Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-01-03; Planning Commission; Resolution 62131 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6213 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 4 AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF A 7.82 ACRE SITE 3 INTO TWO OPEN SPACE LOTS AND TWO COMMERCIAL 6 LOTS, AND GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 21,904 SF OFFICE BUILDING ON LOT 1 LOCATED WITHIN 7 PLANNING AREA 2 OF THE GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED 8 NORTHWEST OF CALLE BARCELONA, WEST OF EL o CAMINO REAL AND NORTH OF LEUCADIA BOULEVARD IN THE EAST BATIQUITOS LAGOON/HUNT PROPERTY 10 SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 23. 11 CASE NAME: LA COSTA GLEN CORPORATE CENTER CASE NO.: GPA 06-02/MP 92-01(B)/LCPA 06-01/HMPP 06- 12 11/SDP 05-16/HDP 05-11/CDP 05-51/MS 05-28 13 WHEREAS, Continuing Life Communities, LLC, "Owner/Developer," has 14 filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as 16 Lot 5 of City of Carlsbad Tract No. 92-08 Green Valley, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, 17 according to map thereof No 13997, as filed in the Office of the County recorder of San Diego County, July 10, 2000 18 ("the Property"); and 20 WHEREAS, a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR 93-02) was 21 prepared for the Green Valley Master Plan and was certified and adopted by the City of 22 Carlsbad City Council on February 6,1996; and 23 WHEREAS, the subject property is located within a portion of Planning Area 24 2 of the Green Valley Master Plan; and 25 WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with26 27 said project; and 28 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of January, 2007, 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 2 and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and 3 considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors4 5 relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 6 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning 7 Commission as follows: Q A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 9 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning 10 Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Exhibit 11 "ND," dated January 3, 2007 according to Exhibits "NOI" dated November 19, 2006, and "PII" dated November 8,2006, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings and subject to the following condition: 13 Findings; 14 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: 16 a. it has reviewed, analyzed, and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the LA COSTA 17 GLEN CORPORATE CENTER - GPA 06-02, MP 92-01(8), LCPA 06-01, HMPP 06-11, SDP 05-16, HDP 05-11, CDP 05-51, and MS 05-28, the 18 environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and 2Q b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California 21 Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and 22 c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and 24 d. based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence 25 the project will have a significant effect on the environment. 26 Conditions: 27 1. Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the La Costa Glen 28 Corporate Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. PCRESONO. 6213 -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 3rd day of January, 2007, by the following vote, to wit: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Segall and Whitton AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Commissioner Douglas MARTELL B. MONTGOMERY, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: DONNEU Assistant Planning Director PCRESONO. 6213 -3- City of Carlsbad Planning Department NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: La Costa Glen Corporate Center CASE NO: GPA 06-02/MP 92-OUBVLCPA 06-01/HMPP 06-11/SDP 05-16/CDP 05-51/HDP 05- 11/MS 05-28 PROJECT LOCATION: Northwest of Calle Barcelona, west of El Camino Real and north of Leucadia Boulevard PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A General Plan Amendment, Master Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Habitat Management Plan Permit, Site Development Plan, Coastal Development Permit, Hillside Development Permit, and Minor Subdivision Map are required for the proposed 4-lot subdivision and development which will result in two developable parcels and two open space parcels. A proposed 21,904 sf office building is proposed for Lot 1 and future development of Lot 2 would be limited to approximately 13,000 sf of commercial retail use. Open Space Lots 3 and 4 comprise 2.67 acres (34% of the project area). The open space lots will have new General Plan Land Use designations of OS (Open Space). 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 (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the project "as revised" may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad City Council. A copy of the initial study (EIA 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 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 November 19. 2006 through December 18. 2006 PUBLISH DATE November 19.2006 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - INITIAL STUDY (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: GPA 06-02/MP 92-OKBVLCPA 06-01/HMPP 06-11/SDP 05-16/CDP 05-51/HDP 05-11/ MS 05-28 DATE: November 8. 2006 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: La Costa Glen Corporate Center : , 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Barbara Kennedy. Associate Planner 760-602- 4626 4. PROJECT LOCATION: Northwest of Calle Barcelona, west of El Camino Real and north of Leucadia Boulevard 5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: Continuing Life Communities 1940 Levante Street Carlsbad. CA 92011 Phone: (7601 704-6265 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: C/O/RHM/OS 7. ZONING: PC (Planned Community') 8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): N/A 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: The proposed La Costa Glen Corporate Center project is located on a 7.82-acre site in the southwest quadrant of the City of Carlsbad, northwest of Calle Barcelona, west of El Camino Real, and north of Leucadia Boulevard. The site exists as a previously permitted vacant graded pad, previously farmed areas, manufactured slopes, a settling basin, a potable water easement, disturbed lands and natural habitat. Open space preserve is located on three sides of the site with The Forum shopping center located across Calle Barcelona to the south of the site. A General Plan Amendment, Master Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Habitat Management Plan Permit, Site Development Plan, Coastal Development Permit, Hillside Development Permit, and Minor Subdivision Map are required for the proposed 4-lot subdivision and development which will result in two developable parcels and two open space parcels. A proposed 21,904 sf office building is proposed for Lot 1 and future development of Lot 2 would be limited to approximately 13,000 sf of commercial retail use pursuant to the maximums set forth in the Green Valley Master Plan. Open Space Lots 3 and 4 comprise 2.67 acres (34%) of the project area. The open space lots will have new General Plan Land Use designations of OS (Open Space). The two development parcels will retain the existing C/O/RMH (Commercial/Office/Residential Medium-High) General Plan Land Use Designations. The Master Plan Amendment is required to include a new underlying zone designation of Open Space Rev. 02/22/06 (OS) for the areas proposed for preservation. An LCPA Amendment is also required to reflect this OS designation on the Local Coastal Plan Land Use Map. A Coastal Development Permit is required due to the project's location within the East Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt Property Segment of the Local Coastal Program. The site requires 7,933 cy/ac of earthwork to accommodate the proposed development. The proposed plan concentrates development on the disturbed portions of the site, resulting in preservation of 0.56 acres of Southern Maritime Chaparral with no impacts, preservation of 2.0 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub with 0.98 acres of impact, and preservation of 0.07 acres of Non- native Grassland with 1.5 acres of impacts. The remaining areas of the site consist of developed, disturbed or brush-managed lands. These impacts meet the terms set by the Carlsbad HMP regarding occupied CSS and the impacts will be mitigated per the Carlsbad HMP. The subject site is included within the project area analyzed under the Green Valley Master Plan Program EIR (EIR 93-02). Rev. 02/22/06 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. I | Aesthetics j I Agricultural Resources | | Air Quality X Biological Resources 1 Cultural Resources Geology/Soils [ | Noise Hazards/Hazardous Materials LJ Population and Housing Hydrology /Water Quality Land Use and Planning I I Mineral Resources Mandatory Findings of Significance Public Services | | Recreation | I Transportation/Circulation I I Utilities & Service Systems Rev. 02/22/06 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) | I 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 I I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [Xj 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I | 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. n Date 4 // Planning Director's Signature Date Rev. 02/22/06 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 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-Initial Study", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but all 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. Rev. 02/22/06 • 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-Initial Study 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 after each related set of questions. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant. Rev. 02/22/06 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? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact D D D D D a-d) No Additional Impact Assessed. The Program EIR 93-02 included a visual quality and landform analysis for the Green Valley Master Plan. The EIR Mitigation Measures require approval of a Hillside Development Permit which is one of the applications under review for the proposed project. The project's compliance with the Master Plan development standards for architectural design, landscaping and revegetation, and methods to minimize light spillover provide sufficient control to negate the potential visual quality and landform alteration impacts of individual development projects approved and implemented consistent with the Master Plan. The project compiles with the EIR mitigation measures through review of the project's Hillside Development Permit and compliance with the Green Valley Master Plan development standards and the City's Hillside Development Regulations. II. 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact Rev. 02/22/06 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? n n a-c) No Impact. Program EIR 93-02 concluded that there would be no significant impact to agricultural resources within the Green Valley Master Plan since there is no prime farmland on site. No conditions have changed from those evaluated in the Program EIR 93-02 and the conclusions of the Program EIR are still valid. No mitigation measures required. Potentially Significant Potentially Significant III. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.) Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact n n n D n n n n a a a a a a-e) No Additional Impact Assessed. The Program EIR 93-02 identified potentially significant short-term (construction-related) air quality impacts and significant long-term air quality impacts that are primarily the result of cumulative project-related vehicular emissions. The project will be conditioned to comply with the EIR 93-02 Mitigation Measures to reduce short-term impacts and cumulative long-term air quality impacts. Emission controls for construction equipment and procedures such as dust control during construction are regulated by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD). The project is required to comply with all APCD Rules and Regulations. All project construction is required to incorporate Best Management Practices to reduce dust and air pollution impacts. Any air emissions produced during construction would be temporary. No additional impact assessed. Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: Rev. 02/22/06 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? a) 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? b) 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? c) 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? d) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? D D Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D D D D D D El a, c, & e) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project is for a commercial office development located near Calle Barcelona. The site, which is identified as being within a portion of Planning Area 2 of the Green Valley Master Plan, contains a previously permitted pad for development, dirt access road, manufactured slopes, a settling basin, disturbed lands and natural habitats. Sensitive vegetation communities observed on the property include Southern Maritime Chaparral (SMC) and Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS). The proposed development would create a second development pad on the upper portion of the site. An existing dirt access road would be improved to provide access to the upper development area. The impacts have been designed to be consistent with the HMP conservation goals which require conservation of the majority of sensitive habitats in or contiguous with biological core areas, including "no net loss" of wetland habitat, and preservation of coastal sage scrub and maritime succulent scrub adjacent to the lagoons. The HMP requires additional conservation standards to be applied to properties in the Coastal Zone. A 100-foot wetland buffer is required and a 20-foot buffer is required for all native habitats other than riparian and wetland habitats between preserved habitats and development. The project must preserve a minimum of 67% of the CSS on site. Additionally, there shall be "no net loss" of SMC or CSS. Project impacts to SMC and CSS require a 3:1 and 2:1 mitigation ratio, respectively; with a minimum 1:1 creation component that achieves the "no net loss" standard. On-site preservation is not eligible for mitigation credit in the Coastal Zone. Rev. 02/22/06 A Program EIR was prepared for the Green Valley Master Plan and mitigation measures were included for biological impacts that resulted from grading pursuant to the Master Tentative Map for Green Valley Master Plan. The Preliminary Biological Assessment, prepared by Planning Systems, June 20, 2006, evaluates the additional impacts to biological resources resulting from implementation of the proposed project and recommends mitigation consistent with the City of Carlsbad HMP. The following table summarizes the impacts to vegetation types presented in the report: VEGETATION IMPACTS ASSESSMENT PLANT COMMUNITY Southern Maritime Chaparral (SMC) Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) Revegetated Coastal Sage Scrub (RCSS)(4) Brush Managed Revegetation (BMR) Non-Native grasslands (NNG) Developed (DEV) Disturbed Habitat(5) (DIS) EXISTING ACRES 0.56 1.10 1.88 0.92 1.57 0.46 1.33 7.82 IMPACTED ACRES" ' 0.00 0.63 0.35 0.35 1.50 0.30 0.12 3.25 HMP MITIGATION RATIO 3:1 na 0.5:1 na Fee as noted REQUIRED MITIGATION 0 1.26(3) 0.70(3) 0 Fee 0 Fee 1.96 +Fee REMAINING ACRES 0.56 0.47 1.53 0.57 0.07 0.16 1.21 4.57 REMAINING MITIGATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL (l> Including Fuel Modification Management Areas (Brush Management) (2) Mitigation Ratio for Occupied CSS(3) Mitigation is to be accomplished through off-site creation, restoration, and enhancement. (4) Previously revegetated CSS is considered habitat subject to HMP listed mitigation ratios. (5) The disturbed area fronting Calle Barcelona is a previously permitted development pad. The proposed development results in impacts to occupied CSS, areas currently designated as Brush Management, Non-native Grasslands, and developed and disturbed habitat. In accordance with the HMP Standard 7-2, the project will preserve 67.1% of the existing CSS and Revegetated CSS and will mitigate at a 2:1 ratio for impacts to a total of 0.98 acres of CSS through off-site creation, restoration and enhancement of CSS within other areas of the Green Valley Master Plan to ensure "no net loss" of this habitat type. No impacts will occur to Southern Maritime Chaparral. The majority of impact occurs within the non-native grasslands and disturbed area of the site with 1.5 and 0.12 acres of impact, respectively. The HMP allows impacts to non-native grasslands and disturbed habitat to be mitigated by payment of an in-lieu mitigation fee. No mitigation is required for impacts to disturbed habitat or existing brush-managed vegetation. Sensitive Plant Species Impacts to two (2) of the fourteen (14) identified individuals of Wart-stemmed ceanothus would occur. Wart- stemmed ceanothus is not considered a narrow endemic species. The HMP conservation goals require conservation of approximately 95% of the populations of Wart-stemmed ceanothus within the Green Valley Master Plan. The Green Valley EIR 93-02 lists 3 separate areas of Wart-stemmed ceanothus, which totals 120 individulas As identified in the EIR, all of these areas are in the existing upland preserve area (Lot 10) and none were impacted with the original development of La Costa Glen. None of the 3 areas identified in the EIR are within the corporate office site. The Lot 5 office development involves impacts to 2 of 14 ceanothus plants onsite. None of these individuals were identified in the original EIR. Thus, given that a new total of 134 individuals have been identified within the Green Valley Master Plan, 99% of the ceanothus plants within the Green Valley Master Plan site will be preserved (132 of 134). The Wart- stemmed ceanothus that occurs on the subject property and the remaining population would be located in the open space preserve area of the site and would not be impacted by the proposed development. 10 Rev. 02/22/06 Not all of the HMP listed sensitive plant species have been conclusively determined present or absent during the period of the two site surveys. Three narrow-endemic species have the potential to occur on site: Thread-leaf brodiaea, Orcutt's brodiaea, and San Diego Goldenstar. Mitigation measures are included to require a follow-up survey in May, prior to issuance of grading permits for the project. If future investigations determine that any of these three species occur on site, the following conservation measures will be required: All individuals occurring on Lot 5 within areas not proposed for development will be conserved. If less than 20% of the narrow endemic population (occurring on Lot 5) is impacted, no additional mitigation measures will be required other than conservation of the non-impacted individuals, pursuant to the HMP requirements of "conservation of at least 80% of the narrow endemic population". If it is determined that more than 20% of the individuals will be impacted, all individuals in areas to be impacted will be transplanted to a suitable site within the Green Valley Master Plan area. A mitigation program will be prepared by a qualified biologist and must be approved by the City of Carlsbad prior to grading of the site. Sensitive Wildlife Species A general wildlife survey was performed for the site and identified or observed signs of 27 species of birds, 9 species of mammals and seven species of reptiles on the site. The Coastal California Gnatcatcher (CAGN) is the only threatened or endangered species present on or within approximately 100 feet of the property. The field survey indicates that the two identified CAGN nest sites will be preserved. The take of habitat is relatively minor in comparison with the amount of habitat in the adjacent 108 acres of open space preserve. Therefore, neither of the two CAGN will be taken and thus the project will preserve 100% of the CAGN onsite. In accordance with the HMP, the project will be required to implement management of the CAGN habitat to include: 1) manage preserve areas to minimize edge effects, control cowbirds and predators, prevent livestock overgrazing, and restrict human disturbance; 2) prepare and implement a fire management program for preserve areas as part of a detailed management plan; and 3) where opportunities arise, enhance and restore CSS within preserve areas, with priorities given to the creation of CAGN breeding opportunities within constrained linkages. As proposed, approximately 1.96 acres of CSS habitat will be created, restored and enhanced within the disturbed areas of the Green Valley Master Plan. A preserve management and fire management program will be included in the long-term management and maintenance plan for the preserved open space. In addition, to protect CAGN breeding in the HMP preserve area, mitigation measures are proposed that would prohibit clearing, grubbing, grading or other construction activities in the CSS from February 15 to August 31, the breeding season of the CAGN. Additionally, from February 15 to August 31, no construction activities shall occur within any portion of the site where they would result in noise levels exceeding 60 dB(A) hourly average at the edge of CSS. Indirect Impacts and Additional Mitigation The project is located adjacent to a hardline preserve area. In order to minimize edge effects, the HMP requires the following adjacency standards to be addressed in the planning of any development/habitat interface: 1. Fire Management: A 40 foot minimum fire suppression zone will be provided between habitable structures and preserved biological resources. The habitat occurring within the 40 to 50 foot fire suppression zone will be subject to brush management standards and these areas are not included within the open space preserve area. The reduced brush management zone allows for maximum preservation of the biological resource and the reduced fire suppression zone (from 60 feet) is supported by the Carlsbad Fire Department due to the extensive use of fire retardant building materials and building design. The paved surfaces near the building act as an additional fire break and the parking areas and driveways are sited to allow for adequate fire department access. Thus, the project as proposed accomplishes the two stated objectives for protection of biological resources and hazard reduction for humans and their properties. 2. Erosion Control: The project will implement erosion control measures to avoid pollution and sedimentation of important water sources and the loss of vegetative cover from landslides. The project implements best management practices by incorporating erosion control features into the project which include a brow ditch and grass-lined swales to catch drainage flow at the western edge of the site and route it around the project into appropriately sized storm drains. Because the majority of the preserve area is uphill from the development pad, there is no concern that runoff or drainage will enter the preserve from the developed site. All impacted slopes 11 Rev. 02/22/06 within the project site will be planted with appropriate landscaping to limit runoff during rain events. 3. Landscaping Restrictions: In response to the biological objectives of preserve areas, mitigation measures have been included to prohibit the use of non-native, invasive plant materials within the project site. Genetic contamination will be avoided by keeping areas landscaped with only approved plants. No plants that may run the risk of cross- breeding with nearby native plants will be used. All runoff has been designed to remain within the on-site landscaped areas or to be filtered through appropriate storm drain facilities. 4. Fencing. Signs, and Lighting: The project will use appropriate fencing, signs and lighting to protect sensitive biological resources through the following mitigation measures. Preserve areas will be properly fenced to prevent direct human access from the adjacent office complex and parking lot. The preserve area shall be labeled with signs as recommended in the project's open space management plan. Project lighting will require shielding to ensure that building and parking lot lighting does not spillover into the adjacent preserve area. 5. Predator and Exotic Species: Damage to existing biological resources as a result of predators and exotic species is not expected to be significant since the proposed project is a commercial facility and almost no introduction of domestic pets is expected to occur. Similarly, exotic species will be controlled through the prohibition of non- native and/or invasive plant materials as previously recommended in the Landscaping Restrictions. As an added measure to limit predators in the preserve areas, the following items will be included in the Preserve Management Plan for the project: 1) require an educational leaflet to be made available to the project tenants with regard to domestic pets; 2) monitor cowbirds associated with Lot 5; and 3) monitor native predators on preserve areas associated with Lot 5. Additionally, in accordance with the HMP, the open space area will need to be protected by a conservation easement and an endowment will need to be established for long-term management, monitoring and reporting of the area in perpetuity. Title to the open space parcel will need to be transferred to an appropriate land trust entity. The conditioned mitigation will result in a less than significant impact to biological resources. b & d) No Impact. The Biological Technical Report does not identify any wetlands vegetation on site. The project has been designed to comply with the City of Carlsbad HMP and does not conflict with any policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. No tributary areas were identified on site, therefore no impact is assessed. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the I I significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi- I I cance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique pale I I ontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred I I outside of formal cemeteries? D D D D 12 R«v. 02/22/06 a-d) No Additional Impact Assessed. The Cultural Resource Survey for the site, prepared by Brian F. Smith and Associates, was analyzed in EIR 93-02. Cultural Resources were identified, however none of those sites fall within the boundaries of the proposed project. However, in accordance with the mitigation measures for EIR 93- 02, grading of the site will need to be monitored by a Qualified Biologist. No additional mitigation is required. c) No Additional Impact Assessed. EIR 93-02 identified that potential impacts could occur to paleontological resources if fossils are discovered during grading operations. The on-site soils consist of Topsoil and Tertiary-age Santiago Formations. Grading of the site is expected to consist of minor cuts in the western area and fills up to 15 feet in the southern and eastern areas. It is unlikely that fossils will be found in this minimal amount of grading, particularly because much of the soils were deposited in the area during the previous rough grading of the site. However a mitigation measure is included in EIR 93-02 requiring a paleontological resource monitoring plan to be developed by a Certified Paleontologist prior to the initiation of grading operations. The project is required to implement all applicable mitigation measures developed for EIR 93-02 and no additional mitigation is required. 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? iv. 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 - 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D D D D n n n n n n n n n 13 Rev. 02/22/06 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? n n a-e) No Additional Impact. A geotechnical evaluation was conducted for the Green Valley Master Plan and Program EIR 93-02 concluded that the subject site appears to be suitable for development from a geotechnical perspective. No significant geologic or geotechnical constraints were identified that could not be mitigated by proper planning, design and standard construction practices. A supplemental report for the subject site was prepared by Leighton and Associates, Inc. (Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, dated September 16, 2005). The report concludes that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the conclusions and recommendations of the report are incorporated during design and construction. Mitigation Measures developed for EIR 93-02 require the preparation of a subsequent comprehensive geotechnical evaluation, which has been prepared; and requires that the project shall incorporate the recommendations as provided in the comprehensive geotechnical evaluation, including observation and inspection by the project geologist. No additional mitigation is required. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) 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? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) 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? e) 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? f) 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact n n n n n n n n n n 14 Rev. 02/22/06 g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with I I [~ an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of I I [~ loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? a-h) No Impact. The proposed office development does not propose any transportation or storage of hazardous materials. The site is not listed as a hazardous materials site. This project requires fire suppression zones for protection from wildland fires and the fire suppression zones are indicated on the tentative parcel map. The site is not located within the Airport Influence Area of the McClellan Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste I I I I discharge requirements? Less Than Significant No Impact Impact b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) 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? d) 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? e) 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? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? D D n D D D D D 15 Rev. 02/22/06 g) 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? h) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) 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? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? D n n n n n n n a-j) No Additional Impact. Impacts to Water Quality and Hydrology were analyzed in the Program EIR 93- 02 for the Green Valley Master Plan. Mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant impact were identified and include implementation of the Storm Drainage and Desiltation/Depollutant Plan as proposed in the Master Plan. A Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan prepared by O'Day Consultants, dated September 30, 2005 and Preliminary Drainage Study prepared by O'Day Consultants dated January 23, 2006 were prepared for the project. The subject property is required by law to comply with federal, state and local water quality regulations including the Clean Water Act, California Administrative Code Title 23, and specific basin plan objectives identified in the "Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin". The project is required to adhere to all applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations for control of sedimentation and erosion, and to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements and Best Management Practices (BMPs) The proposed project will include all water quality infrastructure as required by the City of Carlsbad. As a result, there will be no impact to water quality, site erosion, pollution discharge, or drainage from the site as it may affect adjacent properties and existing storm water infrastructure. No additional mitigation required. 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? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact n a n n n a -c) No Impact. The project is a commercial office development project consistent with the uses anticipated in the Green Valley Master Plan. The site does not physically divide an established community. The proposed project does not conflict with any existing or proposed land use plans or policies of the City of Carlsbad. The project includes a proposed amendment to the General Plan Land Use designations to designate the areas of the site proposed for preservation to Open Space (OS). The project does not conflict with any applicable plans or policies. 16 Rev. 02/22/06 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? 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D D a-b) No Impact. There is no indication that the subject property contains any known mineral resources that would be of future value to the region or the residents of the State. 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? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of 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? 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? 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D D D D D D 17 Rev. 02/22/06 a-f) No additional Impact. The anticipated grading operation associated with the proposed commercial office development would result in a temporary construction-related noise impacts. Noise impacts related to development within the Green Valley Master Plan were evaluated in EIR 93-02 and mitigation measures were developed to reduce short-term noise impacts to a less than significant level. A second mitigation measure related to construction of residential uses is not applicable to the proposed commercial office development. No additional mitigation is required. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: Less Than Significant No Impact Impact a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? D D D D D D D Less Than Significant No Impact Impact a-c) No Impact. The subject site is designated for commercial development. Development of the proposed 21,000 sf office building would not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. No major infrastructure facilities are proposed for extension to serve the project. The project site is currently vacant therefore no existing housing or people will be displaced. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated 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? D D nn n n 18 Rev. 02/22/06 a) No Impact. EIR 93-02 concluded that overall impacts to public facilities and service systems were not significant provided that all the appropriate agency conditions for development are met, including payment of public facilities fees. No mitigation measures required. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated XIV. RECREATION Less Than Significant No Impact Impact a) Would the project increase the use of existing I I neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or I I require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? a-b) No Impact. The proposed office development will not result in the deterioration of existing neighborhood or regional parks or cause such parks to be expanded, so no adverse physical effect on the environment will occur. Potentially Significant Potentially Significant XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: a) 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)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 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? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in insufficient parking capacity? Impact D Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D El D n D D D 19 Rev. 02/22/06 g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn- outs, bicycle racks)? D D a-d) No additional Impact. EIR 93-02 analyzed the traffic impacts associated with the development of the Green Valley Master Plan and mitigation measures were developed to reduce the impacts to less than significant. All required mitigation was completed with the first development phases of the Green Valley Master Plan. The project is within the scope of the Program EIR 93-02 and the proposed development will not cumulatively exceed the 300,000 sf of commercial retail area anticipated to occur within the Green Valley Master Plan project area. No additional mitigation is required. e-g) No Impact. The project has been designed to comply with the parking requirements of the Master Plan and City of Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance and the project has been reviewed for compliance with emergency access requirements. The project does not conflict with any adopted plans or programs for alternative transportation. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed waste water treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) 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? c) 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? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 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? Potentially Significant Impact D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D D D D D D D Kl D D D a-g) No Impact. EIR 93-02 concluded that overall impacts to public facilities and service systems were not significant provided that all the appropriate agency conditions for development are met, including payment of public facilities fees. No mitigation measures required. 20 Rev. 02/22/06 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 D D Potential ty Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D D D D a) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project's required mitigation, as outlined in the Biological Resources section of this report, will preclude any possible degrading of the environment or substantial reductions of habitat and wildlife species. Cumulative impacts to sensitive plant and wildlife species within the MHCP Subarea would occur through the proposed project, in absence of the implementation of the HMP, and specifically the adjacent preserve system. However, the implementation of the HMP provides mitigation for these cumulative impacts because the plan has anticipated region-wide impacts and has adopted a preserve system that mitigates for these impacts. The Project is consistent with the MCHP guidelines and the regional planning efforts in the City of Carlsbad. Therefore, there will be no cumulative impacts to sensitive uplands, and plant and wildlife species. There are no historic structures on the site and there are no known cultural resources on the site. The project will not result in the elimination of any important examples of California History or prehistory. The proposed project does not eliminate important examples of major periods of California history. b) 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. 21 Rev. 02/22/06 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 described in the Green Valley Program EIR 93-02, the project would contribute to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. However, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the development is implemented. The County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The CMA had 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 impacts from the project to the regional circulation system are less than significant. With regard to any other potential impacts associated with the project, City standards and regulations will ensure that development of the site will not result in any significant cumulatively considerable impacts. c) No Impact. Based upon the commercial nature of the project and that future development of the site will comply with City standards, the project will not result in any direct or indirect substantial adverse environmental effects on human beings. 22 Rev. 02/22/06 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. 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. 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. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department, dated March 1994. 2. Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Green Valley Master Plan and Master Tentative Map (EIR 93-02), Coleman Planning Group, dated December 1995. 3. Preliminary Biological Assessment Lot 5 at La Costa Glen. Planning Systems, dated June 20,2006. 4. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Office Building La Costa Glen. Leighton and Associates, Inc., dated September 16, 2005. 5. Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan for La Costa Glen Offices. O'Day Consultants, dated September 30, 2005. 6. Preliminary Drainage Study for La Costa Glen Offices. O'Day Consultants, dated January 23, 2006. 23 Rev. 02/22/06 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) 1. The project will impact 0.98 acres (32.9%) of the 2.98 acres of CSS onsite (including revegetated CSS). Approximately 2.00 acres (67.1%) of the on-site CSS will be preserved. Minimum HMP mitigation requirements for CSS impacts in the coastal zone require "no net loss" of habitat resulting in a 2:1 mitigation ratio. On-site preservation is not eligible for mitigation credit in the coastal zone. In order to satisfy the "no net loss" creation component of mitigation as required by the HMP, the project proposes the following: a. Revegetation of 1.16 acres of non-native grassland habitat shall occur within five plots. Four of the plots are located within or adjacent to Lot 10 of Carlsbad Tract 92-08 and one plot is located adjacent to riparian habitat along El Camino Real. b. Substantial restoration of 0.39 acres of highly disturbed CSS shall occur in three plots located within or adjacent to Lot 10. The plots are disturbed by non-native grassland and highly invasive ruderal species. c. Enhancement of 0.41 acres of disturbed CSS shall occur on one plot that is within Lot 10. This plot is degraded by non-native grassland species and by highly invasive ruderal species. 2. An in-lieu-mitigation fee shall be paid for impacts to 1.5 acres of non-native grasslands at a ratio of 0.5:1 (0.75 acres x impact fee for Habitat Type Group E). 3. An in-lieu mitigation fee shall be paid for impacts to 0.12 acres of disturbed lands at a ratio of 1:1 (0.12 acres x impact fee for Habitat Type Group F). •4. Plans for the revegetation, substantial restoration, and enhancement of CSS in the areas shown in the Preliminary Biological Assessment, Planning Systems, dated June 20, 2006, shall be subject to the consultation and concurrence of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and the approval of the City of Carlsbad prior to issuance of a grading permit or recordation of the Final Map, which ever occurs first. The California Coastal Commission shall be notified and provided an opportunity to comment upon proposed substitutions of substantial restoration for the required creation component. 5. Three narrow-endemic species have the have the potential to occur on site: Thread-leaf brodiaea, Orcutt's brodiaea, and San Diego Goldenstar. In order to conclusively determine the presence or absence of these species, a follow-up survey shall be required to occur in May, prior to issuance of grading permits for the project. If future investigations determine that any of these three species occur on site, the following conservation measures will be required: a. All individuals occurring on Lot 5 within areas not proposed for development will be conserved. b. If less than 20% of the narrow endemic population (occurring on Lot 5) is impacted, no additional mitigation measures will be required other than conservation of the non-impacted individuals, pursuant to the HMP requirements of "conservation of at least 80% of the narrow endemic population". c. If it is determined that more than 20% of the individuals will be impacted, all individuals in areas to be impacted will be transplanted to a suitable site within the Green Valley Master Plan area. A mitigation program will be prepared by a qualified biologist and must be approved by the City of Carlsbad prior to grading of the site. 6. Prior to recordation of the final map or prior to issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first, the Developer shall take the following actions to the satisfaction of the Planning Director in relation to the open space lot(s) which are being conserved, revegetated, restored and enhanced for natural habitat in conformance with the City's Habitat Management Plan: 24 Rev. 02/22/06 a. Select a conservation entity, subject to approval by the City, that possesses qualifications to manage the open space lot(s) for conservation purposes. b. Prepare a Property Analysis Record (PAR) or other method acceptable to the City for estimating the costs of management and monitoring of the open space lot(s) in perpetuity. c. Based on the results of the PAR, provide a non-wasting endowment or other financial mechanism acceptable to the Planning Director and conservation entity, if any, in an amount sufficient for management and monitoring of the open space lot(s) in perpetuity. The Conservation Easement shall provide that the non-wasting endowment shall transfer to the City if the City accepts the Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate fee title to the open space lot(s). d. Record a Conservation Easement over the open space lot(s) which includes an Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate fee title to the open space lot(s) in favor of the City. e. Prepare a permanent preserve management plan for the City's approval that will ensure adequate management, including preparation of the PAR and provision of the endowment, of the open space lot(s) in perpetuity. 7. The management for the CAGN habitat shall include the following: a. manage preserve areas to minimize edge effects, control cowbirds and predators, prevent livestock overgrazing, and restrict human disturbance; b. prepare and implement a fire management program for preserve areas as part of a detailed management plan; and c. where opportunities arise, enhance and restore CSS within preserve areas, with priorities given to the creation of CAGN breeding opportunities within constrained linkages. As proposed, approximately 1.96 acres of CSS habitat will be created within the disturbed areas of the Green Valley Master Plan open space preserve area. d. A preserve management and fire management program shall be included in the long-term management and maintenance plan for the preserved open space. 8. As an added measure to limit predators in the preserve areas, the following items will be included in the Preserve Management Plan for the project: a. Require an educational leaflet to be made available to the project tenants with regard to domestic pets. b. Monitor cowbirds associated with Lot 5. c. Monitor native predators on preserve areas associated with Lot 5. 9. No clearing, grubbing, grading or other construction activities shall occur in the CSS from February 15 to August 31, the breeding season of the CAGN unless a qualified biologist confirms, through a documented survey immediately prior to clearing activities, that no nesting CAGN or other sensitive birds will be impacted. 10. Construction noise that could affect migratory songbirds and other species associated with the sensitive habitat area shall be avoided. In order to ensure compliance, grading shall be avoided during the bird nesting season (February 15-August 31). If a grading permit is required, this restriction can be waived by the City of Carlsbad, with concurrence from the Wildlife Agencies (USFWS and CDFG), upon completion of a breeding/nesting bird survey in accordance to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. If nests are present, no grading or removal of habitat may take place within 200 feet of active nesting sites during the nesting/breeding season (mid-February through mid-July). A buffer zone will be established around any identified nests in coordination with the monitoring biologist. No construction activities shall occur within 25 Rev. 02/22/06 any portion of the site where they would result in noise levels exceeding 60 dB(A) hourly average at the edge of CSS. 11. Temporary habitat protection fencing shall be installed to protect the habitat during grading and construction. A qualified biologist shall establish the limits of the sensitive habitat in the field prior to grading and the biologist shall verify in writing that the habitat protection fence has been appropriately placed and is adequately functioning during site grading. 12. Once grading and construction is completed, the temporary fence shall be removed and a minimum 5 foot high permanent fence shall be placed in an approved location to prevent access to conserved areas by domesticated animals. The project fencing shall restrict human access to the HMP Preserve but allow for wildlife movement without directing wildlife onto the road. The project shall install signs to educate the public about the goals of the HMP Preserve and that prohibit public access to it. The permanent fence locations shall be subject to approval by the Planning Director. 13. To prevent the loss of vegetative cover in the HMP Preserve, the project shall prohibit bare surface grading for fire control on slopes and ensure that fire control leaves (or replaces) adequate vegetative cover to prevent surface erosion. Fuel modification areas shall not occur within the HMP Preserve areas. The project shall also ensure that all areas of habitat creation are adequately stabilized (e.g., with a binder) after planting to minimize surface erosion. Finally, the project shall ensure that no new surface drainage is directed into the HMP Preserve. Public education regarding fire prevention and safety shall be provided in the project CC&R's so that both biological and safety goals are met. 14. For exotic species control, the project shall not use any non-native, invasive plant species in landscaping adjacent to the HMP Preserve. The landscape plan shall utilize only indigenous, native species adjacent to the sensitive habitat area in order to prevent invasive/noxious species from invading the sensitive habitat. No invasive/noxious species shall be allowed within the project's plant palette. Plants that run the risk of cross-breeding with nearby native plants shall not be used. The landscape plan plant palette shall be reviewed by the project biologist and the project biologist shall certify in writing, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, that the plant palette is appropriate and meets this standard prior to approval of the landscape plan by the City of Carlsbad. 15. The project shall control irrigation of landscaping adjacent to the HMP Preserve to prevent runoff into it. 16. Lighting on the building and parking areas adjacent to the HMP preserve shall be of the minimum footcandles necessary for safety and security and shall be shielded and directed to shine downward and not into the HMP Preserve. Lighting restrictions shall be included in the project CC&R's. 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. Date signature f 26 Rev. 02/22/06 Page 1 of 10 PROJECT NAME: La Costa Glen Corporate Center FILE NUMBERS: GPA 06-02/MP 92-01 (BVLCPA 06-017 SDP 05-16/CDP 05-51/HDP 05-11/MS 05-28 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 1. The project will impact 0.98 acres (32.9%) of the 2.98 acres of CSS onsite (including revegetated CSS). Approximately 2.00 acres (67.1%) of the on- site CSS will be preserved. Minimum HMP mitigation requirements for CSS impacts in the coastal zone require "no net loss" of habitat resulting in a 2:1 mitigation ratio. On-site preservation is not eligible for mitigation credit in the coastal zone. In order to satisfy the "no net loss" creation component of mitigation as required by the HMP, the project proposes the following: a. Revegetation of 1.16 acres of non-native grassland habitat shall occur within five plots. Four of the plots are located within or adjacent to Lot 10 of Carlsbad Tract 92-08 and one plot is located adjacent to riparian habitat along El Camino Real. Monitoring Type Prior to issuance of a grading permit or recordation of Final Map Monitoring Department Planning Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks Explanation 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, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other RD - Appendix P. Page 2 of 10 Mitigation Measure b. Substantial restoration of 0.39 acres of highly disturbed CSS shall occur in three plots located within or adjacent to Lot 10. The plots are disturbed by non-native grassland and highly invasive ruderal species. c. Enhancement of 0.41 acres of disturbed CSS shall occur on one plot that is within Lot 10. This plot is degraded by non-native grassland species and by highly invasive ruderal species. 2. An in-lieu mitigation fee shall be paid for impacts to 1.5 acres of non-native grasslands at a ratio of 0.5:1 (0.75 acres x impact fee for Habitat Type Group E). 3. An in-lieu mitigation fee shall be paid for impacts to 0.12 acres of disturbed lands at a ratio of 1:1 (0.12 acres x impact fee for Habitat Type Group F). Monitoring Type Prior to issuance of a grading permit or recordation of Final Map Prior to issuance of a grading permit or recordation of Final Map Monitoring Department Planning Department Planning Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks Explanation 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, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other RD - Appendix P. Page 3 of 10 Mitigation Measure 4. Plans for the revegetation, substantial restoration, and enhancement of CSS in the areas shown in the Preliminary Biological Assessment, Planning Systems, dated June 20, 2006, shall be subject to the consultation and concurrence of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and approval by the City of Carlsbad prior to issuance of a grading permit or recordation of the Final Map, which ever occurs first. The California Coastal Commission shall be notified and provided an opportunity to comment upon proposed substitutions of substantial restoration for the required creation component. Monitoring Type Prior to issuance of a grading permit or recordation of Final Map Monitoring Department Planning Department in consultation with Wildlife Agencies Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Oept. = 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, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other RD - Appendix P. Page 4 of 10 Mitigation Measure 5. Three narrow-endemic species have the have the potential to occur on site: Thread-leaf brodiaea, Orcutt's brodiaea, and San Diego Goldenstar. In order to conclusively determine the presence or absence of these species, a follow-up survey shall be required to occur in May, prior to issuance of grading permits for the project. If future investigations determine that any of these three species occur on site, the following conservation measures will be required: a. All individuals occurring on Lot 5 within areas not proposed for development will be conserved. b. If less than 20% of the narrow endemic population (occurring on Lot 5) is impacted, no additional mitigation measures will be required other than conservation of the non-impacted individuals, pursuant to the HMP requirements of "conservation of at least 80% of the narrow endemic population". c. If it is determined that more than 20% of the individuals will be impacted, all individuals in areas to be impacted will be transplanted to a suitable site within the Green Valley Master Plan area. A mitigation program will be prepared by a qualified biologist and must be approved by the City of Carlsbad prior to grading of the site. Monitoring Type Prior to issuance of a grading permit Monitoring Department Planning Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks Explanation 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, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other RD - Appendix P. Page 5 of 10 Mitigation Measure 6. Prior to recordation of the final map or prior to issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first, the Developer shall take the following actions to the satisfaction of the Planning Director in relation to the open space lot(s) which are being conserved, revegetated, restored and enhanced for natural habitat in conformance with the City's Habitat Management Plan: a. Select a conservation entity, subject to approval by the City, that possesses qualifications to manage the open space lot(s) for conservation purposes. b. Prepare a Property Analysis Record (PAR) or other method acceptable to the City for estimating the costs of management and monitoring of the open space lot(s) in perpetuity. c. Based on the results of the PAR, provide a non- wasting endowment or other financial mechanism acceptable to the Planning Director and conservation entity, if any, in an amount sufficient for management and monitoring of the open space lot(s) in perpetuity. The Conservation Easement shall provide that the non-wasting endowment shall transfer to the City if the City accepts the Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate fee title to the open space lot(s). Monitoring Type Prior to issuance of a grading permit or recordation of Final Map Monitoring Department Planning Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks Explanation 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, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other RD- Appendix P. Page 6 of 10 Mitigation Measure d. Record a Conservation Easement over the open space lot(s) which includes an Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate fee title to the open space lot(s) in favor of the City. e. Prepare a permanent preserve management plan for the City's approval that will ensure adequate management, including preparation of the PAR and provision of the endowment, of the open space lot(s) in perpetuity. 7. The management for the CAGN habitat shall include the following: a. manage preserve areas to minimize edge effects, control cowbirds and predators, prevent livestock overgrazing, and restrict human disturbance; b. prepare and implement a fire management program for preserve areas as part of a detailed management plan; and c. where opportunities arise, enhance and restore CSS within preserve areas, with priorities given to the creation of CAGN breeding opportunities within constrained linkages. As proposed, approximately 1.96 acres of CSS habitat will be created within the disturbed areas of the Green Valley Master Plan open space preserve area. d. A preserve management and fire management program shall be included in the long-term management and maintenance plan for the preserved open space. Monitoring Type Prior to issuance of a grading permit or recordation of Final Map Monitoring Department Planning Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks Explanation 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, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other RD - Appendix P. Page 7 of 10 Mitigation Measure 8. As an added measure to limit predators in the preserve areas, the following items will be included in the Preserve Management Plan for the project: a. Require an educational leaflet to be made available to the project tenants with regard to domestic pets. b. Monitor cowbirds associated with Lot 5. c. Monitor native predators on preserve areas associated with Lot 5. 9. No clearing, grubbing, grading or other construction activities shall occur in the CSS from February 15 to August 31, the breeding season of the CAGN unless a qualified biologist confirms, through a documented survey immediately prior to clearing activities, that no nesting CAGN or other sensitive birds will be impacted. Monitoring Type Prior to issuance of a grading permit or recordation of Final Map Prior to issuance of a grading permit. Monitoring Department Planning Department Planning Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks Explanation 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, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other RD - Appendix P. Page 8 of 10 Mitigation Measure 1 0. Construction noise that could affect migratory songbirds and other species associated with the sensitive habitat area shall be avoided. In order to ensure compliance, grading shall be avoided during the bird nesting season (February 15-August 31). If a grading permit is required, this restriction can be waived by the City of Carlsbad, with concurrence from the Wildlife Agencies (USFWS and CDFG), upon completion of a breeding/nesting bird survey in accordance to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. If nests are present, no grading or removal of habitat may take place within 200 feet of active nesting sites during the nesting/breeding season (mid-February through mid-July). A buffer zone will be established around any identified nests in coordination with the monitoring biologist. No construction activities shall occur within any portion of the site where they would result in noise levels exceeding 60 dB(A) hourly average at the edge of CSS. 1 1 . Temporary habitat protection fencing shall be installed to protect the habitat during grading and construction. A qualified biologist shall establish the limits of the sensitive habitat in the field prior to grading and the biologist shall verify in writing that the habitat protection fence has been appropriately placed and is adequately functioning during site grading. Monitoring Type Prior to issuance of a grading permit Prior to issuance of a grading permit Monitoring Department Planning Department Planning Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks Explanation 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, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other RD - Appendix P. Page 9 of 10 Mitigation Measure Monitoring Type Monitoring Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks 12. Once grading and construction is completed, the temporary fence shall be removed and a minimum 5 foot high permanent fence shall be placed in an approved location to prevent access to conserved areas by domesticated animals. The project fencing shall restrict human access to the HMP Preserve but allow for wildlife movement without directing wildlife onto the road. The project shall install signs to educate the public about the goals of the HMP Preserve and that prohibit public access to it. The permanent fence locations shall be subject to approval by the Planning Director. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy Show on Landscape Plans Planning Department 13. To prevent the loss of vegetative cover in the HMP Preserve, the project shall prohibit bare surface grading for fire control on slopes and ensure that fire control leaves (or replaces) adequate vegetative cover to prevent surface erosion. Fuel modification areas shall not occur within the HMP Preserve areas. The project shall also ensure that all areas of habitat creation are adequately stabilized (e.g., with a binder) after planting to minimize surface erosion. Finally, the project shall ensure that no new surface drainage is directed into the HMP Preserve. Public education regarding fire prevention and safety shall be provided in the project CC&R's so that both biological and safety goals are met. Monitor during grading Planning Department Explanation 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, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other RD - Appendix P. Page 10 of 10 Mitigation Measure 14. For exotic species control, the project shall not use any non-native, invasive plant species in landscaping adjacent to the HMP Preserve. The landscape plan shall utilize only indigenous, native species adjacent to the sensitive habitat area in order to prevent invasive/noxious species from invading the sensitive habitat. No invasive/noxious species shall be allowed within the project's plant palette. Plants that run the risk of cross-breeding with nearby native plants shall not be used. The landscape plan plant palette shall be reviewed by the project biologist and the project biologist shall certify in writing, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that the plant palette is appropriate and meets this standard prior to approval of the landscape plan by the City of Carlsbad. 15. The project shall control irrigation of landscaping adjacent to the HMP Preserve to prevent runoff into it. 16. Lighting on the building and parking areas adjacent to the HMP preserve shall be of the minimum footcandles necessary for safety and security and shall be shielded and directed to shine downward and not into the HMP Preserve. Lighting restrictions shall be included in the project CC&R's. Monitoring Type Include on Landscape Plans On-going Review with Building Permits Include in project CC&R's Monitoring Department Planning Department Planning Department Planning Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation •• •'•'• :' • . . ' . • .'....' Remarks Explanation 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, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other RD - Appendix P.