading will impact fossil resources. A
copy of the paleontologist’s report shall be provided to the Planning Director prior to
issuance of a grading permit.
b. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of the site and
to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the fossils present in the
geologic strata, it may be necessary to collect matrix samples for laboratory processing
through fine screens. The paleontolgoist shall make periodic reports to the Planning
Director during the grading process.
C. The paleontogolist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an exposed
fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage artifacts.
d. All fossils collected shall be donated to a public, nonprofit institution with a research
interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum.
e. Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading activities of the project shall be resolved by the Planning Director and City Engineer.
13. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the owner shall submit an acoustical analysis which
demonstrates that the architectural plans comply with the State of California interior noise
standard of 50 dBA CNEL with a closed window condition. The mitigation measures
recommended in the Acoustical Site Analysis/CCR Title 24 Survey, dated August 14, 2003
prepared by Investigative Science and Engineering shall be incorporated into the design of the
buildings.
14. The developer shall grant an avigation easement in favor of the County of San Diego, in a form
acceptable to the Airport Land Use Commission.
29 Rev. Q7IQ3lQ2
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATION MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date
30 Rev. 07/03/02
1
PROJECT NAME: PALOMAR POINTE - REVISED MITIGATION FILE NUMBERS: GPA 04-08/ZC 04-03/LCPA 04-07/CT 04-
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OG/PUD 03-02/PIP 03-02/HDP 03-021 CDP 03-06
APPROVAL DATE:
The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate
identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that
this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly
Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6).
Mitigation Measure
mitigated at a 3:l ratio for a total mitigation of 2.43
acres as follows:
a) Through acquisition at a 2:l ratio of 1.62
acres of mitigation credits within the Whelan
Ranch Conservation Bank in Oceanside, and;
b) Through the off-site creation or substantial
restoration at a 1:l ratio of 0.81 acres of
southern maritime chaparral. The off-site
creation or substantial restoration component
will satisfy the California Coastal Commission
for loss of ESHA a 1:l ratio. This creation or
substantial restoration need not occur within
the coastal zone and need not involve the
purchase of land on which the restoration will
be carried out.
Monitoring
Type
Project
Monitoring
Department
Planning
Shown on
Plans
Verified
Implementation Remarks
Explanation of Headinns:
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.
2
Mitigation Measure I
2. Off-site impacts (outside of the coastal zone) to 0.01
acres of southern maritime chaparral would be
mitigated at a 3:l ratio for a total mitigation of 0.03
acres as follows:
a) Through acquisition at a 3:l ratio of 0.03
acres mitigation credits within the Whelan
Ranch Conservation Bank in Oceanside.
On-site impacts (within the coastal zone) to 5.96
acres of coastal California Gnatcatcher occupied
Diegan coastal sage scrub would be mitigated at a
2:l ratio for a total mitigation of 11.92 acres as
follows:
~
3.
a) Through acquisition at a 1:l ratio of 5.96
acres of mitigation credits within the Whelan
Ranch Conservation Bank in Oceanside, and;
b) Through the off-site creation or substantial
restoration at a 1:l ratio of 5.96 acres of
Diegan coastal sage scrub. The off-site
creation or substantial restoration component
will satisfy the California Coastal Commission
for loss of ESHA a 1:l ratio. This creation or
substantial restoration need not occur within
the coastal zone and need not involve the
purchase of land on which the restoration will
be carried out.
Monitoring
Type
Project
Project
Monitoring
Department
Planning
Planning
Shown on
Plans
Verified
Implementation
___~ ~
Remarks
Exdanation of Headinns: 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.
3
I Mitigation Measure
4. Off-site impacts (outside of the coastal zone) to 0.45
acres of coastal California Gnatcatcher occupied
Diegan coastal sage scrub would be mitigated at a
2:l ratio for a total mitigation of 0.90 acres as follows:
a) Through acquisition at a 21 ratio of 0.90
acres of mitigation credits within the Whelan
Ranch Conservation Bank in Oceanside.
5. The final location of the proposed creation or
substantial restoration of Diegan coastal sage scrub
and southern maritime chaparral as required by the
California Coastal Commission will be subject to
review by the City of Carlsbad prior to the issuance
of a grading permit. A restoration plan will be
prepared outlining the proposed mitigation and
submitted to the appropriate agencies for review and
approval. The area to be created or restored will not
be used as mitigation to meet the requirements of
any other project.
6. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the
approximately 6.5 acres of open space “hardline”
preserve, shown on the tentative map as open space
Lots 4 and 6, shall be preserved within a dedicated II oDen wace conservation easement. 11 7. All land conserved or created as mitigation for project
impacts (both on-site and off-site lands) will be
professionally managed by an appropriate land
management entity and maintained with adequate
funds. A plan for managing the on-site preserved
habitat shall be prepared and submitted to the
City and Wildlife Agencies prior to initiating
project construction.
Monitoring
Type
Project
Project
Project
Project
Monitoring
Department
Planning
Shown on Plans
Planning
Planning
Planning
Explanation 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.
4
Mitigation Measure
8. Direct impacts to nesting coastal California
gnatcatchers can be avoided by removing the Diegan
coastal sage scrub within the project area outside of
the breeding season. The non-breading season is
September 1 through February 14. A biologist
permitted to survey for coastal California
gnatcatchers shall monitor all vegetation removal to
ensure no direct impacts to individual birds. The loss
of breeding habitat for this species and the
displacement of at least one breeding pair will be
mitigated by the off-site acquisition of Diegan coastal
sage scrub as described above.
9. To further avoid, minimize and mitigate any
potential project related impacts to the already
avoided vernal pools and their watersheds, the
following shall occur:
a. Restore native vegetation in the areas to
be preserved that are currently disturbed
I (e.g., roadbeds).
I b. Restore the vernal pool watersheds by
removing any non-native species and
planting these areas with native
vegetation.
Expand/enhance the basin of the
easternmost vernal pool, which appears to
have been impacted by a dirt road that
currently runs through its basin.
C.
Exolanation of Headinas:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure.
information. Shown on Plans =When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be
initialed and dated.
Monitoring
Type
Project
Project
Monitoring
Department
Planning
Planning
Shown on
Plans
Verified
Implementation 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.
5
Mitigation Measure
9. (continued)
d. Prepare and submit a vernal pool
restoration/ enhancement plan to the
Wildlife Agencies for review and approval.
Restorationlen hancement activities
should begin concurrent with project
construction.
e. Prepare and submit a storm water
management plan to the Wildlife Agencies
for review which demonstrates that the
placement, selection, and design of the
post-construction best management
practices will ensure that hydrological
changes do not affect the vernal pools.
IO. A qualified biological monitor shall be present on
site before and during construction. The
biological monitor shall observe if there are any
western spadefoot toad or any other sensitive
species. If toads or tadpoles of any kind are in
the vernal pools, the biological monitor will
follow the wildlife agencies recommendations for
trapping and relocation.
I
Explanation 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.
Monitoring
Type
Project
Project
Monitoring
Department
Planning
Planning
Shown on
Plans
Verified
lmtiementation 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.
6
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Type
11.
Monitoring
Department
The water pollution and erosion control plan
required by SBMP 2 and AS B shall be submitted
to the Wildlife Agencies for approval at least
seven days prior to initial vegetation removal
and/or project construction. This plan should
also include measures to prevent fugitive dust
generated at the construction site from entering
adjacent habitat.
~ 12. To implement SBMP 10, prior to and during the
initial clearing and grubbing of vegetation
outside the gnatcatcher breeding season, a
biological monitor shall locate any individual
gnatcatchers on site and direct construction
personnel to begin in an area away from birds.
The biological monitor shall notify the Wildlife
Agencies at least seven calendar days prior to
initiating clearing and grubbing of vegetation to
allow the Wildlife Agencies to coordinate with the
biologist on bird flushing monitoring and
reporting activities.
Shown on
Plans
Explanation 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.
7
Mitigation Measure
13. If project construction is necessary during the
gnatcatcher bird breeding season (February 15
through August 31), a qualified biologist shall
conduct a survey for nesting birds, within three
days prior to the work in the area, and ensure no
nesting birds in the project area (including along
access roads) would be impacted by the project.
If an active nest is identified, the Wildlife
Agencies shall be notified. Appropriate
measures shall be taken for the nesting site(s) as
recommended by the Wildlife Agencies. The
biological monitor shall also monitor for nesting
raptors.
14. The construction monitoring reports required by
SBMP 10 shall be submitted monthly to the
Wildlife Agencies until project completion.
15. Photographs of the fenced construction limits
required by SBMP 14 shall be submitted to the
Wildlife Agencies for approval at least seven
days prior to initial vegetation removal and/or
project construction.
I'
ExDlanation of Headings:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular
mitigation measure.
information. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated.
Monitoring
TvDe
Project
Project
Project
Monitoring
Deoartment
Planning
Planning
Planning
Shown on
Plans Remarks Verified
Implementation
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.
Q
Monitoring
Department Mitigation Measure
16. Permanent fencing (with signs delineating the
area as biological open space) required by AS D
shall be installed between the impact area and
biological open space. Fencing shall be
designed in coordination with the Wildlife
Agencies to prevent intrusion into the sensitive
habitats from humans and pets. There should be
no gates between the development and the open
space. A fencing plan shall be submitted to the
Wildlife Agencies for approval prior to project
initiation, and installed within 60 days of the
completion of project construction.
All outdoor lighting shall be shielded and directed
away from the open space in order to reduce the
potential for indirect lighting effects from the
proposed project.
Use native plants to the greatest extent feasible in
the landscape areas adjacent to the 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 open
space areas. Exotic plant species not to be used
include those species listed on List A & B of the
California Exotic Pest Council’s list of “Exotic Plants
of Greatest Ecological Concern in California as of
October 1999”.
17.
18.
Shown on
Plans
Monitoring
Type
Project
Project
Project
Planning
Planning Planning
Planning Planning
Verified
Implementation Remarks
Exdanation of Headings:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular
mitigation measure.
information. Shown on Plans =When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated.
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented,
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other
this column will be initialed and dated.
RD - Appendix P.
9
II M it ig a t io n Measure
19. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, additional
testing of the identified prehistoric site shall be
required. This work shall include limited subsurface
testing to determine if the site contains a subsurface
component. The subsurface testing shall consist of
shovel test pits placed in various locations across the
scatter limits. Shovel scrapes shall be used to
determine if low visibility areas contain cultural
material. A site map of all surface artifacts and any
other cultural material or impacts to the site shall also
b) A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to
perform periodic inspections of the site and to
salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small
nature of some of the fossils present in the
geologic strata, it may be necessary to collect
matrix samples for laboratory processing
through fine screens. The paleontologist
shall make periodic reports to the Planning
Director during the grading process.
Monitoring
Type
Project
Project
Monitoring Department
Planning
Planning/
Engineering
Shown on
Plans
Verified Implementation
~~
Remarks
Explanation of Headincls: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure.
information.
Shown on Plans =When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be
initialed and dated.
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented,
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other
this column will be initialed and dated.
RD - Appendix P.
Mitigation Measure II I( 20. (continued)
c) The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert
or direct grading in the area of an exposed
fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if
necessary, salvage artifacts.
~
d) All fossils collected shall be donated to a
public, nonprofit institution with a research
interest in the materials, such as the San
Diego Natural History Museum.
e) Any conflicts regarding the role of the
paleontologist and the grading activities of the
project shall be resolved by the Planning
Director and City Engineer.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the owner shall
submit an acoustical analysis which demonstrates
that the architectural plans comply with the State of
California interior noise standard of 50 dBA CNEL
with a closed window condition. The mitigation
measures recommended in the Acoustical Site
Analysis/CCR Title 24 Survey, dated August 14, 2003
prepared by Investigative Science and Engineering
shall be incorporated into the design of the buildings.
The developer shall grant an avigation easement in
favor of the County of San Diego, in a form
21.
22.
acceptable to the Airport Land Use Commission.
Explanation 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.
Monitoring
Type
Project
Project
Project
Monitoring
Department
Planning/
Engineering
Planning/
Building
Planning
Shown on
Plans
Verified
Implementation 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.
US. Fish and Wildlife Service
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
60 10 Hidden Valley Road
Carlsbad, California 92009
CA Dept. of Fish & Game
South Coast Region
4949 Viewridge Avenue
San Diego, California 92123
(760) 431-9440 (858) 467-4201
FAX (760) 431-5902 + 9618 FAX (858) 467-4299
In Reply Refer To:
FWS-SDG-4154.1
Ms. Barbara Kennedy
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
.. .. ,
Re: Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Palomar Pointe Project, City of Carlsbad,
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 July 12,2004, for the Palomar Pointe project in the City of
Carlsbad (City). The City extended the deadline for comments to August 27,2004. The
comments provided herein are based on the information provided in the MND, the biological
report for the project, dated July 7,2004; our files on the project; numerous meetings and site
visits between 1999 and 2004, including meetings on August 17 and 23,2004 to discuss
additional mitigation measures to make the project impacts less than significant; the August 16,
2004 letter by K&S Engineering on how the Palomar Pointe project will prevent surface drainage
from entering the vernal pools; the August 19,2004 letter by RE3 Riggan and Associates on the
Hieatt property vernal pools and 1998 wet-year data; the August 19,2004 report by McCollum
Associates on the August 17,2004 meeting; the August 20,2004 letter by RECON on additional
biological information of the Palomar Pointe property; the September 11 , 2003 letter by V. Scott
Caims on the City Fire Department review of the Palomar Pointe project; the August 19,2004
letter by City Fire Marshal Gregory Ryan on Fire Department requirements for the Palomar
Pointe project; and the Wildlife Agencies’ knowledge of sensitive and declining vegetation
communities in San Diego County, and 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
Ms. Kennedy (FWS-SDG-4154.1) 2
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Sections 15386 and 15381,
respectively. Pursuant to Section 1802 of the Fish and Game Code, the Department has
jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants and
habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species. As a Trustee Agency,
the Department must be consulted by the Lead Agency during the preparation and public review
for project-specific CEQA documents if there are potential impacts to biological resources. The
Department also administers the Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) program.
The City is currently participating in the NCCP program through the preparation of a Multiple
Habitat Conservation Program Habitat Management Plan (HMP).
The project proposes to build three officehdustrial buildings and associated parking on the
13.45-acre Palomar Pointe property and an access road from College Boulevard that will cross
0.86 acre of the Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course property, for a total project footprint of 14.33
acres. The entire 14.33-acre project site (including the access road) is currently undeveloped and
contains 10.38 acres of coastal sage scrub, 3.24 acres of southern maritime chaparral, 0.68 acre of
disturbed habitat, 13 seasonal pooling areas totaling 0.08 acre (0.05 acre for 5 of the pooling
areas is included in other habitat types).
The proposed project is located within the Coastal Zone, southeast of College Boulevard, south
of Aston Avenue, and north of the McClellan Palomar Airport. Surrounding land uses include
industrial development to the west and north, and undeveloped land on the airport property to the
east and on the proposed Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course to the southwest.
Sensitive species detected on site include one individual and two pairs of federally listed as
threatened coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica; gnatcatcher), red-
tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), American kestrel (Buteo jamaicensis), at least one pair of San
Diego black-tailed jackrabbits (Lepus californicus bennettii), unspecified numbers of
Blochman’s dudleya (Dudley blochmaniae ssp. blochmaniae), and Nutall’s scrub oak (Quercus
dumosa). Protocol-level surveys for Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino)
were negative.
Vernal pool indicator plants were detected in eight of the seasonal pools totaling 0.03 acre, which
are also generally situated among topographic mounds indicative of vernal pools and are
therefore considered San Diego Mesa Claypan vernal pools. No vernal pool indicator plants
were detected in the remaining five seasonal pools totaling 0.05 acre, which are generally
shallow and disjunct from topographic mounds associated with mesa vernal pools. Because of
the shallow nature of these five pooling areas, it was determined that they were not likely to
support the federally listed as endangered San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta
sandiegonensis). To confirm this assessment, dry season soil samples were collected from the
five pooling areas and analyzed according to Service protocol. These samples did not detect any
San Diego fairy shrimp cysts. The eight vernal pools to be avoided could support the San Diego
fairy shrimp, however no Service protocol surveys have been completed to date to determine
whether fairy shrimp occur in these pools.
Ms. Kennedy (FWS-SDG-4154.1) 3
The Palomar Pointe project was formerly referred to as the “Hieatt” project and is a proposed
“hardline” project in the City’s preserve system under that name, as shown in the draft HMP. In
drawing the “hardline” for the project, the City, Wildlife Agencies and applicant focused on
preserving and buffering the eight vernal pools and their watersheds, Blochman’s dudleya, and
Nutall’s scrub oak on site, while minimizing impacts to coastal sage scrub and southern maritime
chaparral. A minimum %-foot buffer will be placed around all but easternmost vernal pool,
which has a minimum 25-foot buffer. The proposed project will impact approximately 7.82
acres (6.96 acres on site and 0.86 acre off site) including: 6.41 acres of coastal sage scrub, 0.82
acre of southern maritime chaparral, 0.59 acre of disturbed habitat, five of the seasonal pooling
areas consisting of 0.05 acre, and a significant portion of the watershed of the westernmost vernal
pool. The proposed project will likely result in the take of one pair of gnatcatcher that occupies
the coastal sage scrub and surrounding habitat to be impacted. If present in the vernal pools, the
project will also likely result in direct and indirect impacts to San Diego fairy shrimp by
impacting the watershed of the westernmost pool and edge effects associated with the proposed
development.
According to the MND, impacts to 0.82 acre of southern maritime chaparral would be mitigated
at a 3: 1 ratio through the acquisition of 1.65 acres of mitigation credits at the Whelan Ranch
Conservation Bank in Oceanside, and off site creation or substantial restoration of 0.8 1 acre of
southern maritime chaparral. Additionally, impacts to 6.41 acres of coastal sage scrub would be
mitigated at a 2: 1 ratio through the acquisition of 6.86 acres at Whelan Ranch Conservation Bank
and creation or substantial restoration of 5.96 acres of coastal sage scrub off site. The 6.5 1-acre
on-site hardline preserve would include 3.97 acres of coastal sage scrub, 2.42 acres of southern
maritime chaparral, 0.09 acre of disturbed habitat, and 0.03 acre of San Diego mesa claypan
vernal pool. All lands conserved or created as mitigation for the project impacts will be
professionally managed by an appropriate land management entity and maintained with adequate
funds.
It is our understanding that as a “hardline,” the Palomar Pointe Project intends to start
construction upon completion of the City’s HMP, which will provide coverage of incidental take
of the gnatcatcher and San Diego fairy shrimp under section lO(a)(l)(B) of the Act. For the City
to obtain coverage for the San Diego fairy shrimp in its HMP, the Poinsettia vernal pools must be
preserved and managed in perpetuity consistent with MHCP Volumes 2 and 3, and we are
currently working with the City to that end. The Wildlife Agencies request that the City respond
in writing on how it plans to ensure that the Poinsettia vernal pools are preserved and managed in
perpetuity.
The Wildlife Agencies appreciate the opportunity to comment on the MND. We offer the
Enclosed comments to assist the City in avoiding, minimizing and mitigating project impacts to
biological resources and assuring that the project is consistent with ongoing regional habitat
conservation. We are available to work with the City and applicant to address our comments.
J
08/27/2004 16:12 FAX 7604315902 US FISH AND WILDLIFE @I 002
Ms. Kennedy (FWS-SDG4154.1) 4
Please contact Nancy Frost (Department) at (858) 637-551 1 or Ben Frater (Service) at (760) 43 1-
9440, if you have any questions or comments concerning this letter.
Sincerely,
Therese 0- 0 ourke
Assistant Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
cc: State Clearinghouse
Xnald R. Chadwick
Senio:: Environmental Scientist
Califclmia Department of Fish and Game
Enclosures
Ms. Kennedy (FWS-SDG-4154.1)
ENCLOSURE 1
5
1.
WILDLIFE AGENCY COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ON THE PALOMAR POINTE PROJECT
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Since the draft MND was released for public comment, additional information and
mitigation commitments have been given to the Wildlife Agencies in order for the project
to have impacts that are less than significant. We recommend that this information is
included as additional mitigation measures in the final MND, so that the public can have
access to the same information. This information should include the approval of a
reduced fire buffer (30 feet by vernal pool 8) by the City Fire Department, a commitment
by the applicant to provide fencing that would restrict access into the preserve, and a
letter from the applicant stating the project has been designed so that surface drainage
from the project footprint is intercepted and redirected away from the vernal pools.
2. The proposed project would impact the five pooling areas, but avoid direct impacts to the
eight vernal pools on site. Based on information provided to the Wildlife Agencies and
our assessment of the project site, the pooling areas do not appear to be suitable for the
San Diego fairy shrimp, though San Diego fairy shrimp may occupy the vernal pools.
The project would impact a major portion of the watershed of the westernmost vernal
pool and potentially cause indirect impacts to the avoided vernal pools. Vernal pools rely
on surface and subsurface flows from their watersheds, and the direct impact to a pool’s
watershed may harm the pool. Development adjacent to vernal pools can cause habitat
fragmentation and edge effectdindirect impacts that threaten the long-term viability of
vernal pools and the species within them. These impacts include: erosion; sedimentation;
runoff from landscaped and/or developed areas; human and pet encroachment;
introduction of pet waste; trampling; dumping; spills; light; noise; invasion of exotic
species; genetic isolation; and isolation from pollinators. While we appreciate the
applicant’s efforts to avoid such impacts, the Wildlife Agencies remain concerned about
the long-term viability of the vernal pools. Therefore, in addition to the measures
described in the MND and in recent discussions with the applicant, the following
measures should be implemented to avoid, minimize and mitigate project-related impacts
to the avoided vernal pools:
a. Restore native vegetation in the areas to be preserved that are currently disturbed
(e.g., roadbeds).
b. Restore the vernal pool watersheds by removing any non-native species and
planting these areas with native vegetation.
c. Expandenhance the basin of the easternmost vernal pool, which appears to have
been impacted by a dirt road that currently runs through its basin.
Ms. Kennedy (FWS-SDG-4154.1) 6
d. If possible, modify the project footprint to avoid impacting the watershed of the
westernmost vernal pool. To make such a modification possible, we would like to
work with the applicant to determine a way to expand the project footprint in a
manner that would not increase impacts to the other vernal pools.
e. Prepare and submit a vernal pool restoratiodenhancement plan to the Wildlife
Agencies for review and approval. Restoratiodenhancement activities should
begin concurrent with project construction.
f. Prepare and submit a storm water management plan to the Wildlife Agencies for
review which demonstrates that the placement, selection, and design of the post-
construction best management practices will ensure that hydrological changes do
not affect the vernal pools.
3. The proposed project footprint appears to be inconsistent with Figure 20 in section D of
the City’s HMP in that it expands development around more of the easternmost vernal
pool to be preserved. The project footprint should be consistent with the City’s HMP in
this area.
4. The biological report (RECON, July 7,2004) lists the western spadefoot toad as one of
the species with the potential to occur on the project site. According to Table 5, the
western spadefoot toad’s habitat is “Vernal pools, floodplains, and alkali flats within
areas of open vegetation”; however the report then concludes, “Marginal habitat present;
low potential to occur on-site.” The Wildlife Agencies do not agree that the vernal pools
and open vegetation on site represent marginal habitat, and are concerned that surveys
were not performed for western spadefoot toads due to this conclusion. The MHCP states
(4-125) that a condition that must be met by subarea plans to adequately conserve this
species includes:
1. As part of the project review process (e.g., CEQA) for individual projects, a
quali3ed biologist will survey, using approved survey methods, all areas of the
property containing potentially suitable breeding habitat (ephemeral ponds,
vernal pools, washes, riparian areas) or upland foraging habitat (open
scrublands, woodlands, grasslands) that is contiguous with potential breeding
habitat. Surveys will also identifjl any known or likely movement corridors used
by toads, including any existing road crossings or culverts, bridges, or other
feature used by dispersing toads. They will also identifjl locations where road
undercrossings and fencing could be created to beneJit toads by reducing roadkill
on either new or existing roadways. Surveys shall occur prior to any proposed
impact both inside and outside the FPA. Surveys shall be conducted when
impacts to western spadefoot toad could occur as a result of direct or indirect
impacts by placement of the project in or adjacent to occupied habitat or through
creation of suitable conditions for non-native predators (e.g., bullfrogs). All
pertinent agencies (including CDFG, USFWS, and County of San Diego Vector
Control Program) will be informed about the location of any toad populations.
Ms. Kennedy (FWS-SDG-4154.1) 7
The conditions on site appear to include appropriate breeding habitat (vernal pools and
ephemeral ponds) and upland foraging habitat (open scrublands and woodlands) for the
western spadefoot toad. Although this species is not an MHCP Narrow Endemic, all
currently known or future discovered populations will be treated consistent with the
Narrow Endemics Policy (see MHCP, page 4-216). As a result, we recommend
performing surveys for this rare species if construction is scheduled to commence during
a time when any pooling area proposed to be impacted is holding water. To be consistent
with the requirements of the MHCP, any tadpoles, juveniles, or adults should be trapped
and relocated to an appropriate site within the City’s preserve. If this is necessary, we
recommend relocating the tadpoles to the preserved vernal pools on site and notifying the
Wildlife Agencies of their presence.
5. The biological report states that the habitat designated as “disturbed” consists of dense
black mustard (Brassica nigra) on the northeast side of the site, a detention basin at the
northwestern tip of the site that contains weedy species such as black mustard, wild oat
(Avena sp.), and Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum). The description of these areas
suggest that they should be considered “annual grassland” rather than disturbed. These
non-native plants provide habitat for animals for feeding and foraging and impacts to this
habitat type should be offset through mitigation at a 0.5: 1 ratio. Therefore, we
recommend the off-site acquisition of 0.34 acre of annual grassland as mitigation for
project-related impacts to 0.68 acre of this habitat type.
6. The biological report describes access to the project will be directly from College
Boulevard. As we understand it, a turning lane will be required for traffic traveling north
on College Boulevard to access the property. However, the MND and the biological
report do not show the turning lane. Furthermore, the most recent version of Figure 8 in
the HMP appears to show the access road for this project and any potential turning lane
impacting the City’s preserve. Please clarify this apparent discrepancy in planned land
use, and adjust this project’s proposed impacts if necessary.
Additionally, the biological report appears to show a manufactured slope at points on
both sides of the access road, but these impacts are not included in the project’s footprint,
and likely not in the calculated impacts. The manufactured slope is the result of the
project and should be considered a project-related impact. Please clarify this apparent
discrepancy, and adjust the project’s proposed impacts if necessary.
7. The project should implement the Standard Best Management Practices (SBMP) given in
Appendix B of the MHCP (enclosed). In addition, because the project site is adjacent to
existing and proposed hardline conservation areas, development should be consistent with
the Adjacency Standards (AS) in the City’s HMP.
a. The water pollution and erosion control plan required by SBMP 2 and AS B
should be submitted to the Wildlife Agencies for approval at least seven days
prior to initial vegetation removal and/or project construction. This plan should
also include measures to prevent fugitive dust generated at the construction site
from entering adjacent habitat.
Ms. Kennedy (FWS-SDG-4154.1) 8
b. To implement SBMP 10, prior to and during the initial clearing and grubbing of
vegetation outside the gnatcatcher breeding season, the biologist should locate any
individual gnatcatchers on site and direct construction personnel to begin in an
area away from birds. In addition, the biologist should walk ahead of clearing and
grubbing equipment to flush birds towards areas of habitat that will be avoided. It
will be the responsibility of the biologist to assure that gnatcatchers will not be
directly injured or killed by the clearing and grubbing. During the course of
clearing and grubbing within gnatcatcher habitat, the biologist should report on
the number and locations of gnatcatchers disturbed by clearing and grubbing
activities. The biologist should noti@ the Wildlife Agencies at least seven
calender days prior to initiating clearing and grubbing of vegetation to allow the
Wildlife Agencies to coordinate with the biologist on bird flushing activities.
Clearing of coastal sage scrub is proposed to occur outside of gnatcatcher
breeding season. The bird breeding season is approximately February 15 through
August 3 1, however raptors may begin breeding as early as January. The Wildlife
Agencies are also concerned about impacts to nesting birds if clearing of other
types of vegetation occurs during the breeding season. Therefore, we recommend
that all vegetation clearing occur outside of the bird breeding season.
Additionally, the on-site preserve is suitable breeding habitat for the gnatcatcher,
and noise, dust, and light resulting from construction activities may result in the
disruption of nesting success. Therefore, if project construction is necessary
during the bird breeding season, a qualified biologist should conduct a survey for
nesting birds, within three days prior to the work in the area, and ensure no
nesting birds in the project area (including along access roads) would be impacted
by the project. If an active nest is identified, a buffer shall be established between
the construction activities and the nest so that nesting activities are not
interrupted. The buffer shall be a minimum width of 300 feet (500 feet for
raptors), shall be delineated by temporary fencing, and shall remain in effect as
long as construction is occumng or until the nest is no longer active. No project
construction shall occur within the fenced nest zone, until the young have fledged,
are no longer being fed by the parents, have left the nest, and will no longer be
impacted by the project. The mapped bird survey results will be submitted to the
Wildlife Agencies for review and approval prior to project construction during the
bird breeding season to ensure full avoidance measures are in place.
The construction monitoring reports required by SBMP 10 should be submitted
monthly to the Wildlife Agencies until project completion.
c. Photographs of the fenced construction limits required by SBMP 14 should be
submitted to the Wildlife Agencies for approval at least seven days prior to initial
vegetation removal and/or project construction.
d. To implement SBMP 2 1, a conservation easement should be placed over the on-
site preserved habitat. A plan for managing the on-site preserved habitat in
perpetuity, including a non-wasting endowment to fund the plan, should be
Ms. Kennedy (FWS-SDG-4154.1) 9
prepared and submitted to the Wildlife Agencies for approval prior to initiating
project construction.
e. Permanent fencing (with signs delineating the area as biological open space)
required by AS D should be installed between the impact area and biological open
space. Fencing should be designed in coordination with the Wildlife Agencies to
prevent intrusion into the sensitive habitats from humans and pets. There should
be no gates between the development and the open space. A fencing plan should
be submitted to the Wildlife Agencies for approval prior to project initiation, and
installed within 60 days of the completion of project construction.
8. Although we are not aware of the materials that will be used on the exterior of the
building, we would be concerned if reflective glass was selected. The project site is both
part of the Pacific Flyway, and adjacent to the preserve established for resident
gnatcatchers. It is common for foraging and migrating birds to collide with glass because
they can be attracted to and/or disoriented by their reflections during the day and by
indoor lighting after dark. One hundred million to one billion birds die each year due to
collisions with human-built structures across North America alone. The reflective and
transparent characteristics of glass apparently make windows invisible to birds which see
the tree reflected in a window, or the plant behind the window, not the glass itself (FLAP
2002). To minimize avian collisions with the reflective glass, we recommend the use of
non-reflective glass, and/or the use of film (see-through from the inside) to cover the
windows so that they are non-reflective and so that indoor lighting is not visible from the
outside (visit httD://m.flap.ordnew/nestegg.htm).
Ms. Kennedy (FWS-SDG-4154.1)
ENCLOSURE 2
STANDARD BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
10
APPENDIX B
STANDARD BEST MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
A qualified biologist shall conduct a &g session for all project personnel prior to
proposed activities. At a minimum, the training shall include a description of the target
species of concern and tS habitats, the genera1 provisions of the Endangered Species
Act (Act) and the MHCP, the need to adhere to the provisions of the Act and the
MHCP, the penalties associated with violating the provisions of the Act, the general
measures that are being implemented to conserve the target species of concern as they
relate to the project, and the access routes to and project site boundaries within which
the project activities must be accomplished.
A water pollution and erosion control plan shall be developed that describes sediment
and hazardous materials control, dewatering or diversion structures, fueling and
equipment management practices, and other factors deemed necessary by reviewing
agencies. Erosion control measures shall be monitored on a regularly scheduled basis,
particularly during times of heavy rainfhll. Corrective measures will be implemented in
the event erosion control strategies are inadequate. SedimenVerosion control measures
will be continued at the project site until such time as the Evegetation efforts are
successful at soil stabilization.
The footprint of disturbance shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible. Access
to sites shall be via pre-existing access routes to the greatest extent possible.
The upstream and downstream limits of projects disturbance plus lateral limits of
disturbance on either side of the stream shall be clearly defined and marked in the field
and reviewed by the biologist prior to initiation of work.
Projects should be designed to avoid the placement of equipment and personnel within
the stream channel or on sand and gravel bars, banks, and adjacent upland habitats
used by target species of concern.
Projects that cannot be conducted without placing equipment or personnel in sensitive
habitats should be timed to avoid the breeding season of the target species of concern.
When steam flows must be diverted, the diversions shall be conducted using sandbags
or other methods requiring minimal instream impacts. Silt fencing or other sediment
trapping materials shall be installed at the downstream end of construction activity to
minimize the transport of sediments off-site. Settling ponds where sediment is collected
shall be cleaned out in a manner that prevents the sediment fhm reentering the stream.
Care shall be exercised when removing silt fences, as feasible, to prevent debris or
sediment fiom returning to the stream.
314552000 B-1 FINAL MHCP VOL. II
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Equipment storage, fueling, and staging areas shall be located on upland sites with
minimal risks of direct drainage into riparian areas or other sensitive habitats. These
designated areas shall be located in such a manner as to prevent any runoff from
entering sensitive habitat. All necessary precautions shall be taken to prevent the
release of cement or other toxic substances into surface waters. All project related
spills of hazardous materials shall be reported to appropriate entities including but not
limited to applicable jurisdictional city, FWS, and CDFG, SWQCB and shall be
cleaned up immediately and contaminated soils removed to approved disposal areas.
Erodible fill material shall not be deposited into water courses. Brush, loose soils, or
other similar debris material shall not be stockpiled within the stream channel or on its
banks.
The wed project biologist shall monitor construction activities throughout the
duration of the project to ensue that all practicable measures are being employed to
avoid incidental disturbance of habitat and any target species of concern outside the
project footprint. Construction monitoring reports shall be completed and provided to
the jurisdictional City, FWS, and the CDFG smg how the project is in
compliance with applicable conditions. The project biologist should be empowered to
halt work activity if necessary and to confa with staff from the applicable city, FWS,
and CDFG to ensure the proper implementation of species and habitat protection
measures.
The removal of native vegetation shall be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
practicable. Temporary impacts shall be returned to pre-existing contours and
revegetated with appropriate native species. All revegetation plans shall be prepared
and implemented consistent with Appendix C (Revegetation Guidelines) and shall
require written concurrence of the FWS and CDFG.
Exotic species that prey upon or displace target species of concern should be
permanently moved from the site.
To avoid attracting predators of the target species of concern, the project site shall be
kept as clean of debris as possible. All food related trash items shall be enclosed in
sealed containers and regularly removed from the site@). Pets of project personnel shall
not be allowed on-site where they may come into contact with any listed species.
Construction employees shall strictly limit their activities, vehicles, equipment, and
construction materials to the proposed project footprint and designated staging areas
and routes of travel. The construction area(s) shall be the minimal area necessary to
complete the project and shall be specified in the construction plans. Construction limits
will be fenced with orange snow screen. Exclusion fencing should be maintained until
the completion of all construction activities. All employees shall be instructed that their
activities are restricted to the construction areas.
FINAL MHCP YOL. II B-2 314552000
Appendix B stannement Practices
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21 *
Any habitat destroyed that is not in the identified project footprint shall be disclosed
immediately to the jurisdictional city, FWS, and CDFG and shall be compensated at a
mit1h~mratioof5:1.
If dead or injured listed species are located, initial notification must be made within three
working days, in writing, to the Service’s Division of Law Enforcement in Torrance,
California and by telephone and in Writing to the applicable jurisdiction, Carlsbad Field
Office of the FWS, and CDFG.
The jurisdictional City shall have the right to access and inspect any sites of approved
projects including any restoratiodenhmcement area for compliance with project
approval conditions ncluding these BMP. The FWS and CDFG may accompany City
representatives on this inspection.
Any planting stock to be brought onto the site for landscaping or ecological restoration
shall first be inspected by a qualified pest inspector to ensure it is free of pest species
that could invade natural areas, including but not limited to hentine ants, fire ants, and
other insect pests. Any planting stock found to be infated with such pests shall not be
allowed on the project site or within 300 feet of natural habitats. The stock shall be
quarantined, treated, or disposed of according to best management principles by
qualified experts in a manner that precludes invasions into natural habitats.
Projects adding new utility lines or towers or modif)mg existing utility lines or towers will
implement designs that preclude or minimize harm to wildlife due to collisions or
electrocution. Idormation on such designs can be found at
www .migratorybirds. f s.gov/issues/towers.
Where appropriate based on site-specific survey results, wildlife undercrossings shall be
designed and implemented for new roads or road improvement projects that could
disrupt wildlife movements or result in increased roadkill. Such undercrossings, along
with any necessary wildlife fencing or other facilities, shall be designed based on best
available information to maximize use of the undercrossing by species of concern.
Undercrossing design shall strive to maximize the openness index ([width x
heightpength), minimize traf€ic noise within the crossing, use appropriate fencing to
funnel wildlife into the crossing rather than across the road surface, and screen the
undemnssing openings with natural vegetation.
All mitigation sites shall be conserved through fee title acquisition or conservation
easement, and proof of recordation shall be provided to the jurisdictional city prior to
land disturbance.
314552000 8-3 FINAL MHCP VOL. I1
August 3 1 , 2004
Therese O’Rourke Donald R. Chadwick
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
60 10 Hidden Valley Road
Carlsbad, CA 92008
California Department of Fish & Game
4949 Viewridge Drive
San Diego, CA 92123
RE: PALOMAR POINTE - GPA 04-0WZC 04-03/LCPA 04-07/CT 04-06/PUD 03-
02/PIP 03-02/CDP 03-06/HDP 03-02
Dear Ms. O’Rourke and Mr. Chadwick:
Thank you for your joint comment letter dated August 27, 2004 on the Palomar Pointe
Mitigated Negative Declaration. The project is located southeast of College Boulevard,
southwest of Aston Avenue, and north of the McClellan-Palomar Airport in the City of
Carlsbad. Following are City’s responses to your comments:
1. Additional information was submitted to USFW and CDFG including the
approval of a reduced fire buffer (30 feet by vernal pool 8) by the City Fire
Department, a commitment by the applicant to provide fencing that would restrict
access into the preserve, and a letter from the applicant stating the project has
been designed so that surface drainage from the project footprint is intercepted
and redirected away from the vernal pools. These letters are included as an
attachment to this correspondence and will become part of the record for the
MND.
2. The “hardline” boundary near the most westerly vernal pools appears to encroach
into the watershed area. However, if you review the plans in more detail, you will
note that the open space lot extends to the edge of the development impacts and
includes the “grey shaded area” on the map. This “grey shaded area” consists of
native vegetation and actually increases the boundary of the hardline to
completely encompass the watershed boundaries (as dimensioned on the plans) of
the vernal pools. Although the applicant has kept development outside of the
agreed upon “hardline”, the following additional mitigation measures will be
added to further avoid, minimize and mitigate any potential project related
impacts to the already avoided vernal pools and their watersheds:
a. Restore native vegetation in the areas to be preserved that are currently
disturbed (e.g., roadbeds).
b. Restore the vernal pool watersheds by removing any non-native species
and planting these areas with native vegetation.
49 7635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
c. Expandenhance the basin of the easternmost vernal pool, which appears
to have been impacted by a dirt road that currently runs through its basin.
d. Prepare and submit a vernal pool restoratiodenhancement plan to the
Wildlife Agencies for review and approval. Restoratiodenhancement
activities should begin concurrent with project construction.
e. Prepare and submit a storm water management plan to the Wildlife
Agencies for review which demonstrates that the placement, selection, and
design of the post-construction best management practices will ensure that
hydrological changes do not affect the vernal pools.
3. See comment above. The open space preserve lot extends beyond the “hardline”
boundary and encompasses the entire vernal pool watershed as dimensioned on
the plan.
4. The City believes that it is unlikely for the western spadefoot toad to be present
on site and surveys for this species were not required. However, a mitigation
measure will be added for a biological monitor to be present on site before and
during construction. The biological monitor shall observe if there are any western
spadefoot toad or any other sensitive species. If toads or tadpoles of any kind are
in the vernal pools, the biological monitor will follow the wildlife agencies
recommendations for trapping and relocation.
5. The City is of the opinion that impacts to non-native grasslands are adequately
mitigated through other forms of mitigation taking place, including on-site
preservation, off-site acquisition, and additional off-site creation or substantial
restoration required in the coastal zone. Therefore, additional mitigation for
impacts to non-native grassland is not required.
6. A turn-lane for traffic traveling north on College Boulevard is not proposed or
required for either the Palomar Pointe project or the Carlsbad Municipal Golf
Course. The access road and manufactured slopes on both sides of the access
road have been previously analyzed in the Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course EIR
and mitigation for these impacts are included in the Golf Course EIR.
Additionally, the “Off-site Access Road” impacts are shown on Table 6 of the
Biological Technical Report for the Palomar Pointe project prepared by RECON,
dated July 7,2004. Mitigation has been included for these off-site impacts.
7. Development will be consistent with the Adjacency Standards (AS) in the City’s
HMP. Mitigation measures 6 and 7 require a conservation easement over the on-
site preserved habitat and a plan for managing the on-site preserved habitat in
perpetuity, including a non-wasting endowment to fund the plan. These
conditions will be modified to require the Wildlife Agencies review and approval
of the management plan prior to initiating project construction. In addition, the
following items will be included as mitigation measures:
a. The water pollution and erosion control plan required by SBMP 2 and AS
B shall be submitted to the Wildlife Agencies for approval at least seven
days prior to initial vegetation removal and/or project construction. This
plan should also include measures to prevent fugitive dust generated at the
construction site from entering adjacent habitat.
b. To implement SBMP 10, prior to and during the initial clearing and
grubbing of vegetation outside the gnatcatcher breeding season, a
biological monitor shall locate any individual gnatcatchers on site and
direct construction personnel to begin in an area away from birds. The
biological monitor shall notify the Wildlife Agencies at least seven
calendar days prior to initiating clearing and grubbing of vegetation to
allow the Wildlife Agencies to coordinate with the biologist on bird
flushing monitoring and reporting activities.
c. If project construction is necessary during the gnatcatcher bird breeding
season (February 15 through August 31), a qualified biologist shall
conduct a survey for nesting birds, within three days prior to the work in
the area, and ensure no nesting birds in the project area (including along
access roads) would be impacted by the project. If an active nest is
identified, the Wildlife Agencies shall be notified. Appropriate measures
shall be taken for the nesting site(s) as recommended by the Wildlife
Agencies. The biological monitor shall also monitor for nesting raptors.
d. The construction monitoring reports required by SBMP 10 shall be
submitted monthly to the Wildlife Agencies until project completion.
e. Photographs of the fenced construction limits required by SBMP 14 shall
be submitted to the Wildlife Agencies for approval at least seven days
prior to initial vegetation removal and/or project construction.
f. Permanent fencing (with signs delineating the area as biological open
space) required by AS D shall be installed between the impact area and
biological open space. Fencing shall be designed in coordination with the
Wildlife Agencies to prevent intrusion into the sensitive habitats from
humans and pets. There should be no gates between the development and
the open space. A fencing plan shall be submitted to the Wildlife
Agencies for approval prior to project initiation, and installed within 60
days of the completion of project construction.
8. Commented noted. The project proposes the use of “Vision Glass” on
Buildings 1, 2 and 3. “Vision Glass” has no reflective material. Narrow glass
accent panels of a medium-reflective glass are also used on Building 1, but
comprise only a small area of the building wall surface.
Please see the attached revised Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program which will
be presented as an errata to the Planning Commission. The new or revised mitigation
measures are in bold text.
If you have any additional comments or questions, please contact me at (760) 602-4626.
Sincerely,
Barbara Kennedy, AICP
Associate Planner
c: Don Rideout, Principal Planner
Larry Jett
Attachments:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Letter from Gregory Ryan, Deputy Fire Marshall, City of Carlsbad, dated August
19,2004
Letter from Larry Jett, Lanikai Management, dated August 16,2004
Letter from Robert C. Imsande, K&S Engineering, dated August 16,2004
Revised Palomar Pointe Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
0 0 City of Carlsbad
Office of Fire Prevention Division
August 19,2004
Project: Palomar Pointe - Lanikai Management Company
CDP 03-06 / HDP 03-02 / PUD 03-02 / PIP 03-02
SCA Job No.: 01280.01
Subject: Fire Department Requirements.
Per our review and consideration of current code requirements regarding this proposed
development, the Carlsbad Fire Department cannot find cause to be concerned with the
potential for growth of naturally occurring vegetation up to the boundary of this
development as it occurs on the northwestern corner at or near Vernal Pool 8.
Carlsbad Fire Department has considered at length the many scenarios that currently or
potentially exist, and conclude that in this instance the risks are minimal and the worst
case potential may be moderate. However it should be noted that there is no combustible
structures or features proposed or permitted within the area in question which further
reduces any potential risk from naturally occurring vegetation.
Thank you for your interest and if you have any further comments or questions please
contact myself at 760-602-4663.
Deputy Fire Marshal
City of Carlsbad Fire Department
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 602-4666 FAX (760) 602-8561 @
08/20/04 FRI 15:34 FAX 17604761811 LANIKAI e
LANIKAI MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
August 19,2004
Barbara Kennedy
City of Carlsbad
163 5 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: Palomar Pointe (Project #CT04-06)
Vernal Pool Fencing Plan
Barbara:
We agree to provide a fencing plan mutually agreed upon between the United States Fish
& Wildlife Service and ourselves as it pertains to the protection of the vernal pools. The
purpose of the fence shall serve to restrict both pedestrian and vehicular traffic from
entering the vernal pool areas adjacent to our development at Palomar Pointe. The fence
will be constructed once the City's fencing plan is complete.
Cordially,
T. Lawfence Jett
Owner
P.O. BOX 455 3640 SAGUNTO STREET, SUITE 301 SANTAYNEZ, CA 93460. (805) 693-1314 FAX: (805) 693-1317
K~S ENGINEERING
Planning Engineering Surveying
August 16,2004
Ms. Barbara Kennedy
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
JN-02-084
Subject: Palomar Pointe Project CT 04-06
Vernal Pools
Dear Ms. Kennedy:
Pursuant to conditions of approval to develop the site for the above mentioned project, surface
storm drainage waters from disturbed areas require diversion fiom the vernal pools. These pools
are referred to as VP No’s. 2,3,4,5,6,8,9 & 10.
The site is designed so that surface drainage fiom the disturbed areas is intercepted and
redirected away fiom the vernal pools. The proposed grading has downslopes directed away
from the vernal pools. Parking lot and driveway drainage is also directed away from the vernal
pools.
The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) being developed for the Project includes
Best Management Practices (BMP’s) for utilization during construction phases of the Project.
Proper implementation of these BMP’s will prevent construction activities from contaminating
the vernal pools to the maximum extent practicable.
If you require firther information, do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
cc: Larry Jett, Lanikai Management
7801 Mission Center Court, Suite 100 San Diego, California 92108 (619) 296-5565 Fax (619) 296-5564