Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-08-03; Planning Commission; Resolution 59351 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. 5935 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR A ONE YEAR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP EXTENSION AND A ONE YEAR EXTENSION AND AMENDMENT TO THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND A HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN PERMIT FOR THE FOX MILLER PROPERTY LOCATED ADJACENT AND WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL, NORTH OF FARADAY AVENUE AND SOUTH OF COLLEGE BOULEVARD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5. CASE NAME: FOX MILLER PROPERTY CASE NO.: CT 00-20~2(A)/SUP 00-1 Ox2(A)/HDP 00- 1 1 x2(A)/HMPP 05-05 WHEREAS, Fenton Carlsbad Research Center, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, “Developer/Owner,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as That portion of Lot “F” of Rancho Agua Hedionda, County of San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof No. 823, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, November 16, 1896, described in a grant deed recorded August 13,1992, as Document Number 1992-0512626 (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of August, 2005, 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 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 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 ADOPTS the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Exhibit “ND,” dated June 13, 2005 according to Exhibits “NOI” dated June 13,2005, and “PIT” dated June 13, 2005, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findinm: 1. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Fox Miller Property the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to APPROVING the project; and b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and d. based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. PC RES0 NO. 5935 -2- E s 1c 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 3rd day of August 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, and Whitton NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: v JEFF N. SEGAL , Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: A DON NEU Assistant Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5935 -3 - - City of Carlsbad MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: FOXMILLER PROPERTY PROJECT LOCATION: CASE NO: CT 00-20~2(A)/SUP OO-lOx2(A)/HDP 00-1 1~2(A)/ HMP 05-05 Located adjacent and west of El Camino Real, between College Ave and Faraday Ave., Carlsbad. San Dieno County AF” 212-020-23-00. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A one year Tentative Tract Map extension and extensions and amendments to the Special Use Permit and Hillside Development Permit for the replacement of a previously approved 1+1/2:1 manufactured slope to a vertical 44 foot tall masonry tie-back wall system on a project previously approved to subdivide and grade 53.65 acres of land into four lots for industrial uses and one open space lot on property located adjacent and west of El Camino Real, between College Boulevard and Faraday Avenue. The HMP permit is for the take of covered species under the Habitat Management Plan. 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 (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows: IXI 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 (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. ADOPTED: August 3,2005, pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 5935 Assistant 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: Fox/Miller Property PROJECT LOCATION: CASE NO: CT 00-20x2/SUP OO-lOX2(A)/HDP 00-1 lX2(AY” 05-05 Located adiacent and west of El Camino Real, between College Ave. and Faraday Ave.. Carlsbad. San Diego Countv AI” 212-020-23-00 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An extension of the Tentative Tract Map, a Special Use Permit amendment and Hillside Development Permit amendment for the replacement of a previously approved 1+1/2:1 manufactured slope to a vertical 44 foot tall masonry tie-back wall system on a project previously approved to subdivide and grade 53.65 acres of land into four lots for industrial uses and one open space lot on property located adjacent and west of El Camino Real, between College Boulevard and Faraday Avenue. 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 Commission. A copy of the initial study PIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments fiom the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of the date of this notice. The proposed project and Mitigated Negative Declaration are subject to review and approvaVadoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council. Additional public notices will be issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Van Lynch in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4613. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD July 3.2005 through August 2.2005 PUBLISH DATE July 3,2005 @ 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 CASE NO: CT 00-20X2/SUP OO-lOXlA/HDP 00-1 lXlA/HMP 05-05 DATE: June 2.2005 BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. CASE NAME: FOXMILLER PROPERTY LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Van Lynch (760) 602-4613 PROJECT LOCATION: Located adiacent and west of El Camino Real. between College Ave and Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, San Diego County APN 212-020-23-00 PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: Ladwig Design Group. Bob Ladwig. 703 Palomar Airport Rd, Suite 300. Carlsbad. CA 92009 (760) 438-3 182 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Planned Industrial (Pn ZONING: Planned Industrial (PM) OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (Le., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): USFW S. CDFG. RWOCB, USACE PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: A one Year Tentative Tract Map Extension and extensions and amendments to the Special Use Permit and Hillside Development Permit for the replacement of a previously approved 1+1/2:1 manufactured slope to a vertical 44 foot tall masonry tie-back wall system on a Droiect previously approved to subdivide and grade 53.65 acres of land into four lots for industrial uses and one open space lot on property located adiacent and west of El Camino Real, between College Boulevard and Faraday Avenue. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed development of four light industrial lots on the Fox-Miller Property was approved by the City of Carlsbad’s City Council on October 22, 2002. Subsequent to this approval, a number of changes have been made to the proiect design. initially to comply with storm drain and water detention requirements and water quality regulations. and more recently to comply with the requirement to impact no more than 5 percent of the thread-leaved brodiaea (brodiaea: Brodiaea filifolia) population on-site. The Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP) and the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP) stipulate that impacts to brodiaea cannot exceed a gross cumulative loss of 5 percent of the critical narrow endemic populations within the jurisdiction. The brodiaea on the Fox-Miller site has been identified as a critical narrow endemic population as it is the largest known population in the city of Carlsbad. The ioint take permit issued by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Game JCDFG) provided conditional coverage for thread-leaved brodiaea only if the proposed Fox- Miller plan were revised to comply with the MHCP and HMP. 1 Rev. 07/03/04 The proiect site includes a portion of Letterbox Canyon with its associated drainages and the adiacent upland slopes. The site is bounded by El Camino Real to the east and north, residential north of El Camino Real, and existing industrial development surrounding the site to the south, east and west. The site is predominately covered with non-native grasslands. followed by non- native grassland with thread-leaved brodiaea and Diegan coastal sage scrub. The project also contains small areas of valley needlemass grassland and jurisdictional and non-iurisdictional wetlands. Sensitive wildlife found on the site consists of raptors and a pair of California gnatcatchers. This subsequent environmental document will only address the biological and aesthetic impacts related to the redesign of the proiect for biological purposes and related impacts as a result of the retaininp wall design and for the tentative map extension. The previous mitigated negative declaration addresses all other impacts associated with the project and remain in effect unless modified below. The previous Mitigated Negative Declaration is available for review at the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad CA 92008. 2 Rev. 07/03/04 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. Aesthetics Geology/Soils 0 Noise Agricultural Resources 0 HazarddHazardous Materials 0 Popu1ation and Housing 0 Air Quality 0 Hydrology/Water Quality 0 Public Services Biological Resources 0 Land Use and Planning Recreation u Cultural Resources 0 Mineral Resources 0 TransportatiodCirculation 0 Utilities & Service Systems 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance 3 Rev. 07/03/04 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL 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. PIanngSgnature Datd ‘ 6/30/03- Assistant Plhning Director’s Signature Date ‘ 4 Rev. 07/03/02 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “NO Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not 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 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but glJ potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required. When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment. If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. 5 Rev. 07/03/02 0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant 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. 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. ’ 6 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant No Impact Impact I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0 0 om b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? IXI no c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 0 0 om 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: 0 0 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? I7 El 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: 0 0 0 0 om 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? 7 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 0 0 OH- c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air ' quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 0 0 e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: IXI on 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? 0 IXI on 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? 0 Ixl 00 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? 0 0 0 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? IXI no OIXI Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? 8 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in $1 5064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to $15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1 997), creating substantial risks to life or property? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact UIXI 0 0 OH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IXI 0 OH OH no OH 9 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 0 0 OIXI 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: om Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 0 0 UIXI Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 0 0 Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed schoo I? 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? 0 0 OIXI 0 0 For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 0 0 0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 0 0 om 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? om VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: 0 0 OIXI a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 10 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 Potentially Significant Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact Unless Less Than 0 om 0 0 0 om om om 0 om om 0 om 0 0 0 CIIXI om om om 11 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact OH n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? 0 0 OIX] 0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list;! p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? 0 0 om IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 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? Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 0 0 0 CI 0 c) X. 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 0 CI b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: 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? 0 0 0 b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? 0 0 0 0 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? om om OH OH nm OH 12 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 0 0 om e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 0 0 UBI 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: 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)? 0 0 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the Construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 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 0 0 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? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 om om om OBI OBI om 13 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact o 0 ON 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)? 0 0 OB OIX] Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 0 0 0 0 OIX] 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? 0 Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 0 0 0 0 0 0 OB UIXI OIXI Result in inadequate emergency access? Result in insufficient parking capacity? Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn- outs, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: 0 0 0 Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 0 OIX] 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? 0 0 OIXI 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? 0 01x1 0 Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 14 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 0 0 OH 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? 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? 0 0 om 0 0 OB 0 XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 0 0 OIXI a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 0 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?) 0 0 om c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 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) b) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 15 Rev. 07/03/02 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed development of four light industrial lots on the Fox-Miller Property was approved by the City of Carlsbad’s City Council on October 22,2002. A condition of approval was to amend the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure all mitigation was conducted on-site. Subsequent to this approval, a number of changes have been made to the project design, initially to comply with storm drain and water detention requirements and water quality regulations, and more recently to comply with the requirement to impact no more than 5 percent of the brodiaea population on-site. The Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP) and the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP) stipulate that impacts to brodiaea cannot exceed a gross cumulative loss of 5 percent of the critical narrow endemic populations within the jurisdiction. The brodiaea on the Fox-Miller site has been identified as a critical narrow endemic population as it is the largest known population in the city of Carlsbad. The joint take permit issued by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) provided conditional coverage for thread-leaved brodiaea only if the proposed Fox-Miller plan were revised to comply with the MHCP and HMP. With the approval of this project, the City of Carlsbad would be able to have coverage of brodiaea in the HMP. As a result of preliminary discussion between USFWS, CDFG, the City of Carlsbad, and the project applicant, it was decided that a more intensive mapping effort of the brodiaea on-site would be undertaken to try and refine the boundaries of the plant on the property. In January and February 2005, RECON biologists resurveyed the population to identify the extent of thread-leaved brodiaea that expressed vegetatively following the early rains of 2004/2005. In order to standardize the data collection, the following methodology was adopted: any foliage observed that occupied an area of one-meter square or less was mapped as a point and any foliage that occupied an area greater than one-meter square in area was mapped as a polygon. To calculate a total area of thread-leaved brodiaea vegetation, each point was considered to occupy an area of one-meter square even if there were only a few leaves expressed at that location. This represents a potential for an over-estimation that would likely compensate for any foliage inadvertently missed in the taller non-native grasses. Given the above normal rainfall that occurred early in the 2004-2005 rainfall season and the level of survey effort expended on this resurvey, the Biologist feel that the boundaries are the most up-to-date and accurate locations of the thread-leaved brodiaea. In response to the latest brodiaea data collected on the project site, the applicant conducted an analysis of various reduced project alternatives in an attempt to comply with the requirement to impact no more than 5 percent of the population. An alternative was designed that resulted in a 4.9 percent impact to the brodiaea population on-site. The reduced project alternative that was developed included a reduced Lot 1 and the construction of a retaining wall along El Camino Real. The wall would be constructed using a tie-back wall design, which requires less grading behind the wall during installation, and less impacts to the brodiaea. Table 1 provides a breakdown of impacts to brodiaea based on this latest design. Biological Resource Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) Table 1 - Biological Impacts Existing Impacted Preserved id Mitigation Mitigation I Required Ratio I Mitigation Proposed Mitigation Preservation of 2.9 ac of css and conversion of 1.80 ac of non-native grassland to css and restoration of .62 acres of manufactured slope to CSS 16 Rev. 07/03/02 Biological Resource Valley Needlegrass grassland (NG) Non-Native Grassland ("G) Thread leaved Brodiaea Disturbed wetland Non wetland jurisdictional wetland Existing .43 ac 44.45 ac 94,186 sq ft (2.16 ac) .03 ac .21 ac Table 1 - Bio Impacted .36 ac 30.23 ac 4,643 sq ft (.11 ac) .03 ac -19 ac @cal Impacts Preserved .07 ac 14.22 ac 89,543 sq ft (2.05 ac) 0.0 .02 ac id Mitigation Mitigation Ratio 3:l .5:1 100% conservation 2: 1 1:l Required Mitigation Acreage 1.08 ac 15.12 ac 4,643 sq ft (.11 ac) .06 .19 ac Proposed Mitigation Preservation of -07 acres and conversion of 1-01 acres of NNG to NG w/ brodiaea Preservation of 11.41 acres and native conversion of 2.81 acres of NNG and restoration of 3.71 acres of NNG to NG. 95.1 YO preservation in place (89,543 sq ft; 2.05 acres); transplantation of 4.9 Yo of impacted population (4,643 sq ft; .I1 ac) into open space on site using soil transfer method. Creation of a .30 ac basin within Letterbox Canyon to a native wetland habitat and purchase of .22 ac off-site mitigation credit at the Pilgrim Creek Mitigation Bank (vireo occupied) The proposed mitigation for the upland vegetation communities is based on the mitigation ratios presented in the HMP. The proposed mitigation for brodiaea is based on language in both the HMP and MHCP regarding this species. The mitigation for impacts to jurisdictional waters was negotiated with the wetland resource agencies- CDFG and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). A CDFG Streambed Alteration Agreement and a RWQCB 401 water quality certification have been issued for this project. A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 404 permit is in process and is pending the approval of the latest project design by the resource agencies. 17 Rev. 07/03/02 A Least Bell’s Vireo was identified in an off site white Alder tree located within the future extension of Salk Avenue to the west of the project site. Vireo is a covered species under the HMP. Impacts to Vireo can be avoided by removing the Alder trees and other potential breeding habitat outside the breeding season, which is March 1 through October 1. If vegetation must be removed during the breeding season, a pre-construction clearance survey should be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that no nests are located in, or within, a 300-foot buffer around the proposed project area. A biologist shall monitor all vegetation removal to ensure there are no direct impacts to individual birds. If an active nest is identified, work may need to be postponed until the young are independent from the nest. Impacts to active coastal California gnatcatcher nests can be avoided by removing the Diegan coastal sage scrub within the project area outside the breeding season, which is February 15 to August 31. If vegetation must be removed during the breeding season, a pre-construction clearance survey should be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that no nest are located in, or within, a 200-foot buffer around the proposed footprint. A biologist shall monitor all vegetation removal to ensure there are no direct impacts to individual birds. If an active nest is identified, work may need to be postponed until the young are independent from the nest. AESTHETICS - The project is located along El Camino Real, a designated scenic corridor. The modified project proposes to construct a &foot tall retaining wall in lieu of the originally proposed 1 1/2:1 manufactured slope. The purpose of the wall is to preserve the brodiaea which would be less impacted by the retaining wall structure than the slope. To mitigate the negative aesthetics of a tall wall, the wall will be textured and colored to simulate the natural color and structure of the existing geologic strata. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - The tie-back wall system proposed is a design-build process where the actual soil conditions found during installation dictate the structural requirements needed for the wall system. The present vertical slopes have been found to be relatively stable over time with very little erosion or mass wasting occurring. EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008. 1. 2. 3. 4. Final Master Environmental Imuact Reuort for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994. Geotechnical Investigation uudate Fox/Miller Prouerty adjacent and southwesterly of El Camino Real, North of Faraday Avenue. Carlsbad. California, Dated July 6,2000, Agra Earth & Environmental. Revised Biological technical Reuort for the Fox Prouerty proiect. Carlsbad. California, Dated April 5, 2001, RECON. Revised - Summarv of Revisions to Existing Biological Resources, Project Impacts and Proposed Mitigation for Fox-Miller Property (RECON Number 3028-2B), Dated June 29,2005, RECON 18 Rev. 07/03/02 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) 1. 2. 3. 4. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Developer shall submit a habitat restoration plan for review and approval by the City of Carlsbad, USFWS and CDFG. Prior to grading permit issuance, the Developer shall show proof of purchase of -22 ac of off- site wetland mitigation credit at the Pilgrim Creek Mitigation Bank. The Developer shall provide the Wildlife agencies with a proposed landscaping plan for review and approval prior to grading permit issuance. The Developer shall implement the mitigation measures adopted in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Fox/Miller CT 00-20, dated October 22,2002, unless noted otherwise above. 19 Rev. 07/03/02 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. s- Date 20 Rev. 07/03/02 Page 1 of I PROJECT NAME: FoxlMiller Property FILE NUMBERS: CT 00-20X2AISUP 00-1 OXZ(A)/HDP 00- IlXZ(A)/HMP 05-05 APPROVAL DATE: Auqust 3,2005 The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 31 80 (Public Resources Code Section 21 081.6). , Mitigation Measure Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Developer shall submit a habitat restoration plan for review and approval by the City of Carlsbad, USFWS and CDFG. Prior to grading permit issuance, the Developer shall show proof of purchase of .22 ac of off-site wetland mitigation cred'it at the Pilgrim Creek Mitigation Bank. The Developer shall provide the Wildlife agencies with a proposed landscaping plan for review and approval prior to grading permit issuance. The Developer shall implement the mitigation measures adopted in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for FodMiller CT 00-20, dated October 22, 2002, unless noted otherwise above. Explanation of Headincw 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. Remarks Monitoring Monitoring Shown on Verified Type Department Plans 1 m plementatio Grading Planning I No I Permit I I I I Grading Planning No Permit I I I I Grading Planning I No I Permit Grading Planning No Permit 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.