HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-05-02; Planning Commission; Resolution 62851 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6285
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
4 TO FOR THE SUBDIVISION, GRADING, AND
DEVELOPMENT OF A 15.02 ACRE SITE INTO NINE
RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND TWO OPEN SPACE LOTS,
6 INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION OF NINE SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCES AND TWO SECOND DWELLING UNITS ON
7 PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF KELLY
DRIVE AND NORTH OF HILLSIDE DRIVE AT THE
8 TERMINUS OF AURA CIRCLE WITHIN THE MELLO II
o SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
10 CASE NO.: GPA 05-06/ZC 05-03/LCPA 05-03/HMP 06-12/
CT 03-10/SDP 05-057 HDP 03-05/CDP 03-32
11 CASE NAME: AURA CIRCLE
12 WHEREAS, Carlsbad Green, LLC, "Owner/Developer," has filed a verified
13
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
14
That portion of Lot "I" of Rancho Agua Hedionda, in the City
15 of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
16 according to Map thereof No. 823, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, November 16, 1896,
17 further described in Attachment "A"
18 ("the Property"); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with
20 said project; and
21
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 2nd day of May, 2007, hold a
22
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
24 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
25 and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
27 relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
28 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
2
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
3 Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Exhibit
4 "ND," according to Exhibits "NOI" dated January 17, 2007, and "PH" dated
, December 18, 2006, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
6
Findings;
7
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:8
a. it has reviewed, analyzed, and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for AURA CIRCLE -
10 GPA 05-06, ZC 05-03, LCPA 05-03, BMP 06-12, CT 03-10, SDP 05-05,
HDP 03-05, and CDP 03-32, the environmental impacts therein identified for
this project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL of the project; and
13 b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program have been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California
14 Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental
Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
, , c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
17
d. based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
18 the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
19 Conditions;
20 1. Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of the Aura Circle Mitigation
21 Monitoring and Reporting Program.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PC RESO NO. 6285 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
i ^12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a
?
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the
following vote, to wit: .
regular meeting of the Planning
2nd day of May, 2007, by the
AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioner Cardosa, Dominguez, Douglas,
Montgomery, and Segall
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Whitton
ABSTAIN:
H=^ H JJL1 ^\^ "t **i\*i't/^'
JULIE BAITER, Chairperson
CARDSBA0 PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
o&bA X I&U
DONNEU
Planning Director
PCRESONO.6285 -3-
--ATTACHMENT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Real property in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, described as
follows:
THAT PORTION OF LOT "I" OF RANCHO AGUA HEDIONDA, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY
OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 823, FILED IN THE
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, NOVEMBER 16, 1896, DESCRIBED
AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING.AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 17, OF LACUNA RIVIERA UNIT NO. 1, IN
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP
THEREOF NO. 5871, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO
COUNTY, APRIL 21, 1967; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID MAP NO. 5871
TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 37 OF LACUNA RIVIERA UNIT NO. 2, IN THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF
NO. 6165, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, AUGUST
8,1968; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID MAP NO. 6165, TO THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 298 OF LACUNA RIVIERA UNIT NO. 9, IN THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF
NO. 7516, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY,
DECEMBER 29, 1972; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID MAP NO. 7516 TO
THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF LOT 286 OF SAID MAP NO. 7516, BEING ON THE
SOUTHERLY LINE OF LOT 131 OF CARLSBAD TRACT NO. 76-15, UNIT 3 (PALISADES POINT), IN
THE OTY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP
THEREOF NO. 10579, FILED IN THE OFRCE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO
COUNTY, JANUARY 31, 1983; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHERLY AND
SOUTHEASTERLy LINES OF LOTS 131 AND 130 OF SAID MAP NO. 10579 TO THE MOST
SOUTHERLY CORNER OF CARLSBAD TRACT NO. 73-8 (CARLSBAD PALISADES) UNIT NO. 1, IN
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP
THEREOF NO. 8039, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO
COUNTY, NOVEMBER 6,1974; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE
OF SAID MAP NO. 8039 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
APN: 207-100-48-00
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME:
CASE NO:
Aura Circle
GPA 05-06/ZC 05-03/LCPA 05-03/HMPP 06-12/CT 03-10/SDP 05-OS/HDP 03-
05/CDP 03-02
PROJECT LOCATION: North of Hillside Drive, west of Kelly Drive at the terminus of Aura Circle
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Local Coastal Program
Amendment, Habitat Management Plan Permit, Tentative Subdivision Map, Site Development Plan,
Hillside Development Permit, and Coastal Development Permit for a proposed 11-lot subdivision. The
subdivision will result in 9 residential lots and 2 open space parcels. Single-family residences are
proposed for development on each of the lots. Open Space Lots 10 and 11 comprise 12.363 acres (82%
of the project area). The open space lots will have new General Plan Land Use and zoning designations
of OS (Open Space). An LCP amendment is required to reflect the new OS designations on the LCP
Land Use Plan and Zoning Maps and a Coastal Development Permit is required for the proposed
subdivision and residential construction.
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
PUBLISH DATE
January 17. 2007 through February 16. 2007
January 17,2007
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME: AURA CIRCLE
CASE NO: GPA 05-06/ZC Q5-03/LCPA 05-03/HMPP 06-12/CT 03-10/SDP 05-05/HDP 03-05/CDP 03-02
PROJECT LOCATION:North of Hillside Drive, west of Kelly Drive at the terminus of Aura Circle
PROJECT: DESCRIPTION: A General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Local Coastal Program Amendment,
Habitat Management Plan Permit, Tentative Subdivision Map, Site Development Plan, Hillside Development
Permit, and Coastal Development Permit for a proposed 11-lot subdivision. The subdivision will result in 9
residential lots and 2 open space parcels. Single-family residences are proposed for development on each of the
lots. Open Space Lots 10 and 11 comprise 12.363 acres (82% of the project area). The open space lots will have
new General Plan Land Use and zoning designations of OS (Open Space). An LCP amendment is required to
reflect the new OS designations on the LCP Land Use Plan and Zoning Maps and a Coastal Development Permit
is required for the proposed subdivision and residential construction.
DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described
project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the
Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part
2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows:
CD _ 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.
|^1 The proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment, but at least one
potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described
on attached sheets. (Mitigated Negative Declaration applies only to the effects that remained to be
addressed).
(~~l Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a
significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in
an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required.
A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on file in the
Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008.
ADOPTED: May 2.2007, pursuant to PC Resolution No. 6285
ATTEST
DON NEU
Assistant Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: GPA 05-06/ZC 05-03/LCPA 05-03/HMPP 06-12/CT 03-10/SDP 05-05/HDP 03-05/CDP 03-02
DATE: December 18. 2006
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Aura Circle
2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: Citv of Carlsbad
3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Barbara Kennedy. 760-602-4626
4. PROJECT LOCATION: North of Hillside Drive, west of Kelly Drive at the terminus of Aura
Circle
5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: Carlsbad Greens. LLC P.O. Box 300489
Escondido. CA 92030 (760) 749-6060 Phone (760)749-6066 Fax
6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RLM - Residential Medium-Low (0-4 du/ac)
7. ZONING: R-1-8000 (Single-Family Residential 8.000 sf minimum lot size)
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 Aura Circle project is located on a 15-acre site in the northwest quadrant of the
City of Carlsbad, west of Kelly Drive, north of Hillside Drive at the terminus of Aura Circle.
Single-family residential land uses surround the site. A General Plan Amendment, Zone Change,
Local Coastal Program Amendment, Habitat Management Plan Permit, Tentative Subdivision
Map, Site Development Plan, Hillside Development Permit and Coastal Development Permit are
required for the proposed subdivision consisting of 9 residential lots with a minimum lot area of
8,000 square feet and 2 open space lots. Open Space Lots 10 and 11 comprise 12.363 acres (82-
percent of the project area). The residential development is clustered on approximately 2.66 acres
located near the south end of the 15-acre parcel. The open space lots will have new Zone and
General Plan Land Use designations of OS (Open Space). The residential lots will retain the
existing RLM (Residential Low-Medium Density) General Plan Land Use and R-1-8,000 Zone
designations. A Local Coastal Program Amendment is required to reflect the new OS General
Plan Land Use and Zoning designations on the Local Coastal Plan Land Use and Zoning Maps.
The site requires 15,353 cy/ac of earthwork to accommodate development pursuant to the
standards outlined in the City's Habitat Management Plan (HMP), and pursuant to the California
Coastal Commission (CCC) direction for the site's HMP hardline. The proposed plan
concentrates development in the southern portion of the existing lot, resulting in preservation of
3.17 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub with 1.84 acres of impact, preservation of 0.44 acres of Native
Grassland with no impacts, preservation of 0.30 acres of Non-Native Grassland with no impacts,
and preservation of 6.07 acres of Disturbed Habitat with 3.21 acres of impact. These impacts
meet the terms set by the HMP regarding CSS. The impacts will be mitigated per the Carlsbad
HMP.
GPA 05-06/ZA 05-03/LCPA 05-03/HMPP 06-12/CT 03-10/SDP05-05/HDP 03-05/CDP 03-02
AURA CIRCLE
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Agricultural Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
I Geology/Soils
Hazards/Hazardous Materials
Noise
Population and Housing
I • I Hydrology/Water Quality | ] Public Services
I I Land Use and Planning | | Recreation
Mineral Resources
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Transportation/Circulation
Utilities & Service Systems
Rev. 12/06/06
GPA 05-06/ZA 05-03/LCPA 05-03/HMPP 06-12/CT 03-10/SDP05-05/HDP 03-05/CDP 03-02
AURA CIRCLE
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
I _ 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.
I find that the proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis
as described on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects
that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required.
Date
- 06
Acting Planning Director's Signature Date
Rev. 12/06/06
GPA 05-06/ZA 05-03/LCPA 05-03/HMPP 06-12/CT 03-10/SDP05-05/HDP 03-05/CDP 03-02
AURA CIRCLE
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. 12/06/06
GPA 05-06/ZA 05-03/LCPA 05-03/HMPP 06-12/CT 03-10/SDP05-05/HDP 03-05/CDP 03-02
AURA CIRCLE
• 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. 12/06/06
GPA 05-06/ZA 05-03/LCPA 05-03/HMPP 06-12/CT 03-10/SDP05-05/HDP 03-05/CDP 03-02
AURA CIRCLE
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
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
D
D
D
a-d) No Impact. The proposed site is an infill site for the development of 9 single-family residences and two open
space lots. Over 80% of the site will be designated as open space and all graded slopes will be revegetated. The
proposed use is consistent with the surrounding single-family residential uses and will be designed so that it does not
contribute a significant amount of light or glare. Development will be clustered on the lower, less visible portion of
the site and the upper, more visible hillside area will be preserved.
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?
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
D
D
D
D
D D
Rev. 12/06/06
GPA 05-06/ZA 05-03/LCPA 05-03/HMPP 06-12/CT 03-10/SDP05-05/HDP 03-05/CDP 03-02
AURA CIRCLE
a-c) No Impact. There will be no impacts on agricultural resources since the site is not designated as or used as
farmland. The proposed project is consistent with the City of Carlsbad General Plan. The subject site is zoned R-l-
8,000 (Single-family Residential, 8,000 sf min. lot size) and is not subject to a Williamson Act Contract. The project
would not result in other changes to the environment that would result in the conversion of farmland to non-
agricultural uses. The General Plan Land Use designation is Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM), which
anticipates a single-family detached residential development at 0 to 4 du/ac. Given the uneven topography,
surrounding residential development, and lack of existing agricultural infrastructure, it is unlikely that an
agricultural operation would be viable at this location. Development of the site as proposed would not adversely
affect agricultural resources.
HI. 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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
a) No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a state non-attainment area for ozone
(O3) and for paniculate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PMIO). The periodic violations of
national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in
inland foothill areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to
improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality
Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San Diego Association of
Governments (SANDAG).
A Plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state-
mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other California non-attainment areas having
serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by
the Air Resources Board (ARE) after public hearings on November 9th through 10th in 1994, and was forwarded to
Rev. 12/06/06
GPA 05-06/ZA 05-03/LCPA 05-03/HMPP 06-12/CT 03-10/SDP05-05/HDP 03-05/CDP 03-02
AURA CIRCLE
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly
regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996.
The proposed project relates to the SIP and/or RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that are
incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city's and the
County's general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the project
presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that
the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact.
Section 15125(B) of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific
reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality
management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set
forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California
Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the
following:
• Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area?
• Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan?
The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is being
implemented. The project is consistent with the regional air quality plan and will in no way conflict or obstruct
implementation of the regional plan.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is at Camp
Pendleton. Data available for this monitoring site from 2000 through December 2004, indicate that the most recent
air quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (a total of 10 days during the 5-year
period). No other violations of any air quality standards have been recorded during the 5-year time period. The
project would involve minimal short-term emissions associated with grading and construction. Such emissions
would be minimized through standard construction measures such as the use of properly tuned equipment and
watering the site for dust control. Long-term emissions associated with travel to and from the project will be
minimal. Although air pollutant emissions would be associated with the project, they would neither result in the
violation of any air quality standard (comprising only an incremental contribution to overall air basin quality
readings), nor contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Any impact is assessed as
less than significant.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. The air basin is currently in a state non-attainment zone for ozone and
suspended fine particulates. The proposed project would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable
potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated
with the proposed project would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the proposed
project, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. According to
the CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a)(4), the proposed project's contribution to the cumulative impact is
considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than significant.
d) No impact. Kelly Elementary School, a sensitive receptor, is located within 300' of the project. However, as
noted above, the proposed single-family residential development would not result in substantial pollutant emissions
or concentrations. No impact is assessed.
e) No Impact. The construction of the proposed project could generate fumes from the operation of construction
equipment, which may be considered objectionable by some people. Such exposure would be short-term or
transient. In addition, the number of people exposed to such transient impacts is not considered substantial.
Rev. 12/06/06
GPA 05-06/ZA 05-03/LCPA 05-03/HMPP 06-12/CT 03-10/SDP05-05/HDP 03-05/CDP 03-02
AURA CIRCLE
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian,
aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations or by California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filing, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
D
D D
D D
D
D
D
n
a, b, and 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project is for a residential
development located at the end of Aura Circle. The project has been designed to be consistent with the "Hardline
Exhibit (Figure 36) for Aura Circle", included in the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP). The HMP
conservation goals require conservation of the majority of sensitive habitats in or contiguous with biological core
areas, 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 20-foot buffer is
required for all native habitats other than riparian and wetland habitats between preserved habitats and development.
The HMP requires preservation of 67% the Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (DCSS) on site. Additionally, there shall be
"no net loss" of DCSS. Project impacts to DCSS require a 2:1 mitigation ratio 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.
The site contains four vegetative communities: Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (DCSS), Native Grasslands, Non-native
grasslands, and disturbed habitat. The proposed development results in impacts to disturbed habitat and DCSS as
Rev. 12/06/06
GPA 05-06/ZA 05-03/LCPA 05-03/HMPP 06-12/CT 03-10/SDP05-05/HDP 03-05/CDP 03-02
AURA CIRCLE
illustrated below. In accordance with the HMP hardline developed for the project, the project will preserve 63.3%
of the existing DCSS. All of the preserved DCSS is located within the hardline preserve area of the site. All
impacted DCSS is located within the areas shown in the HMP as being allowed for development. Because less than
67% of the DCCS will be preserved (as allowed by the hardline) the project will provide mitigation at a higher ratio
(3:1 instead of 2:1) for impacts to 1.84 acres of DCSS through on-site creation of DCSS within the disturbed areas
of the site to ensure "no net loss" of this habitat type. The project would create 5.457 acres of DCSS on site in
addition to the remaining 3.17 acres of CSS preserved on site. This equals 8.74 acres of DCSS preserved on-site
post-project as compared with the 5.01 acres currently existing on site, for an overall net increase of 3.73 acres of
DCSS. The project proposes Fuel Modification Zones that are located entirely within the graded areas or residential
lots and that do not occur within the HMP Preserve area.
No impacts will occur to the Native grasslands and Non-native grasslands. The majority of impact occurs within the
disturbed area of the site with 3.21 acres of impact. The HMP allows impacts to disturbed habitat to be mitigated by
payment of an in-lieu mitigation fee.
The following tables summarize the impacts to vegetation types and proposed mitigation for the impacts as
presented in the Biological Technical Report prepared by Helix Environmental Planning, January 5,2007:
IMPACTS TO VEGETATION COMMUNITIES
VEGETATION
COMMUNITY
Diegan Coastal Sage
Scrub
Native grasslands
Non-native grasslands
Disturbed habitat
TOTAL
TOTAL
ACREAGE
ON SITE
5.01
0.44
0.30
9.28
15.03
GRADING
IMPACTS
1.84
0.00
0.00
3.21
5.05
BRUSH
MANAGEMENT
IMPACTS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
TOTAL
IMPACTS
1.84
0.00
0.00
3.21
5.05
TOTAL ACREAGE
REMAINING AFTER
IMPACTS
3.17
0.44
0.30
6.07
9.98
PROPOSED MITIGATION FOR IMPACTS TO VEGETATION COMMUNITIES
VEGETATION
COMMUNITY
Diegan Coastal Sage
Scrub
Native grasslands
Non-native
grasslands
Disturbed habitat
TOTAL
EXISTING
ACREAGE
5.01
0.44
0.30
9.28
15.03
IMPACTED
ACREAGE
1.84
0.0
0.0
3.2,1
5.05
MITIGATION
RATIO
Required -2:1*
Proposed- 3:1
-
-
In-lieu fee
MITIGATION
REQUIREMENT
3.68 acres of on-site creation
required.
5.57 acres of on-site creation is
proposed where disturbed
habitat occurs on site within the
open space preserve area.
No impacts
No impacts
In-lieu fee
5.57 acres of mitigation
proposed
(3.68 acres required)
Occupied DCSS
10 Rev. 12/06/06
GPA 05-06/ZA 05-03/LCPA 05-03/HMPP 06-12/CT 03-10/SDP05-05/HDP 03-05/CDP 03-02
AURA CIRCLE
Sensitive Plant Species
Two sensitive plant species were observed on site: western dichondra and Del Mar Mesa sand aster. The western
dichondra appears to be an isolated patch that is located within the middle of the proposed development footprint.
According to the Biological Technical Report, the western dichondra is considered sensitive, but impacts to this
species would be considered adverse, but less than significant considering the limited occurrence of the plant (2
individuals) on site and it's relatively low level of sensitivity. The populations of Del Mar Mesa sand aster are
located in the open space preserve areas of the site and would not be impacted by the proposed development.
Sensitive Wildlife Species
One sensitive animal species was observed on site, the coastal California gnatcatcher (CAGN). However, several
other sensitive animal species have the potential to occur within the project boundaries. One of the species, the
Quino checkerspot butterfly is federally listed endangered but is not expected to occur on site.
The Biological Technical report indicates that several observations of CAGN were made throughout the DCSS
communities on site: one male was discovered carrying nest material and at least one pair of CAGN occurs on site.
CAGN is a covered species under the HMP, and mitigation measures have been developed to reduce impacts to this
species.
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
5.57 acres of CSS habitat will be created within the disturbed areas of the HMP Preserve area. 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 DCSS 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
ofDCSS.
Indirect Impacts and Additional Mitigation
The project is located adjacent to a proposed hardline preserve area. In order to minimize edge effects, the
Biological Technical Report recommends incorporation of the following adjacency standards as mitigation for the
project to reduce indirect impacts:
1. Fire Management: The project provides a 60-foot wide buffer from proposed structures to the HMP
Preserve boundary except for Lot 9. Lot 9 would have a 30-foot wide buffer from the edge of the structure
to the HMP Preserve, of which 20 feet would be within Zone 3. A solid block or masonry wall would be
constructed 10 feet from the structure clearly demarcating the backyard from the Zone 3 boundary. In
addition, native, low-fuel plant species would be installed within the 20-foot wide Zone 3 area. As such,
implementation of fire management requirements as proposed would be consistent with the HMP buffer
requirements.
2. Erosion Control: 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.
11 Rev. 12/06/06
GPA 05-06/ZA 05-03/LCPA 05-03/HMPP 06-12/CT 03-10/SDP05-05/HDP 03-05/CDP 03-02
AURA CIRCLE
3. Landscaping Restrictions: The project shall not use any non-native, invasive plant species in landscaping
adjacent to the HMP Preserve. The project shall control irrigation of landscaping adjacent to the HMP
Preserve to prevent runoff into it.
4. Fencing. Signs and Lighting: The project shall install fencing that restricts human access to the HMP
Preserve but allows for wildlife movement and does not direct it 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.
Lighting in back yards adjacent to the HMP preserve shall be of the minimum necessary for safety and
security and shall be shielded and directed to shine downward and not into the HMP Preserve. Homeowner
lighting restrictions shall be included in the project CC&R's.
5. Predator and Exotic Species Control: The project shall educate homeowners regarding responsible pet
ownership (e.g., keeping pets indoors, spaying/neutering pets, and not releasing pets into the wild). The
project shall fence areas between housing and the adjacent HMP Preserve to keep pets out of it. For exotic
species control, the project shall not use any non-native, invasive plant species in landscaping adjacent to
the HMP Preserve.
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.
c, d, and e) No Impact. The above Biological Technical Report does not identify any wetlands vegetation on site
and further states that the property is not part of a wildlife corridor area. The site is not connected with other
significant open space areas in the City, since the site is an infill development site that is surrounded by development
on all sides. The property is also not part of the Core and Linkage Area in the City of Carlsbad HMP. The project
has been designed to comply with the City of Carlsbad HMP. No tributary areas were identified on site, therefore
no impact is assessed.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi-
cance of an archeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique pale
ontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless
Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
1 No
Jmpact
D
D
D
D D
a, b & d) No Impact. The Cultural Resource Survey for the Aura Circle Project, prepared by Gallegos &
Associates, dated June 2005 included a literature review and field survey of the approximate 15-acre project area.
The literature review and field survey were negative, identifying no prehistoric or historic resources. Given the
12 Rev. 12/06/06
GPA 05-06/ZA 05-03/LCPA 05-03/HMPP 06-12/CT 03-10/SDP05-05/HDP 03-05/CDP 03-02
AURA CIRCLE
absence of previously recorded cultural resources and the native field survey, no additional cultural resource work
was recommended.
c) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The Phase 1 Paleontological Report for Aura Circle
Property, prepared by San Diego Natural History Museum, dated May 12,2005 indicates that the subject property is
underlain by bedrock deposits of member "C" of the Santiago Formation. The report states that there are at least 20
previously recorded fossil localities in the Santiago Formation within a one-mile radius of the site. The project
grading requires a significant amount of removal of Santiago Rock Formation. Removal of this bedrock has the
potential to adversely impact scientifically significant paleontological resources, but also provides an opportunity to
examine a relatively thick potentially fossiliferous section of Santiago Formation.
A mitigation program which involves review of the grading plans, attendance of a paleontologist at grading
meetings and during the grading operation with the authority to direct grading operations to salvage resources, and
curation, at the direction of the property owner, of the resources will mitigate the impacts to a less than significant
level. Areas left in a natural state will also mitigate the impacts to the paleontological resources.
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
D
D
D
D D
13 Rev. 12/06/06
GPA 05-06/ZA 05-03/LCPA 05-03/HMPP 06-12/CT 03-10/SDP05-05/HDP 03-05/CDP 03-02
AURA CIRCLE
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
a. i.) No Impact. There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zones within the City of Carlsbad and there is no
other evidence of active or potentially active faults within the City.
a. ii - iv) Less Than Significant Impact. There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zones within the City of
Carlsbad and there is no other evidence of active or potentially active faults within the City. However, there are
several active faults throughout Southern California, and these potential earthquakes could affect Carlsbad. The
project site is located in an area of generally stable soil conditions and the risk of seismic-related ground failure or
liquefaction is very minimal (according to City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study,
November 1992). The Preliminary Geotechnical Review states that the seismic design parameters presented in the
report should be considered during project planning and design. It is understood that the same building code
standards, which ensure the relative safety of all new residential construction, will be applied to the units constructed
pursuant to the proposed tentative map. The geotechnical report found that by following standard and accepted soil
preparation techniques, the site is suitable for the proposed project, and would not expose people or structures to
fault ruptures, liquefaction or landslides. AH existing artificial fill, Colluvium/Alluvium materials, and loose,
weathered Santiago Formation sediments will require removal and re-compaction according to the recommendations
outlined in the geotechnical report.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. An analysis of surficial stability was performed for graded slopes
constructed of compacted fills and/or bedrock. The analysis indicated that the slopes exhibit an adequate factor of
safety against surficial failure. The project's compliance with standards in the City's Excavation and Grading
Ordinance that prevent erosion through slope planting and installation of temporary erosion control means will avoid
substantial soil erosion impacts.
c - d) Less than Significant Impact. The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation indicates that existing artificial
fill, colluvium/alluviam will require removal and re-compaction according to the recommendations in the report.
On-site soils are generally very low to high in expansion potential and recommendations for foundation design and
construction are presented in the report. The report indicates that development of the property appears to be feasible
form a geotechnical viewpoint, provided the recommendations presented in the report are properly incorporated into
the design and construction of the project.
i
e) No Impact. The proposed project does not propose septic tanks and will utilize the public sewer system.
Therefore, there will be no impacts involving soils that support the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
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?
D D
14 Rev. 12/06/06
GPA 05-06/ZA 05-03/LCPA 05-03/HMPP 06-12/CT 03-10/SDP05-05/HDP 03-05/CDP 03-02
AURA CIRCLE
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or I I
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
D D
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of I I
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, I I
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
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?
D n IEI
D
D
D
a-h) No Impact. The proposed residential 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 map. The site is
consistent with the McClellan Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IEI D
15 Rev. 12/06/06
GPA 05-06/ZA 05-03/LCPA 05-03/HMPP 06-12/CT 03-10/SDP05-05/HDP 03-05/CDP 03-02
AURA CIRCLE
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?
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?
k) Increase erosion (sediment) into receiving surface
waters.
1) Increase pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals,
pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics,
nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash)
into receiving surface waters or other alteration of
receiving surface water quality (e.g. temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
m) Change receiving water quality (marine, fresh or
wetland waters) during or following construction?
D D
D D
D D
D
D
D
D
n
D
D
D D D
16 Rev. 12/06/06
GPA 05-06/ZA 05-03/LCPA 05-03/HMPP 06-12/CT 03-10/SDP05-05/HDP 03-05/CDP 03-02
AURA CIRCLE
n) Increase any pollutant to an already impaired water I I I I 1^7] I I
body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) — '—' ^ '—'
list?
o) Increase impervious surfaces and associated runoff? I 1 I I R7I I 1
p) Impact aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat?
q) Result in the exceedance of applicable surface or
groundwater receiving water quality objectives or
degradation of beneficial uses?
a) Less than Significant Impact. The subject property is required by law to comply with all 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 San Diego Basin." (WQCP) The WQCP
contains specific objectives for the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit which includes the requirement to comply with
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Best Management Practices (BMPs). The project
must also obtain a NPDES permit prior'to construction. The permit will require the project to develop and
implement specific erosion control and storm water pollution prevention plans to protect the downstream water
quality of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. These plans will ensure acceptable water quality standards will be maintained
both during the construction phase as well as post-development.
b) No Impact. This project does not propose to directly draw any groundwater. The project will be served via
existing public water distribution lines adjacent to the site.
c -e) Less than Significant Impact. The Preliminary Hydrology Report for Aura Circle. Buccola Engineering,
Inc., June 13, 2003, indicates that the site has been designed to mimic the historic runoff pattern. The site is
contained within the Agua Hedionda Watershed Basin Designation as indicated on the Master Drainage and Storm
Water Quality Management Plan - City of Carlsbad, California March 1994. The existing topography drains
southeastward within two predominant canyons located in the lower two-thirds of the site. The flows are intercepted
by two exiting B-inlets. The supporting MS4 conveys the runoff south and west. The storm drain continues easterly
to form a confluence with an existing concrete drainage channel. The channel conveys the local basin runoff in a
southerly direction to an exiting outfall location on the northeast end of Agua Hedionda Lagoon.
The site presently contributes an estimated 18.1 cfs into the exiting MS4. Flows will be directed and intercepted in
the same location by the existing MS4. The report shows a combined runoff of 19.1 cfs indicating a modest increase
of 1 cfs for a QIM event storm or 5%. The proposed improvements will not substantially alter the existing drainage
patterns of the site or area or create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of the existing
stormwater drainage system. The project does not propose uses that cause a substantial, additional source of
polluted runoff.
0 Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project improvements is required by law to
comply with all federal, state and local water quality regulations, including the Clean Water Act and associated
NPDES regulations. As mentioned above, the project description includes a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.
Therefore temporary impacts associated with the construction operation will be mitigated. The project will not
result in permanent or long term degradation of water quality as a result of the proposed pollution control program.
g-j) No Impact. The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according to the Flood
Insurance Rate Map. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in the placement of housing or structures and
within a 100-year flood hazard area. According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and
Mapping Study, November 1992, the project site is not located within any dam failure inundation area, or area
subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow.
17 Rev. 12/06/06
GPA 05-06/ZA 05-03/LCPA 05-03/HMPP 06-I2/CT 03-10/SDP05-05/HDP 03-05/CDP 03-02
AURA CIRCLE
k) Less than Significant Impact. The construction phase of the project could result in increased erosion.
However, as a result of the NPDES permit requirements associated with the proposed project, no significant increase
in erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters will result from the project. Urban runoff from the proposed
development will be channeled into the appropriate storm drain receptors as indicated in the project's Preliminary
Storm Water Mitigation Plan prepared by Bucolla Engineering, Inc., dated received October 22, 2004. The greatest
potential for short-term water quality impacts to the drainage basin would be expected during and immediately
following the grading and construction phases of the project, when cleared and graded areas are exposed to rain and
storm water runoff. Standard conditions require compliance with NPDES sediment control requirements during the
construction phase and implementation of the grading construction BMPs for the project.
1 -n) Less than Significant Impact. The SUSUMP states that all projects shall be designed to remove
pollutants of concern through storm water conveyance systems to the maximum extent practicable (MEP) through
the incorporation of treatment control Bump's. In order to remove primary and secondary pollutants of concern, the
Aura Circle project employs a combination of vegetated swales (individual lot landscaping) and a hydrodynamic
separator to reduce Pollutants of Concern. As proposed, subject to compliance with the proposed Bump's, the
project will not result in the increase of pollutants into downstream waters, including Agua Hacienda Lagoon, and
no receiving water quality will be adversely affected through implementation of the proposed project.
o) Less than Significant Impact. The Project will result in an increase in impervious surfaces due to
construction of the roadway and nine residences with associated hard cape. However, over 80% of the site will
remain as undeveloped open space. The site has been designed to maintain pre-development runoff characteristics
by producing a modest increase of 0.67 cuffs in total site runoff and by returning storm drain runoff to historic
outfall locations.
p) No Impact. Runoff from the site will not impact aquatic, wetland or riparian habitat as none of these
habitat types exists on the site or in the vicinity of the site.
q) No Impact. The project will not result in the accidence of applicable surface or groundwater receiving
water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses. Please refer to the preceding responses.
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
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
D D
D
D
D D D
a -c) No Impact. The project is a residential development consistent with the surrounding uses. 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 is consistent with the City of Carlsbad
General Plan. The General Plan Land Use designation is Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM), which
anticipates single-family detached residential development at 0-4 du/ac. The Habitat Management Plan (HMP)
requires the development to be concentrated on the southern portion of the project site as shown on the Hardline
Map (Figure 36 - Aura Circle). Therefore, the project is proposing an amendment to the General Plan Land Use
18 Rev. 12/06/06
GPA 05-06/ZA 05-03/LCPA 05-03/HMPP 06-12/CT 03-10/SDP05-05/HDP 03-05/CDP 03-02
AURA CIRCLE
designations from RLM to RLM and Open Space (OS). The OS designation would be applied to the two open space
lots and the RLM designation would remain on the nine residential lots. Through negotiations with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Services, California Department of Fish and Game, and the City of Carlsbad, the proposed project is
within the predetermined maximum allowable impacts for this particular property. The project does not conflict
with any applicable plans or policies.
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 Less Than
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated 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.
XL 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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
D D D
D n
D D
19 Rev. 12/06/06
GPA 05-06/ZA 05-03/LCPA 05-03/HMPP 06-12/CT 03-10/SDP05-05/HDP 03-05/CDP 03-02
AURA CIRCLE
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?
D D D
b & d) Less than Significant Impact. The anticipated grading operation associated with the proposed tentative
map would result in a temporary and minor increase in groundborne vibration and ambient noise levels. Following
the conclusion of the grading, the ambient noise level and vibrations is expected to return to pre-existing levels
a, c, e & f) No Impact. The project consists of a 9-unit (11 lot) residential subdivision which is consistent in use
and intensity as the surrounding residential development. As such, the project would not result in sustained ambient
noise levels which exceed the established standards. Additionally, the project site is not within the 60 dBA CNEL
influence area of McClellan-Palomar Airport influence area.
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D D
D D
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
D
a-c) No Impact. The area surrounding the proposed development is designated for residential development and
was analyzed in the City's Growth Management Plan accordingly. The proposed development's density is
consistent with the City of Carlsbad General Plan. The General Plan Land Use designation is RLM, which
anticipates single-family detached residential development at 0 - 4 du/ac. The Habitat Management Plan (HMP)
requires the development to be concentrated on the southern portion of the project site. Therefore, the project is
proposing an amendment to the General Plan Land Use designation from RLM to RLM and Open Space (OS). The
project is providing 9 dwelling units which is within the anticipated range of the RLM General Plan Land Use
designation. 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.
20 Rev. 12/06/06
GPA 05-06/ZA 05-03/LCPA 05-03/HMPP 06-12/CT 03-10/SDP05-05/HDP 03-05/CDP 03-02
AURA CIRCLE
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless Less Than
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
D
D
D
D
a) No Impact. Redesignating the subject property's General Plan Land Use designation from RLM to RLM
and OS to provide for nine single-family residential lots and two open space lots with over 12 acres of open space
will not effect the provision and availability of public facilities (fire protection, police protection, schools, parks,
libraries, etc.). The proposed project shall be subject to the conditions and facility service level requirements within
the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1, therefore no significant public service impacts will occur.
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
XIV. RECREATION
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
D
D D
a-b) No Impact. The project's size of 9 dwelling units 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.
21 Rev. 12/06/06
GPA 05-06/ZA 05-03/LCPA 05-03/HMPP 06-12/CT 03-10/SDP05-05/HDP 03-05/CDP 03-02
AURA CIRCLE
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?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn-
outs, bicycle racks)?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
D
D
D
D
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will generate 90 Average Daily Trips (ADT), which is not
substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. This traffic may utilize El
Camino Real. Existing traffic on El Camino Real is 27,000 - 49,000 ADT (2003). While the increase in traffic
from the proposed project may be slightly noticeable, the street system has been designed and sized to accommodate
traffic from the project and cumulative development in the City of Carlsbad and is consistent with the General Plan.
The proposed project would not, therefore, cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street system. The impacts from the proposed project are, therefore, less than
significant.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. SANDAG acting as the County Congestion Management Agency has
designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments
in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The Existing and Buildout average daily traffic (ADT) and
Existing LOS on these designated roads and highways in Carlsbad is:
Rancho Santa Fe Road
El Camino Real
Palomar Airport Road
SR78
1-5
Existing ADT*
17-35
27-49
10-57
124-142
199-216
LOS
"A-D"
"A-C"
"A-D"
*'t?"
"D"
Buildout ADT*
35-56
33-62
30-73
156-180
260-272
1 The numbers are in thousands of daily trips.
22 Rev. 12/06/06
GPA 05-06/ZA 05-03/LCPA 05-03/HMPP 06-12/CT 03-10/SDP05-05/HDP 03-05/CDP 03-02
AURA CIRCLE
The Congestion Management Program's (CMP) acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard is "E", or LOS "F" if
that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (e.g., SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS "F" in 1990). Accordingly, all designated
roads and highways are currently operating at or better than the acceptable standard LOS.
Note that the buildout ADT projections are based on the full implementation of the region's general and community
plans. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan and, therefore, its traffic was used in modeling the
buildout projections. Achievement of the CMP acceptable Level of Service (LOS) "E" standard assumes
implementation of the adopted CMP strategies. Based on the design capacity(ies) of the designated roads and
highways and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at acceptable level(s) of service in the short-
term and at buildout.
c) No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components. The project is consistent with the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the McClellan-Palomar Airport. It would not, therefore, result in a change of air
traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No impact assessed.
d) No Impact. All project circulation improvements will be designed and constructed to City standards; and,
therefore, would not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the City's general plan and
zoning. Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use. No impact assessed.
e) No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and
Police Departments. No impact assessed.
f) No Impact. The proposed project is not requesting a parking variance. Additionally, the project would comply
with the City's parking requirements to ensure an adequate parking supply. No impact assessed.
g) No Impact. The proposed project does not conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation.
The project is located within one-half mile of a major roadway (El Camino Real), where alternative transportation
(bus transit and bicycle and pedestrian access) is provided.
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the
project:
a) Exceed wastewater 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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
D El
D
D D
23 Rev. 12/06/06
GPA 05-06/ZA 05-03/LCPA 05-03/HMPP 06-12/CT 03-10/SDP05-05/HDP 03-05/CDP 03-02
AURA CIRCLE
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?
D D
D
a-g) No Impact. The proposed residential development will be required to comply with all Regional Water
Quality Control Board Requirements. In addition, the Zone 1 LFMP anticipated that the project site would be
developed with a residential use and wastewater treatment facilities were planned and designed to accommodate
future residential uses on the site. All public facilities, including water facilities, wastewater treatment facilities and
drainage facilities, have been planned and designed to accommodate the growth projections for the City at build-out.
The proposed development on the site will increase the demand for these facilities. However, the proposed density
would not result in an overall increase in the City's growth projection in the NE quadrant. Therefore, the project
will not result in development that will result in a significant need to expand or construct new water
facilities/supplies, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage facilities.
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
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
D
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
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
24 Rev. 12/06/06
GPA 05-06/ZA 05-03/LCPA 05-03/HMPP 06-12/CT 03-10/SDP05-05/HDP 03-05/CDP 03-02
AURA CIRCLE
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. Sari Diego Association of Governments (S ANDAG) projects regional growth
for the greater San Diego area, and local general plan land use policies are incorporated into SANDAG projections.
Based upon those projections, region-wide standards, including storm water quality control, air quality standards,
habitat conservation, congestion management standards, etc., are established to reduce the cumulative impacts of
development in the region. All of the City's development standards and regulations are consistent with the region
wide standards. The City's standards and regulations, including grading standards, water quality and drainage
standards, traffic standards, habitat and cultural resource protection regulations, and public facility standards, ensure
that development within the City will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact.
There are two regional issues that development within the City of Carlsbad has the potential to have a cumulatively
considerable impact on. Those issues are air quality and regional circulation. As described above, the project would
contribute to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described
above, 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 residential 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,
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.
25 Rev. 12/06/06
GPA 05-06/ZA 05-03/LCPA 05-03/HMPP 06-12/CT 03-10/SDP05-05/HDP 03-05/CDP 03-02
AURA CIRCLE
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, March 1994.
2. City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad. November
2004.
3. Comprehensive Land Use Plan McClellan-Palomar Airport Carlsbad. California. SANDAG, April 1994.
4. Biological Technical Report. Helix Environmental Planning, Inc., January 5,2007.
5. City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study. November 1992.
6. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Dudek & Associates. June 2005.
7. Preliminary Hydrology Report for Aura Circle. Buccola Engineering, Inc., June 13,2003.
8. Storm Water Mitigation Plan for Aura Circle Tentative Map. Buccola Engineering, Inc., Dated received
October 22, 2004.
9. Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation. Aura Circle proposed 13-Lot Subdivision. GeoSoils, Inc., March 5,
2001.
10. Geotechnical Review of Tentative Map for Aura Circle. GeoSoils. Inc.. August 2.2004.
11. Response to the City Review Comments and Update of the Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Aura
Circle Subdivision. GeoSoils, Inc., September 22,2005.
12. Cultural Resource Survey for the Aura Circle Project. Gallegos & Associates, June 2005.
13. Phase 1 Paleontological Report for Aura Circle Property. San Diego Natural History Museum, May 12,
2005.
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES
1. In accordance with the HMP hardline for the project, the project will preserve 63.2 % of the existing DCSS
and will mitigate at a 3:1 ratio for impacts to 1.84 acres of DCSS through on-site creation of 5.57 acres of
DCSS within the disturbed areas of the site to ensure "no net loss" of this habitat type.
2. Prior to final map recordation or issuance of grading permit, whichever occurs first, a revegetation plan
shall be approved by the USFWS, CDFG, and City of Carlsbad. The HMP hardline allows development
which results in impacts to 36.87% of the habitat and preservation of 63.2 % of the DCSS habitat. The
HMP requires that there be no net loss of DCSS within the coastal zone. Thus, the proposed on-site
creation of 5.57 acres of DCSS for 1.84 acres of impacts shall account for a mitigation ratio of 3:1 which
exceeds the required 2:1 mitigation ratio.
3. Prior to final map recordation or issuance of grading permit, whichever occurs first, mitigation for impacts
to 3.21 acres of disturbed habitat shall be mitigated by payment of an in-lieu mitigation fee.
4. No clearing, grubbing, grading or other construction activities shall occur in the DCSS from February 15 to
August 31, the breeding season of the CAGN.
26 Rev. 12/06/06
GPA 05-06/ZA 05-03/LCPA 05-03/HMPP 06-12/CT 03-10/SDP05-05/HDP 03-05/CDP 03-02
AURA CIRCLE
5. 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 (USF&W, CDF&G), 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 DCSS.
6. Temporary habitat protection fencing shall be installed to protect the habitat during grading and
construction. A City-approved 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.
7. Once grading and construction is completed, the temporary fence shall be removed and a permanent fence
to prevent access to conserved areas by domesticated animals (specifically cats), to the satisfaction of the
Planning Director, shall be placed in an approved location. 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.
8. Fire Management: The project shall provide a 60-foot wide buffer from proposed structures to the HMP
Preserve boundary in all areas except Lot 9. Lot 9 shall have a 30-foot wide buffer from the edge of the
structure to the HMP Preserve, of which 20 feet shall be within Zone 3. A solid block or masonry wall
shall be constructed 10 feet from the structure clearly demarcating the backyard from the Zone 3 boundary.
In addition, native, low-fuel plant species shall be installed within the 20-foot wide Zone 3 area.
9. Erosion Control: 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.
10. Landscaping Restrictions: The project shall not use any non-native, invasive plant species in landscaping
adjacent to the HMP Preserve. The project shall control irrigation of landscaping adjacent to the HMP
Preserve to prevent runoff into it.
11. Fencing. Signs and Lighting: The project shall install fencing that restricts human access to the HMP
Preserve but allows for wildlife movement and does not direct it 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.
Lighting in back yards adjacent to the HMP preserve shall be of the minimum necessary for safety and
security and shall be shielded and directed to shine downward and not into the HMP Preserve. Homeowner
lighting restrictions shall be included in the project CC&R's.
12. Predator and Exotic Species Control: The project shall educate homeowners regarding responsible pet
ownership (e.g., keeping pets indoors, spaying/neutering pets, and not releasing pets into the wild). The
project shall fence areas between housing and the adjacent HMP Preserve to keep pets out of it. For exotic
species control, the project shall not use any non-native, invasive plant species in landscaping adjacent to
the HMP Preserve.
13. 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
27 Rev. 12/06/06
GPA 05-06/ZA 05-03/LCPA 05-03/HMPP 06-12/CT 03-10/SDP05-05/HDP 03-05/CDP 03-02
AURA CIRCLE
space lot(s) which are being conserved 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).
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.
14. 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 5.57 acres of CSS habitat will be created within the disturbed areas of the HMP
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.
15. The following paleontological mitigation measures shall be implemented;
a. Prior to any grading of the project site, a paleontologist shall be retained to perform a walkover
survey of the site and to review the grading plans to determine if the proposed grading will impact
fossil resources.
b. A copy of the paleontologist's report shall be provided to the Planning Director prior to issuance
of a grading permit.
c. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of the site and to
salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the fossils present in the geologic
strata, it may be necessary to collect matrix samples for laboratory processing through fine
screens.
d. The paleontologist shall make periodic reports to the Planning Director during the grading
process.
e. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an exposed fossil in
order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage artifacts.
f. All fossils collected may be donated to a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in
the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum.
28 Rev. 12/06/06
GPA 05-06/ZA 05-03/LCPA 05-03/HMPP 06-12/CT 03-10/SDP05-05/HDP 03-05/CDP 03-02
AURA CIRCLE
g. Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading activities of the project shall
be resolved by the Planning Director and City Engineer.
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
29 Rev. 12/06/06
Page 1 of 10
PROJECT NAME: AURA CIRCLE (revised 3/23/07)FILE NUMBERS: GPA 05-06/ZC 05-03/LCPA 05-03/HMPP 06-
12/CT 03-10/SDP 05-05/HDP 03-05/CDP 03-02
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).
dfti,, -tj? IS !-:!>-; ^Mitilialtijtfiiie'aiBure''"^^ -tJiSfe" -Mf^^'J-^--~ <- > - :; ^,'*pT -™~ ; '*%,, I«l**ltS§«**iW** f *»tl»«l*rjl*B SP^ - <^f'W£~..>,. -> ^^-J^™^ %.„-„:|8i-.\;- MSli Tt'r'lL H-->. •
1 . In accordance with the HMP hardline for the project,
the project will preserve 63.2 % of the existing DCSS
and will mitigate at a 3:1 ratio for impacts to 1 .84
acres of DCSS through on-site creation of 5.57 acres
of DCSS within the disturbed areas of the site to
ensure "no net loss" of this habitat type.
2. A revegetation plan shall be approved by the USFWS,
CDFG, and City of Carlsbad. The HMP hardline
allows development which results in impacts to
36.87% of the habitat and preservation of 63.2 % of
the DCSS habitat. The HMP requires that there be no
net loss of DCSS within the coastal zone. Thus, the
proposed on-site creation of 5.57 acres of DCSS for
1 .84 acres of impacts shall account for a mitigation
ratio of 3:1 which exceeds the required 2:1 mitigation
ratio.
3. Mitigation for impacts to 3.21 acres of disturbed
habitat shall be mitigated by payment of an in-lieu
mitigation fee.
: ',' Morijtojiiiif'rr •
; ,
Prior to
issuance of a
grading permit
or recordation
of Final Map
Prior to
issuance of a
grading permit
or recordation
of Final Map
Prior to
issuance of a
grading permit
or recordation
of Final Map
2lfip^FttientK
Planning
Planning
Planning
;
'.s'lU^ftltf <: --
:35; Verified!? \ '"
tir|p|ernentationr,-'*- 'feSwajii-ipiJ'',€^ s»< >^|ieM!!!l3|*|3'j;;£ f ,
f-ii'M^iffSf'^Sfif' ?
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 descnbing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other
RD - Appendix P.
Page 2 of 10
4. No clearing, grubbing, grading or other construction
activities shall occur in the DCSS from February 15
to August 31, the breeding season of the CAGN.
5. Updated vegetation and sensitive species/rare
plant surveys shall be performed during the
spring. Focused surveys shall be performed
using accepted protocols during the optimal
season for detection.
a. The biological report shall include updated
vegetation mapping to determine if the
constituent components of disturbed habitat
should be reconsidered as disturbed native
vegetation. If it is determined that disturbed
habitats have converted to DCSS or non-
native grasslands, or if additional occurrences
of sensitive species occur within the proposed
development area, impact and mitigation
acreages will need to be revised and
resubmitted to the Wildlife Agencies for
review.
b. Updated protocol surveys for California
Gnatcatcher (CAGN) shall be performed to
ensure that the project meets the HMP
conservation standard of 75% of CAGN on-
site.
c. The population size and location of rare plant
species , specifically Del Mar Mesa sand aster
and Western Dichondra, should be re-
evaluated to determine if additional impacts
to these species should occur due to project
implementation. If populations of these
species have expanded into the development
footprint or if populations have increased in
number, the Wildlife Agencies shall be
Prior to
issuance of a
grading permit
Prior to
issuance of a
grading
permit
';, .Mprjftpnngji
Planning
Planning
~: ,SJjbw^jQ(j_ ' .
iiipipIariSft**'* Ij! :: |li|iH^ iw»Ni®r %^x ri
<
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
Remarks ;
consulted to determine the method to
minimize or avoid impacts to these species
(including transplantation)
d. Focused surveys for Hermes copper shall be
performed during the flight season (i.e., late
May-June) to increase the chances for
detection. If detected on site, avoidance,
minimization and mitigation measures shall be
developed in consultation with the Wildlife
Agencies.
6. The biological report and long-term management
and monitoring plan shall include a map depicting
the project footprint, specifically illustrating the
fuel modification zones with the revised vegetation
overlay.
Prior to
issuance of a
grading
permit
Planning
7. 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 (USF&W, CDF&G), upon
completion of a breeding/nesting bird survey in
accordance to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
In order to protect breeding CAGN and active
raptor nests, if construction is to occur during
raptor breeding season, a qualified biologist shall
conduct pre-construction surveys on site and in
adjacent habitat/open space to determine the
location of any active raptor nests. The Wildlife
Agencies shall be notified if any active nests are
found. During construction, no activity shall occur
Prior to
issuance of a
grading permit
Planning
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 4 of 10
Remarfcs*
within 500 feet for raptors or listed species unless
measures are implemented to minimize noise and
disturbance to the breeding activities.
If nests are present, no grading or removal of habitat
may take place within 500 200 feet of active nesting
sites during the nesting/breeding season (Raptors -
as early as January and for CAGN 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 DCSS.
8. Temporary habitat protection fencing shall be installed
to protect the habitat during grading and construction.
A City-approved 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.
Prior to
issuance of a
grading permit
Planning
9. Once grading and construction is completed, the
temporary fence shall be removed and a permanent
fence to prevent access to conserved areas by
domesticated animals (specifically cats), to the
satisfaction of the Planning Director, shall be placed in
an approved location. 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.
After
completion of
grading
Planning/
Engineering
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
Vejfied Remarks
10. Fire Management: The project shall provide a 60-foot
wide buffer from proposed structures to the HMP
Preserve boundary in all areas except Lot 9. Lot 9
shall have a 30-foot wide buffer from the edge of the
structure to the HMP Preserve, of which 20 feet shall
be within Zone 3. A solid block or masonry wall shall
be constructed 10 feet from the structure clearly
demarcating the backyard from the Zone 3 boundary.
In addition, native, low-fuel plant species shall be
installed within the 20-foot wide Zone 3 area.
Shown on
Landscape
Plans
Planning
11. Erosion Control: 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&Rs so that both
biological and safety goals are met.
During grading
operations
Planning/
Engineering
12. Landscaping Restrictions: The project shall not use
any non-native, invasive plant species in landscaping
adjacent to the HMP Preserve. The project shall
control irrigation of landscaping adjacent to the HMP
Preserve to prevent runoff into it.
Show on
Landscape
Plans
Planning
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
•:Depatmeii Remarks
13. Fencing. Signs and Lighting: The project shall install
fencing that restricts human access to the HMP
Preserve but allows for wildlife movement and does not
direct it 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. Lighting
in back yards adjacent to the HMP preserve shall be of
the minimum necessary for safety and security and
shall be shielded and directed to shine downward and
not into the HMP Preserve. Homeowner lighting
restrictions shall be included in the project CC&Rs.
Show on
Landscape
Plans
Planning
14. Predator and Exotic Species Control: The project shall
educate homeowners regarding responsible pet
ownership (e.g., keeping pets indoors,
spaying/neutering pets, and not releasing pets into the
wild). The project shall fence areas between housing
and the adjacent HMP Preserve to keep pets out of it.
For exotic species control, the project shall not use any
non-native, invasive plant species in landscaping
adjacent to the HMP Preserve.
Include in
project CC&Rs
Planning
15. 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 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.
Prior to
issuance of a
grading permit
or recordation
of Final Map
Planning
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
15. (cont.)
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.
f. A conceptual restoration plan and restoration
monitoring program, as well as a long-term
management plan shall be prepared in
accordance with the guidelines for preserve
management as outlined in the Final MHCP
(Vol. 1, Section 6.3, pages 6-7).
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
MoiitSrir
Implementation Remarks
16. 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
5.57 acres of CSS habitat will be created within the
disturbed areas of the HMP 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.
Prior to
issuance of a
grading permit
or recordation
of Final Map
Planning
17. The following paleontological mitigation measures
shall be implemented;
a. Prior to any grading of the project site, a
paleontologist shall be retained to perform a
walkover survey of the site and to review the
grading plans to determine if the proposed grading
will impact fossil resources.
b. A copy of the paleontologist's report shall be
provided to the Planning Director prior to issuance
of a grading permit.
Prior to
issuance of a
grading permit
Planning/
Engineering
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
Storing
rype
MonitoJIg
Depar
Shown on
17. (cont.)
c. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to
perform periodic inspections of the site and to
salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature
of some of the fossils present in the geologic strata,
it may be necessary to collect matrix samples for
laboratory processing through fine screens.
d. The paleontologist shall make periodic reports to
the Planning Director during the grading process.
e. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or
direct grading in the area of an exposed fossil in
order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary,
salvage artifacts.
f. All fossils collected may be donated to a public,
non-profit institution with a research interest in the
materials, such as the San Diego Natural History
Museum.
g. Any conflicts regarding the role of the
paleontologist and the grading activities of the
project shall be resolved by the Planning Director
and City Engineer.
18. Prior to commencement of grading, the
developer shall enter into a pre-excavation
agreement with a representative of the San Luis
Rey Band of Mission Indians. The purpose of
the agreement will be to formalize procedures
for the treatment of Native American human
remains, burial, ceremonial, or cultural sites
that may be uncovered during any ground
disturbance activity. Monitoring of the grading
shall be performed by knowledgeable Luisenos
or archeologists.
Verification
prior to
issuance of a
grading
permit
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
19. Prior to the commencement of grading, the
grading contractor shall meet with the monitor
to determine when grading and monitoring will
take place. Field monitors shall have the
authority to temporarily halt grading and
examine prehistoric resources if, they are
encountered.
-\ '' ^ -'/tUPs^'*'-
Ongoing
during
grading
operations
Planning/
Engineering
:::..:• ;^rffled|>^-;,
Implementation '
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.
us.awnSBKVX
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
6010 Hidden Valley Road
Carlsbad, California 92011
(760)431-9440
FAX (760) 431-5902
California Department of Fish and Game
South Coast Region
4949 Viewridge Avenue
San Diego, California 92123
(858) 467-4201
FAX (858) 467-4299
In Reply Refer To:
FWS-SDG-2960.1
Mr. Don Nue
Acting Planning Director
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008-7314
Subject: Comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Aura Circle Project in the
City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California
Dear Mr. Nue:
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the California Department of Fish and
Game (Department), hereafter referred to collectively as the Wildlife Agencies, have reviewed
the above-referenced project Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) that was received by our
offices on January 19,2007. The comments provided herein are based on: the information
provided in the MND and the January 5,2007 Biological Technical Report prepared by Helix
Environmental Planning, Inc.; the Wildlife Agencies' knowledge of sensitive and declining
vegetation communities in San Diego County; and our participation in regional conservation
planning efforts, including the North San Diego County Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan
(MHCP) and the City's approved Subarea Habitat Management Plan (HMP).
The primary concern and mandate of the Service is the protection of public fish and wildlife
resources and their habitats. The Service has legal responsibility for the welfare of migratory
birds, anadromous fish, and endangered animals and plants occurring in the United States. The
Service is also responsible for administering the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The Department is a Trustee Agency and a Responsible Agency
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Sections 15386 and 15381,
respectively. The Department is responsible for the conservation, protection, and management of
the state's biological resources, including rare, threatened, and endangered plant and animal
species, pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and other sections of the
Fish and Game Code. The Department also administers the Natural Community Conservation
Planning Program (NCCP).
The proposed project is located on a 15-acre site in the northwest quadrant of the City of
Carlsbad, west of Kelly Drive, north of Hillside Drive, at the terminus of Aura Circle. Single-
family residential land uses surround the site. According to Figure 36 in the HMP, the project
site is located within the Coastal Zone and a Proposed Hardline Preserve Area and is identified as
Mr. Don Nue (FWS-SDG-2960.1) Page 2
Urban/Developed. The project includes the subdivision of the 15-acre parcel into nine residential
lots and two open space parcels. The proposed residential lots would be located in the southern
portion of the site to conform to the proposed hardline preserve as described in the City's HMP.
Vegetation and species surveys for the project were completed in June 1999. The biological
technical report identifies the site as supporting mostly disturbed habitat (approximately 9.28
acres), Diegan coastal sage scrub (DCSS, approximately 5.01 acres), native grasslands
(approximately 0.44 acres) and non-native grasslands (approximately 0.30 acres). The MND
identifies the loss of 1.84 acres of DCSS and 3.21 acres of disturbed habitat due to project
implementation. Native and normative grasslands on site will be preserved. Sensitive species
observed on site include Del Mar Mesa sand aster (Corethrogyne filaginifolia var. Unifolia),
western dichondra (Dichondra occidentalis), and coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila
californica californica\ gnatcatcher).
' /
Mitigation measures include on-site creation of 5.57 acres of DCSS in addition to preservation of
the remaining onsite DCSS (approximately 3.17 acres). A total of 8.74 acres of DCSS on site
will be dedicated to the City's HMP preserve. Impacts to disturbed habitat will be mitigated
through the payment of an in-lieu fee. Fuel modification zones will be located outside the HMP
preserve areas. A long-term management and maintenance plan, including fire and preserve
management programs, will be developed for the open space areas. The MND requires
recordation of a conservation easement over the open space lots and establishment of a non-
wasting endowment to manage and monitor these areas in perpetuity.
Based on our review of the MND, we are pleased to find that the proposed project is, for the most
part, consistent with the MHCP and HMP. The Wildlife Agencies offer the following
recommendations and comments to assist the City in avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating
project impacts to biological resources, and assure that the project is entirely consistent with the
MHCP and HMP.
1. We recommend that, prior to finalizing the MND, updated vegetation and sensitive
species/rare plant surveys be performed this spring to ensure that conditions have not
changed substantially from 1999, when the original survey work was prepared. Focused
surveys should be performed using accepted protocols during the optimal season for
detection. Results from sensitive species surveys are generally valid for one year.
a. The biological report should use updated vegetation mapping to determine
whether the constituent components of disturbed habitat should be reconsidered as
disturbed native vegetation (e.g., disturbed DCSS). If it is demonstrated that
disturbed habitats have converted to DCSS or non-native grasslands, or if
additional occurrences of sensitive plant species occur within the proposed
development area, impact and mitigation acreages will need to be revised and
resubmitted to the Wildlife Agencies for review.
b. For projects within the Coastal Zone, the HMP requires a conservation standard of
75 percent of gnatcatchers on-site. Updated protocol surveys for the gnatcatcher
should be performed to ensure the proposed project will meet this standard.
Mr. Don Nue (FWS-SDG-2960.1) Page 3
c. The population size and location of rare plant species, specifically Del Mar Mesa
sand aster and Western dichondra, should be re-evaluated to determine if
additional impacts to these species will occur due to project implementation. If
populations of Del Mar Mesa sand aster have expanded into the project footprint
or if the population of Western dichondra has increased in number, the Wildlife
Agencies should be contacted to determine the best way to minimize or avoid
impacts to these species (including the possibility for transplantation).
d. Hermes copper is identified as a narrow endemic species in the HMP. The report
indicates that redberry (Rhamnus croced), the larval host plant for Hermes copper
butterflies, was observed during surveys. Known populations of this species
require flat-topped buckwheat (Eriogonwnfasciculatum) nearby as a nectar source
for adults (Dan Marschalek, pers. comm.). As both of these plant species have
been observed on site, we recommend that focused surveys for Hermes copper be
performed on site. Surveys should be performed during the flight season (i.e., late
May-June) to increase the chances of detection. If detected on site, avoidance,
minimization, and mitigation measures should be developed in consultation with
the Wildlife Agencies and City and implemented to ensure consistency with the
narrow endemic policies in the HMP.
2. The final MND and the long-term management and monitoring plan should include a map
depicting the project footprint, specifically illustrating fuel modification zones, with the
revised vegetation overlay.
3. The applicant should prepare a conceptual restoration plan and a restoration monitoring
program, as well as a long-term management plan, in accordance with the guidelines for
preserve management as outlined in the Final MHCP (Vol. 1, Section 6.3, page 6-7).
4. Pursuant to sections 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code, it is unlawful to take,
possess or destroy any bird or nest or eggs of any bird in the orders Falconiformes and
Strigiformes. The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act also prohibits the take of active
migratory birds' nests. Therefore, in addition to the avoidance and minimization
measures in the MND to protect breeding gnatcatchers, the final MND should require
measures to protect active raptor nests. The final MND should require that, if
construction (including removal of vegetation) is to occur during raptor breeding season
(e.g., in southern California, red-tailed hawks are known to lay eggs as early as January),
a qualified biologist conduct pre-construction surveys on site and in adjacent habitat/open
space areas to determine the location of any active raptor nests. The Wildlife Agencies
should be notified if any active nests are found. During construction, no activity shall
occur within 500 feet for raptors or listed species, unless measures are implemented to
minimize the noise and disturbance to the breeding activities.
Mr. Don Nue (FWS-SDG-2960.1) P"ge 4
We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on this project. Should you have any
questions regarding this letter, please contact Warren Wong (Department) at (858) 467-424S> or
Marci Koski (Service) at (760) 431-9440.
Sincerely,
Therese CTRourke ^AAMichael J. Mulligan
Assistant Field Supervisor -k^ Deputy Regional Manager
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service California Department of Fish and Game
cc: Barbara Kennedy, City of Carlsbad
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
March 28,2007
Therese O'Rourke
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
6010 Hidden Valley Road
Carlsbad, CA 92011
Michael J. Mulligan
California Dept. Fish & Game
4949 Viewridge Ave.
San Diego, C A 92 123
SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR AURA CIRCLE PROJECT IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, SAN
DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (SCH# 2007011061; AURA CHICLE)
Thank you for your joint comment letter dated February 16, 2007 on the Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) for the Aura Circle project located west of Kelly Drive, North of Hillside
Drive at the at the terminus of Aura Circle in Carlsbad, California. In response to your letter,
the mitigation measures hi the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attached)
have been revised (shown hi bold type). Recirculation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration
is not required pursuant to CEQA Section 15073.5 because the revisions do not qualify as
"substantial revisions", no new avoidable significant impacts were identified, and mitigation
measures are replaced with equal or more effective measures pursuant to CEQA Section
15074.1.
If you have any questions regarding the revised Mitigation Measures, please contact me at
760-602-4626.
Sincerely,
BARBARA KENNEDY, AICP
Associate Planner
BK:bh
Attachment: Aura Circle Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (revised 3/23/07)
C: MarciKoski,USFWS
Warren Wong, CDFG
Jack Henthorn, Henthorn & Associates
Don Neu, Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
•RU8LIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
320 WEST4'm'STR££T, SUITS 600
•t-OS ANSEt€S, CA 90013
February 13,2007
Barbara Kennedy
CityofCarisbad
H>35 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Ms. Kennedy:
Re: SCH#20070Hd&l: Aura Circle
The California Public Utilities Commission (Commission) has jurisdiction over the safety of
highway-rail ciOBsis^^CFOSsings) in California. The California Public Utilities Code r-equwes
Commission approval $br the cons&uction or alteration of crossings and grants theCommtssion
-exclusive poweron "flje^esign, alteration, and closure of crossings.
The-Commission is in receipt of <&e Notice of Completion & Environmental Document Transmittal
irom the StateCkaringhoisse.Commissron staff is -concerned that die new-development at North
Hillside Drive, westofKelly,4eiminus of A«raCirck<las=33.148259Jong==-n7.3HS4) will cause
an increase in coagestion at 4he nearby highway-rail grade crossings on Tamarack Avenue (DOT*
026822L) and Caonon Road <DOT# «26824A).
Mitigation measles to consider include, but are not limited to, grade separation of major
tiioroughfases, safety improvements to«exreting at-gra.de highway^ail -crossings tlueio an increase in
fraffic volumes and appropriate-fencing to limit the access of trespassers to railroad right-of-way.
Please advise us on the^siafcis of4he project. If you have any questions in this matter, please <x>ntact
me at (213) 516-^07i8t>r at«m@epucxa;gov.
'Rosa
Utilities
Rail Crossings Eng^ering Section
Consumer Protection^ "Safety Division
C: Richard Walker, NCTD
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
March 28,2007
Rosa Munoz
Public Utilities Commission
320 West 4th Street, Suite 500
Los Angeles, CA 90013
SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR AURA CIRCLE PROJECT IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, SAN
DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (SCH# 2007011061; AURA CHICLE)
Thank you for your comment letter dated February 13, 2007 on the Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) for the Aura Circle project located west of Kelly Drive, North of Hillside
Drive at the at the terminus of Aura Circle in Carlsbad, California.
The development proposal consists of an 11 -lot subdivision and the construction of nine
single-family residences, two with second dwelling units; and two open space lots. The
project site is located approximately 2.5 miles from the highway-rail grade crossing on
Tamarack Avenue and 3.7 miles from the crossing at Cannon Road (driving distances).
While we appreciate your comments to consider mitigation measures, including grade
separation of major thoroughfares, safety improvements to existing at-grade crossings, and
fencing to limit access of trespassers to the railroad right-of-way, this project would have a
less than significant effect on the existing at-grade highway-rail crossings and therefore, there
is no nexus for requiring these mitigation measures.
However, if hi the future, the Public Utilities Commission develops a regional fair-share
program for improvements to existing at-grade highway-rail crossings the City could
consider requesting that developers contribute a cash-in-lieu payment to an adopted
improvement program.
Thank you again for your comments. If you have any additional questions, please contact me
at 760-602-4626.
Sincerely,
BARBARA KENNEDY, AICP
Associate Planner
C: Jack Henthorn, Henthorn & Associates
Don Neu, Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 » (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 « www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us