HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-11-05; Planning Commission; Resolution 64981 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6498
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
4 AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
, PROGRAM TO ALLOW FOR THE SUBDIVISION, GRADING,
AND DEVELOPMENT OF A 5.05-ACRE SITE INTO TWELVE
6 (12) RESIDENTIAL LOTS, TWO (2) OPEN SPACE LOTS, AND
ONE (1) PRIVATE STREET LOT; AND CONSTRUCTION OF
7 TWELVE (12) DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING
UNITS, AND THREE (3) SECOND DWELLING UNITS ON
8 PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST
9 CORNER OF BLACK RAIL ROAD AND AVENA COURT
EAST IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 20.
10 CASE NAME: SEASCAPE
CASE NO.: GPA 05-11/ZC 05-10/LCPA 05-06/CT 05-
11 18/PUD 05-14/SDP 05-12/CDP 05-37/HDP
Q6-Q2/HMP 07-09
13 WHEREAS, Rajeev Bhatia, "Developer," has filed a verified application with
14 the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Ron Vandermooren and Rajeev Bhatia,
15 "Owner," described as:
16 Parcel IB:
17
The Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the
18 Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 27,
10 Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernadino Base and
Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State
20 of California, according to the official plat thereof; and
21 Parcel 2B:
99 The Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the
23 Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 27,
Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernadino Base and
24 Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State
of California, according to the official plat thereof; and
25
Parcel 3B:
27 An easement for road and public utility purposes over, under,
upon and across the westerly 30 feet of the south half of the
28 Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast
Quarter of Section 27, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San
Bernadino Base and Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County
of San Diego, State of California, according to the official plat
2 thereof; and
3 Parcel 4B:
4 An easement for road and public utility purposes over, under,
- along and across the westerly 30 feet of the Northwest Quarter
of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section
6 27, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernadino Base
and Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego,
7 State of California, according to the official plat thereof
8 ("the Property"); and
9 WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and
10
Reporting Program was prepared in conjunction with said project; and
11
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on November 5, 2008, hold a duly
13 noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
14 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
15 and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
17
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
18
Program.19
20 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
21 Commission as follows:
22 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
23 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
24 Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Exhibit
25 "MND," according to Exhibits "Notice of Intent (NOI)," and "Environmental
Impact Assessment Form - Initial Study (EIA)," attached hereto and made a part
2" hereof, based on the following findings:
27
28
PC RESO NO. 6498 -2-
Findings:
2 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
3
a. it has reviewed, analyzed, and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for SEASCAPE - GPA 05-
11/ZC 05-10/LCPA 05-06/CT 05-18/PUD 05-14/SDP 05-12/CDP 05-37/HDP
06-02/HMP 07-09, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project
and said comments thereon, and the Program, on file in the Planning Department,
prior to RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the project; and
7
b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Program have been prepared in
accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the
n State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of
Carlsbad; and
10
c. they reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
L 1 Carlsbad; and
12 d. based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, the Planning Commission, finds
13 that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on
the environment.
14
2. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed
to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the
degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
17
Conditions:
18
1. Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the SEASCAPE - GPA 05-
19 11/ZC 05-10/LCPA 05-06/CT 05-18/PUD 05-14/SDP 05-12/CDP 05-37/HDP 06-
2Q 02/HMP 07-09 Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PC RESO NO. 6498 -3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on November 5, 2008, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
Commissioners Baker, Boddy, Cardosa, Dominguez, Montgomery,
and Chairperson Whitton
ABSENT: Commissioner Douglas
ABSTAIN:
/FRA
/ n AO
.NK H. WHITTON, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
DON NEU
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 6498 -4-
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME: Seascape
CASE NO: GPA 05-11/ZC 05-10/LCPA 05-06/CT 05-18/PUD 05-14
SDP 05-12/CDP 05-37/HDP 06-02/HMP 07-09
PROJECT LOCATION: Northeast corner of Black RaM Road and Avena Court East
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project site is 5.05 acres in size and is located on the northeast corner
of Black Rail Road and Avena Court East. The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment (GPA
05-11), a Zone Change (ZC 05-10), and Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 05-06) to change the
General Plan Land Use designation from Residential Low-Medium density (RLM) to RLM and Open Space
(OS), and to change the zoning designation from Limited Control (L-C) to One-Family Residential (R-l) and
OS. The application also includes a Tentative Subdivision Map (CT 05-18), Planned Development Permit
(PUD 05-14), Site Development Plan (SDP 05-12), Coastal Development Permit (CDP 05-37), Hillside
Development Permit (HDP 06-02), and a Minor Habitat Management Plan Permit (HMP 07-09) to allow for
the subdivision of the 5.05-acre site into 15 lots (12 residential, 2 open space, and 1 private street). The
project includes the construction of 12 single-family homes, 3 of which will include detached second
dwelling units. The site is presently vacant of any uses or structures. However, past uses of the site
involved agricultural production and included greenhouses. Topographically, the site slopes gently
downward from east to west. It is predominately flat with the exception of manufactured slopes greater than
40% along the south and west property lines. A 150-ft wide SDG&E easement bisects the site diagonally in
a northwest/southeast direction. Surrounding land uses include single-family residential to the north, Avena
Court East and single-family residential to the south, open space (Aviara Master Plan) to the east, and Black
Rail Road and a single-family home to the west.
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:
[X] 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 the attached
sheet have been added to the project.
A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Mitigated Negative
Declaration is on file in theiPlanning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008.
ADOPTED: [CLICK HERE date] . pursuant to
[CLICK HERE Administrative Approval. PC/GC Resolution No.; or CG Ordinance No.1
ATTEST:
DON NEU
Planning Director
F1Li0H
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
CASE NAME:
CASE NO:
PROJECT LOCATION:
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Seascape
GPA 05-11/ZC 05-10/LCPA 05-06/CT 05-18/PUD 05-14
SDP 05-12/CDP 05-37/HDP 06-02/HMP 07-09
Northeast corner of Black Rail Road and Avena Court East
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project site is 5.05 acres in size and is located on the northeast corner
of Black Rail Road and Avena Court East. The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment
(GPA 05-11), a Zone Change (ZC 05-10), and Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 05-06) to
change the General Plan Land Use designation from Residential Low-Medium density (RLM) to RLM
and Open Space (OS), and to change the zoning designation from Limited Control (L-C) to One-Family
Residential (R-l) and OS. The application also includes a Tentative Subdivision Map (CT 05-18),
Planned Development Permit (PUD 05-14), Site Development Plan (SDP 05-12), Coastal Development
Permit (CDP 05-37), Hillside Development Permit (HDP 06-02), and a Minor Habitat Management Plan
Permit (HMP 07-09) to allow for the subdivision of the 5.05-acre site into 15 lots (12 residential, 2 open
space, and 1 private street). The project includes the construction of 12 single-family homes, 3 of which
will include detached second dwelling units. The site is presently vacant of any uses or structures.
However, past uses of the site involved agricultural production and included greenhouses.
Topographically, the site slopes gently downward from east to west. It is predominately flat with the
exception of manufactured slopes greater than 40% along the south and west property lines. A 150-ft
wide SDG&E easement bisects the site diagonally in a northwest/southeast direction. Surrounding land
uses include single-family residential to the north, Avena Court East and single-family residential to the
south, open space (Aviara Master Plan) to the east, and Black Rail Road and a single-family home to the
west.
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 Jason Goff in the
Planning Department at (760) 602-4643.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD
PUBLISH DATE
August 20. 2008 - September 19. 2008
August 20, 2008
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - INITIAL STUDY
CASE NO: GPA 05-11/ZC 05-10/LCPA 05-06/CT 05-18/PUD 05-14/SDP 05-12/CDP 05-37/
HDP 06-02/HMP 07-09
DATE: 08/08/2008
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Seascape
2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad
3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Jason Goff. Associate Planner, (160) 602-4643
4. PROJECT LOCATION: NE corner of Black Rail Road and Avena Court East
5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: Roger Bhatia. CIVCOM & Associates. 5850
Overlin Drive, Suite 350, San Diego, CA 92121
6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RLM (Residential Low-Medium Density)
7. ZONING: L-C (Limited Control)
8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing
approval or participation agreements): none
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
The project site is 5.05 acres in size and is located on the northeast corner of Black Rail Road and
Avena Court East. The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment (GPA 05-11), a
Zone Change (ZC 05-10), and Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 05-06) to change the
General Plan Land Use designation from Residential Low-Medium density (RLM) to RLM and
Open Space (OS), and to change the zoning designation from Limited Control (L-C) to One-
Family Residential (R-l) and OS. The application also includes a Tentative Subdivision Map (CT
05-18), Planned Development Permit (PUD 05-14), Site Development Plan (SDP 05-12), Coastal
Development Permit (CDP 05-37), Hillside Development Permit (HDP 06-02), and a Minor
Habitat Management Plan Permit (HMP 07-09) to allow for the subdivision of the 5.05-acre site
into 15 lots (12 residential, 2 open space, and 1 private street). The project includes the
construction of 12 single-family homes, 3 of which will include detached second dwelling units.
The site is presently vacant of any uses or structures. However, past uses of the site involved
agricultural production and included greenhouses. Topographically, the site slopes gently
downward from east to west. It is predominately flat with the exception of manufactured slopes
greater than 40% along the south and west property lines. A 150-ft wide SDG&E easement
bisects the site diagonally in a northwest/southeast direction. Surrounding land uses include
single-family residential to the north, Avena Court East and single-family residential to the south,
open space (Aviara Master Plan) to the east, and Black Rail Road and a single-family home to the
west.
GPA 05-11/ZC 05-10/LCPA 05-06/CT 05-18/PUD 05-14/SDP 05-12/CDP 05-37/HDP 06-02/HMP 07-09
Seascape
The project site is also located in an area that is subject to the requirements of the Zone 20
Specific Plan, approved by the City Council in 1994. A Program EIR (PEIR) (EER 90-03) was
certified for the Zone 20 Specific Plan. The Zone 20 PEIR indentified, analyzed, and
recommended mitigation to reduce potential significant impacts to insignificant levels. The Zone
20 PEIR analyzed potential impacts to agriculture, air quality, biology, circulation, land use,
noise, pesticide residue, paleontology, public facilities financing, soils/geology, and visual
aesthetics that could result from the development of the Specific Plan area. The PEIR is intended
to be used in the review of subsequent projects within Zone 20. The project incorporates the
required Zone 20 PEER, mitigation measures, and through the analysis of the required additional
plans, reports, and studies pertaining to biological resources, cultural resources, paleontological
resources, geotechnical, Phase I Environmental, hydrology, and storm water management, a
determination has been made that with the implementation of mitigation measures no additional
significant impacts beyond those identified and mitigated by the PEER will result from this
project. The Zone 20 PEIR and additional technical studies are cited as source documents for this
environmental evaluation.
Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 05-11/ZC 05-10/LCPA 05-06/CT 05-18/PUD 05-14/SDP 05-12/CDP 05-37/HDP 06-02/HMP 07-09
Seascape
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
X Biological Resources
X Cultural Resources
Geology/Soils X Noise
Hazards/Hazardous Materials LJ Population and Housing
Hydrology/Water Quality | | Public Services
I Land Use and Planning
Mineral Resources
X Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Recreation
Transportation/C irculation
Utilities & Service Systems
Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 05-11/ZC 05-10/LCPA 05-06/CT 05-18/PUD 05-14/SDP 05-12/CDP 05-37/HDP 06-02/HMP 07-09
Seascape
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have
been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis
as described on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects
that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required.
Date 7 f
Planning Director's Signature Date
Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 05-11/ZC 05-10/LCPA 05-06/CT 05-18/PUD 05-14/SDP 05-12/CDP 05-37/HDP 06-02/HMP 07-09
Seascape
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental
Impact Assessment (ElA) 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. 12/13/07
GPA 05-11/ZC 05-10/LCPA 05-06/CT 05-18/PUD 05-14/SDP 05-12/CDP 05-37/HDP 06-02/HMP 07-09
Seascape
• 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. 12/13/07
GPA 05-11/ZC 05-10/LCPA 05-06/CT 05-18/PUD 05-14/SDP 05-12/CDP 05-37/HDP 06-02/HMP 07-09
Seascape
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 No
Impact Impact
a, c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located along the east side of Black Rail Road, with golf
course and valley views available to the east, and distant ocean views available to the southwest. To the north and
south are two-story single-family homes. There are no public scenic vistas available from the site or across the site.
The project is subject to various site design, architectural, and landscaping standards contained within the Zone 20
Specific Plan, City of Carlsbad Council Policy 44 (Neighborhood Architectural Design Guidelines), City of
Carlsbad Council Policy 66 (Livable Neighborhoods), and the Planned Development and Hillside Development
Chapters of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. All of these policies and regulations are intended to result in the
development of aesthetically appealing projects.
b) No Impact. No trees or rock outcroppings will be impacted by the proposed project. No buildings, including
historic buildings, are located in or adjacent to the site. The area of proposed impact is not located within the
viewshed of a State scenic highway or any State highway that is designated by CalTrans as eligible for listing as a
scenic highway. No impact is assessed.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. The subject site contains no lights and produces no glare at the present time.
However, the proposed project will change the appearance of the subject site from an undeveloped parcel to a
developed site with 12 new single-family homes. Light and glare from the proposed project is not anticipated to be
significantly greater than that projected from other similar uses within the surrounding area. The proposed
development modifications will involve an increase in urban appearance, but will not be dissimilar from the existing
uses in the area. This increase should not result in significant new sources of light and glare, and will not
significantly impact overall views to and from the site.
Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 05-11/ZC 05-10/LCPA 05-06/CT 05-18/PUD 05-14/SDP 05-12/CDP 05-37/HDP 06-02/HMP 07-09
Seascape
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 Mode 1-1997 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
a & c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is identified as an area of non-prime agricultural land in the
Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program (LCP). The conversion of the property from agricultural to urban
development is permitted subject to the payment of an agricultural conversion mitigation fee as specified in Policy
2-1 of the Mello II Segment of the LCP. The project has been conditioned accordingly.
b) No Impact. The subject site is not encumbered by a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, no impact is assessed.
Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 05-11/ZC 05-10/LCPA 05-06/CT 05-18/PUD 05-14/SDP 05-12/CDP 05-37/HDP 06-02/HMP 07-09
Seascape
III. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied
upon to make the following determinations.) Would the
project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected ah" 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 No
Impact Impact
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 particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM)0). 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 Ah" Quality
Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San Diego Association of
Governments (SANDAG).
A Plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state-
mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other California non-attainment areas having
serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by
the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November 9* through 10th in 1994, and was forwarded to
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly
regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996.
The proposed project relates to the SIP and/or RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that are
incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city's and the
County's general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable'General Plan, then the project
presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that
the project would not have an adverse regional ah" 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
Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 05-11/ZC 05-10/LCPA 05-06/CT 05-18/PUD 05-14/SDP 05-12/CDP 05-37/HDP 06-02/HMP 07-09
Seascape
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 General Plan and the regional air quality plan, and therefore 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. As noted above, the proposed would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or concentrations.
In addition, there are no sensitive receptors (e.g., schools or hospitals) located in the vicinity of the project. No
impact is assessed.
e) 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.
10 Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 05-11/ZC 05-10/LCPA 05-06/CT 05-18/PUD 05-14/SDP 05-12/CDP 05-37/HDP 06-02/HMP 07-09
Seascape
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,
filling, 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 No
Impact Impact
a, b, c, & 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The City of Carlsbad has an adopted Habitat
Management Plan (HMP), which is a comprehensive, citywide, program to identify how the City, in cooperation
with the federal and state wildlife agencies, can preserve the diversity of habitat and protect sensitive biological
resources within the City while allowing for additional development consistent with the City's General Plan and its
Growth Management Plan. In so doing, the Plan is intended to lead to citywide permits and authorization for the
incidental take of sensitive species in conjunction with private development projects, public projects, and other
activities, which are consistent with the Plan. As discussed in the subsequent passages, the project does not conflict
with any of the provisions of the HMP.
The 5.05-acre project site is an undeveloped parcel surrounded by detached single-family homes to the north and
south, open space (Aviara Master Plan) to the east, and Black Rail Road to the west. According to the City of
Carlsbad's HMP, the site is identified as a Standards Area, and is located adjacent to an Existing Hardline Preserve
Area.
11 Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 05-11/ZC 05-10/LCPA 05-06/CT 05-18/PUD 05-14/SDP 05-12/CDP 05-37/HDP 06-02/HMP 07-09
Seascape
A habitat assessment of the project site was prepared by Brian F. Smith & Associates on April 17, 2007 and later
revised on October 18, 2007. According to the report, the site is extensively disturbed and supports 2-62-acres of
Agricultural Lands (Greenhouse/Nursery Buildings), 2.10-acres of Disturbed Lands, and 0.33-acres of Developed
Lands (Avena Court East) for a total of 5.05 acres of Group-F Habitat. The developer, in accordance with the
provisions of the HMP, would typically be conditioned as part of the project to pay in-lieu fees for impacts to 5.05-
acres of Group-F Habitat; however, in accordance with Policy 2-1 of the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal
Program, the applicant will instead be conditioned to pay an Agricultural Conversion Mitigation Fee on a per acre
basis, to convert the entire project site (5.05 acres) from agricultural lands to residential development.
Sensitive Plant Species
According to the habitat assessment, no sensitive plant species listed by the United States Fish & Wildlife Service
(USFWS), California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG), or the HMP were observed onsite. A listing of the
sensitive plant species with a potential for occurrence on the project site was prepared. None of the species listed
were identified on the site, and none were listed as likely to occur. The report discusses each species in detail and
provides an explanation for their non-existence or cites several factors which limit their likelihood of occurrence.
Therefore, no impact to sensitive plant species is assessed.
Sensitive Wildlife Species
According to the habitat assessment, no sensitive wildlife species listed by the United States Fish & Wildlife Service
(USFWS), California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG), or the HMP were observed onsite. Suitable habitat for
only one species, the orange-throated whiptail lizard, was observed on the site. However, the quality of the habitat
is listed as marginal, and according to the report, it is not likely that the species is present. Therefore, no impact to
sensitive wildlife species is assessed.
Sensitive Wetland Habitat/Species
According to the habitat assessment, no Riparian/Riverine habitat, wetland habitat, artificially created wetlands,
wetland species, or evidence of jurisdictional waters were observed or identified onsite. Therefore, no impact to
wetland habitat and wetland species is assessed.
Indirect Impacts
The project is located adjacent to an existing HMP Hardline Preserve area. In order to minimize edge effects, the
habitat assessment recommends incorporation of the following adjacency standards as mitigation for the project to
reduce indirect impacts:
1. Fire Management: A Fire Protection Plan has been included as part of the project design and includes a 60-
foot wide fire suppression zone between the proposed structures (Lots 11 and 12) and the HMP Preserve
boundary to the east. Fire Suppression Zones 2 and 3, which are closest to the HMP Preserve boundary,
will be planted with a low water use, naturalizing plant species, known to have low fuel characteristics. As
such, implementation of fire management requirements as proposed would be consistent with the HMP
buffer requirements.
2. Erosion Control: Prior to construction of the proposed project, the project proponent shall develop an
erosion control plan. The plan shall identify areas susceptible to erosion on the property and immediately
adjacent to the existing HMP Preserve Area. All potentially sensitive slopes shall be stabilized and, if
necessary, planted with native vegetation consistent with the plant community in the adjacent preserve area.
The erosion control plan shall contain elements preventing runoff and the transport of fertilizers, pesticides,
and similar materials in the existing HMP Preserve Area.
3. Landscaping Restrictions: The proposed project has been designed to provide an Open Space Lot (Lot 15)
between the existing HMP Preserve Area and residential Lots 11 and 12. A solid 6 ft. tall slumpstone block
wall with glass panels is proposed along the rear property lines of Lots 11 and 12, which will further
separate these two areas. The project shall prohibit the use of any non-native, invasive plant species in
12 Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 05-11/ZC 05-10/LCPA 05-06/CT 05-18/PUD 05-14/SDP 05-12/CDP 05-37/HDP 06-02/HMP 07-09
Seascape
landscaping adjacent to the existing HMP Preserve or in any area where undesirable plant materials may
have the opportunity to spread into the adjacent preserve area. The Final Landscape Plans prepared for the
project shall include a list of HMP non-native invasive plant species that are to be avoided. Lastly, the
project shall control landscape irrigation located adjacent to the existing HMP Preserve in order to prevent
runoff from spreading into it.
4. Fencing, Signs and Lighting: The proposed project has been designed to provide an Open Space Lot (Lot
15) between the existing HMP Preserve Area and residential Lots 11 and 12. A solid 6 ft. tall slumpstone
block wall with glass panels will be provided along the rear property lines of Lots 11 and 12 further
separating these two areas. Where Open Space Lot 15 and the existing HMP Preserve Area meet, a 4 to 5
ft. tall black vinyl coated chain link fence shall be constructed along the entire boundary. Signage shall be
installed on the fence to educate and inform the public about the goals of the HMP Preserve and to prohibit
public access. Lighting in back yards adjacent to the existing HMP preserve area 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: Project CC&R's shall educate homeowners regarding responsible pet
ownership (e.g., keeping pets indoors, spaying/neutering pets, and not releasing pets into the wild). The
project has also been designed to provide an Open Space Lot (Lot 15) between the existing HMP Preserve
Area and residential Lots 11 and 12. Residential Lots 11 and 12 will be further separated from Open Space
Lot 15 and the existing HMP Preserve Area by a solid 6 ft. tall slumpstone block wall with glass panels.
For exotic species control, the project shall not use any non-native, invasive plant species in landscaping
adjacent to the existing HMP Preserve. The use of invasive exotic plant species as listed in the HMP shall
be avoided.
d) Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project is not expected to significantly impede local
wildlife movement or migratory fish or wildlife movement because the subject area has not been identified by the
HMP as a connectivity link or Core Area to be preserved.
e) No Impact. The City of Carlsbad has no adopted free preservation policy or ordinance which would affect the
subject project. The subject project will not impact frees or other biological resources. No frees exist on the subject
site, therefore no impact is assessed.
13 Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 05-11/ZC 05-10/LCPA 05-06/CT 05-18/PUD 05-14/SDP 05-12/CDP 05-37/HDP 06-02/HMP 07-09
Seascape
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
D
D
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
a, b & d) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A Phase I Archaeological Assessment was
prepared for the site by Brian F. Smith and Associates (BFSA) on April 19, 2007. The assessment program was
conducted in accordance with CEQA to determine the presence of any archaeological or historical cultural resources
that could be affected by the proposed project. An intensive pedestrian survey of the site was conducted by BFSA
on March 23, 2007 along with an archeological records search by the South Coastal Information Center (SCIS) at
San Diego State University (SDSU). The results of both were negative for any previously recorded cultural
resources within the project area. In addition to the above, a request to the Native American Heritage Commission
(NAHC) for a Sacred Lands File review was also conducted, which resulted in the determination of no known
resources being found present within the project boundaries. Furthermore, in accordance with the Tribal
Consultation Guidelines for the State of California (California State Senate Bill 18, Chapter 905, Statutes of 2004),
the City of Carlsbad requested consultation with the San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians, Mesa Grande Band of
Mission Indians, Pala Band of Mission Indians, Kwaaymii Laguna Band of Mission Indians, Inaja Band of Mission
Indians, Rincon Band of Mission Indians, San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians, Santa Ysabel Band of Diegueno
Indians, and the Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee. Of those listed, the San Luis Rey Band of Mission
Indians, in a letter dated September 19, 2007 from California Indian Legal Services, requested a formal consultation
with the City of Carlsbad, a formal pre-excavation agreement prior to grading, and the use of tribal monitors in
addition to archeological monitoring to address any cultural resources that may be found given the Band's
traditional territory.
Although the current investigation by BFSA did not identify any significant resources within the project boundaries,
it did indicate that past results of the archeological records searches and cultural resources studies within the
Carlsbad area indicate that there is a high potential for buried cultural deposits everywhere along the coastal plain.
Therefore, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15064.5(f), which requires
provisions for the identification and evaluation of accidentally discovered archeological resources; conditions have
been added to the project requiring archaeological monitoring by both a qualified archaeologist and tribal monitor(s)
of the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians during all ground disturbing activities. Through the implementation of
the mitigation measures recommended in the Phase I Archeological Assessment, along with the requirements of
tribal monitoring and a formal pre-excavation agreement with the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians, impacts to
any unforeseen or accidentally discovered cultural resources are reduced to a level of less than significant.
c) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is located in an area which is subject
to the requirements of the Zone 20 Specific Plan approved by City Council in 1994. A Program Environmental
14 Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 05-11/ZC 05-10/LCPA 05-06/CT 05-18/PUD 05-14/SDP 05-12/CDP 05-37/HDP 06-02/HMP 07-09
Seascape
Impact Report (PEIR) (EIR 90-03) was certified for the Zone 20 Specific Plan. According to the PEIR, Eocene age
rocks of the Santiago Formation (35 to 54 millions years old) are known to contain significant fossils in the Carlsbad
area and represent a significant resource. Because this formation is found throughout the entire Zone 20 Specific
Plan area, there is a high potential for discovery of fossils during grading and construction activities. A Preliminary
Geotechnical Investigation was prepared for the project by Leighton & Associates, Inc. (Project No. 041265-001,
September 29, 2004) to identify the geologic conditions of the site. According to the report, the majority of site
consists primarily of undocumented fill soils and formational materials consisting of Quaternary-aged Terrace
deposits, with Santiago Formation bedrock materials expected to exist below a level of approximately 325 feet
above mean sea level (msl). Proposed grading could penetrate the 325 ft. msl elevation contour in some areas on the
project site. Therefore, a mitigation program which involves the review of the grading plans and full time
attendance of a paleontologist during grading operations, with the authority to direct grading in order to salvage and
curate resources, will mitigate impacts to a level of less than significant.
15 Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 05-11/ZC 05-10/LCPA 05-06/CT 05-18/PUD 05-14/SDP 05-12/CDP 05-37/HDP 06-02/HMP 07-09
Seascape
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 Section
1802.3.2 of the California Building Code (2007),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
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. No impact is assessed.
a.ii.-a.iv. & c) 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 potential earthquakes resulting from these faults could
affect Carlsbad. A Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation of the site was prepared by Leighton & Associates, Inc.
(Project No. 041265-001) on September 29, 2004. In the report, it identifies the site as having a relatively low risk
of exposure to seismic hazards; no ancient landslide have been mapped or were observed onsite; and the Quaternary
Terrace deposits underlying the site are not considered liquefiable due to their physical characteristics, lack of an
16 Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 05-11/ZC 05-10/LCPA 05-06/CT 05-18/PUD 05-14/SDP 05-12/CDP 05-37/HDP 06-02/HMP 07-09
Seascape
elevated ground water table, high-density characteristics, and age. Earth materials encountered onsite consist
predominately of undocumented artificial fill soils, a thin layer of topsoil, and Quaternary-aged Slopewash and
Terrace deposits underlain by bedrock materials of the Santiago Formation. By following the recommendations
contained within the referenced report, the site is suitable for the proposed project and exposure of people or
structures to geotechnical related hazards is considered to be less than significant.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The subject property is an undeveloped parcel. During the finish grading, the
exposure of soils could lead to an increased chance for the erosion of soils from the site. However, such grading
will follow best management practices for the control of erosion, such as straw bale or sandbag barriers, silt fences,
slope roughening, and outlet protection in exposed areas. Finished grades will be promptly hydroseeded or
otherwise protected as required per the adopted City Grading Ordinance. If necessary, temporary slope cover such
as jute matting or mulch will be applied to newly graded slopes to reduce the potential for soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil to a level that is considered to be less than significant.
d) No Impact. According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, onsite soils are considered to be very low
to low in expansion potential. The report indicates that the site is suitable to receive the proposed improvements.
No impact is assessed.
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. No impact is assessed.
17 Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 05-11/ZC 05-10/LCPA 05-06/CT 05-18/PUD 05-14/SDP 05-12/CDP 05-37/HDP 06-02/HMP 07-09
Seascape
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
- Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
environment?
e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
a-b) Less Than Significant Impact. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment'was prepared for the project by
LaMontagne Engineering Services (LES), dated October 6, 2004. At the time of the report, the site was being
utilized as a nursery/flower growing facility with several greenhouses and storage facilities located onsite. In
addition to these facilities; several cars, trucks, tractors, mobile homes, and trailers were accounted for, as well as
above ground storage tanks, and a poly tank and propane tanks. Soil samples were collected from four different
areas of the site. Laboratory test results reported no concentration of herbicides in any of the samples, however
18 Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 05-11/ZC 05-10/LCPA 05-06/CT 05-18/PUD 05-14/SDP 05-12/CDP 05-37/HDP 06-02/HMP 07-09
Seascape
concentrations of pesticides in two of the samples were reported. According to the report, the two areas of the site
that registered contaminate concentrations of pesticides are noted as being very small, or more specifically "three
orders of magnitude less than the Environmental Protection Agencies (EPA) requirements for remediation of these
compounds in soil at residential sites." The LES report includes recommendations for the removal and clean-up of
the site prior to grading. By following the recommendations contained within the referenced report, the site is
suitable for the proposed project, and exposure of people to hazardous materials is considered to be less than
significant.
The project also involves grading operations and construction activity for the development of single-family homes.
During the construction phases of the proposed project, construction equipment and materials typically associated
with land development (i.e. petroleum products, paint, oils and solvents) will be transported and used onsite. Upon
completion of construction of the project, some use of hazardous cleaning products on the site may occur. Other
than during this construction phase, the project will not routinely utilize hazardous substances or materials. All
transport, handling, use, and disposal of any cleaning substances will comply with all federal, state, and local laws
regulating the management and use of such materials. No extraordinary risk of accidental explosion or the release of
hazardous substances is anticipated with construction, development, and implementation or operation of the
proposed project. It is concluded that the routine amount of hazardous materials utilized during the construction
period is not significant, and therefore the impact to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials is considered to be less that significant.
c) No Impact. The nearest schools to the site are Aviara Oaks Elementary, located approximately 0.39 miles to the
southeast, and Pacific Rim Elementary, located approximately 1 mile to the northwest. Because the site is not
located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, no significant hazardous materials impacts are
anticipated. No impact is assessed.
d) No Impact. The subject property is not included on any lists or registry of sites containing hazardous materials.
No impact is assessed.
e) No Impact. The subject site is located approximately 1.15 miles south of the McClellan-Palomar Airport
runway. Because the site is located well outside of the McClellan-Palomar Airport Area of Influence and
furthermore is not located within any Flight Activity Area or Runway Protection Zone, it is concluded that the site
will not cause a safety hazard for people residing or working within the project area. No impact is assessed.
f) No Impact. No private airstrip exists within the vicinity of the subject project. No impact is assessed.
g) No Impact. The proposed project involves development of an undeveloped parcel. The project is located
directly adjacent to Black Rail Road. Neither construction nor the operation of the proposed project facilities will
significantly affect, block, or interfere with traffic on public streets, including any streets that would be used for an
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No emergency response or evacuation plan directs
evacuees through the project site, and no improvements are proposed by the project in any area which would
physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No impact is assessed.
h) No Impact. The proposed project site currently consists of an undeveloped parcel with existing single-family
development to the north and south, and Black Rail Road and a Palm tree nursery to the west. Adjacent to the
proposed homes on the east side of the site is an open space area (Aviara Master Plan) consisting of natural habitat.
A Fire Suppression Plan for the project has been included as part of the project, which includes the requirement of a
60 foot wide fire suppression zone consistent with the City of Carlsbad's Landscape Manual and Fire Department
standards. As such, the project does not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires. No impact is assessed.
19 Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 05-11/ZC 05-10/LCPA 05-06/CT 05-18/PUD 05-14/SDP 05-12/CDP 05-37/HDP 06-02/HMP 07-09
Seascape
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
D D
x
20 Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 05-11/ZC 05-10/LCPA 05-06/CT 05-18/PUD 05-14/SDP 05-12/CDP 05-37/HDP 06-02/HMP 07-09
Seascape
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?
n) Increase any pollutant to an already impaired water
body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d)
list?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
o) Increase impervious surfaces and associated runoff?
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. Federal, state and local agencies have established goals and objectives for storm
water quality in the region. The proposed project, prior to the start of construction, will comply with all federal,
state and local permits including the Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) required under the County of San
Diego Watershed Protection, Storm Water Management, and Discharge Control Ordinance (WPO) (Section 67.871),
the City of Carlsbad's Standard Urban Storm Water Management Plan (SUSMP), and the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The project
will develop and implement specific erosion control and best management practices to protect downstream water
quality. These plans will ensure that acceptable water quality standards will be maintained both during construction
as well as post-development.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project does not propose to directly draw any groundwater; instead it will be
served via existing public water distribution lines within the public right-of-way adjacent to the site. Existing water
lines will adequately serve the project's water demands. Rainwater infiltration is needed to provide adequate
groundwater recharge. A Preliminary Hydrology Report (Job No. 1269) dated March 11, 2008, and a Preliminary
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan dated March 14, 2008, was prepared for .the project by CIVCOM &
Associates. According to the reports, the project incorporates Low Impact Development (LID) design features,
which promote infiltration of storm water run-off by proposing to minimize impervious surface areas by utilizing
pervious pavers for all residential driveways, and directing run-off to landscape areas for bio-filtration. This reduces
the amount of discharge and velocity of run-off to pre-development levels, and also serves as a treatment BMP to
attain water quality objectives. The project will not significantly deplete groundwater supplies or quality.
Therefore, impacts are considered to be less than significant.
c) No Impact. There are no streams or rivers within or adjacent to the site. Therefore, no impact is assessed.
21 Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 05-11/ZC 05-10/LCPA 05-06/CT 05-18/PUD 05-I4/SDP 05-12/CDP 05-37/HDP 06-02/HMP 07-09
Seascape
d) Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Preliminary Hydrology Report and Preliminary Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan, the proposed project will not alter the current overall drainage pattern, and the drainage
discharge points for the site will remain the same. The amount of discharge and velocity of run-off will not
significantly exceed pre-development levels, and therefore will not cause substantial erosion or flooding. Project
grading is designed to maintain the existing drainage pattern. The project incorporates LID design features, which
promote infiltration of storm water run-off by proposing to minimize impervious surface areas by utilizing pervious
pavers for all residential driveways, and directing run-off to landscape areas. This reduces the amount of discharge
and velocity of run-off to pre-development levels, and serves as a treatment BMP to attain water quality objectives.
Therefore, impacts are considered to be less than significant. ;
e) Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Preliminary Hydrology Report and Preliminary Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan, the proposed project will not significantly impact the existing or planned storm water
systems, nor will the total post development run-off significantly exceed pre-development levels. The project
incorporates LID design features, which promote infiltration of storm water run-off by proposing to minimize
impervious surface areas by utilizing pervious pavers for all residential driveways, and directing run-off to
landscape areas. This reduces the amount of discharge and velocity of run-off to pre-development levels, and serves
as a treatment BMP to attain water quality objectives. Therefore, impacts are considered to be less than significant.
0 Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not substantially degrade the water quality as demonstrated in
the Preliminary Hydrology Report and Preliminary Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan prepared for the project.
The project incorporates LID design features, which promote infiltration of storm water run-off by proposing to
minimize impervious surface areas by utilizing pervious pavers for all residential driveways, and directing run-off to
landscape areas. This reduces the amount of discharge and velocity of run-off to pre-development levels, and serves
as a treatment BMP to attain water quality objectives. Therefore, impacts are considered to be less than significant.
g-j) No Impact. The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area; and according to the City of
Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, Catastrophic Dam Failure Inundation. Tsunami and
Seiche Hazard Zone Maps, September 1992. the project site is not located within an area affected by tsunami,
seiche, or mudflow, nor is the site located within a Catastrophic Dam Failure Inundation Area. Therefore, no impact
is assessed.
k) Less Than Significant Impact. The construction phase of the project could result in increased erosion.
However, as a result of the NPDES 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 water receptors to the maximum extent practicable as
indicated in the project's Preliminary Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. 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 and construction BMPs for the project.
I-p) Less Than Significant Impact. The project area is approximately 4-miles upstream from the Pacific Ocean.
Storm water run-off drains from the site into the Batiquitos Lagoon and ultimately the Pacific Ocean. According to
the California 2006 303(d) list published by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Batiquitos
Lagoon and Pacific Ocean (in the area of the Batiquitos Lagoon) are not listed as impaired water bodies. However,
to address water quality of the project, Best Management Practices (BMP) will be implemented during construction
and post construction phases, which specifically address sediments, nutrients, trash and debris, oxygen demanding
substances, oil and grease, bacteria and viruses, and pesticides. As discussed in the sections above, the project will
not significantly increase pollutant discharges and will not alter the water quality of the receiving surface waters,
and the amount of discharge and velocity of run-off will not significantly exceed pre-development levels. The
project is incorporating LID design features, which promote infiltration of storm water run-off by proposing to
minimize impervious surface areas by utilizing pervious pavers for all residential driveways, and directing run-off to
landscape areas. This reduces the amount of discharge and velocity of run-off to pre-development levels, and serves
as a treatment BMP to attain water quality objectives.
22 Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 05-11/ZC 05-10/LCPA 05-06/CT 05-18/PUD 05-14/SDP 05-12/CDP 05-37/HDP 06-02/HMP 07-09
Seascape
q) No Impact. The project will not result in the exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water
quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses. Please refer to the preceding responses. No impact assessed.
23 Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 05-11/ZC 05-10/LCPA 05-06/CT 05-18/PUD 05-14/SDP 05-12/CDP 05-37/HDP 06-02/HMP 07-09
Seascape
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
a-c) No Impact. The project involves construction of detached single-family dwelling units, which are consistent
with the surrounding land uses. The site does not physically divide an established community, nor does the
proposed project conflict with any existing or proposed land use plans or policies, or habitat conservation plans or
natural community conservation plans of the City of Carlsbad. The project is consistent with both the City of
Carlsbad General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use designations. The General Plan Land Use and
Local Coastal Program Land Use designations are both identified as RLM (Residential Low-Medium Density).
RLM anticipates single-family residential development at 0 to 4 dwelling units per acre with a Growth Management
Control Point (GMCP) of 3.2 dwelling units per acre. The project site has a net developable area of 3.24 acres. At
the GMCP, the site yields 10.37 dwelling units, and at the top of the RLM density range, the site yields 12.96
dwelling units. The project is proposing 15 total dwellings (12 detached single-family dwelling units, and 3
detached second dwelling units). Second dwelling units are not applied towards the project's density, unless they
are being utilized for inclusionary housing. In this case, only two of the three second dwelling units are being used
to meet the projects inclusionary housing requirement. Therefore, the project count is 14 dwelling units and the
resultant density is 4.32 dwelling units per acre, which exceeds the GMCP and is also 1.04 dwelling units higher
than the top of the RLM density range.
According to the City of Carlsbad General Plan, there are exceptional cases where the base zone is consistent with
the land use designation, but would permit a slightly higher yield than that recommended in the RLM density
residential classification. In those exceptional cases, the City may find that the project is consistent with this
element if: a) the project is compatible with the General Plan objectives, policies, general land uses and programs, b)
all the necessary infrastructure is in place to support the project, and c) the proposed density does not exceed the
maximum density allowed at the top of the range by more than an additional 25%.
The City's Growth Management Ordinance also establishes rules for when a project can exceed the GMCP. As
such, according to the Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.90.045, no residential development permit shall be
approved which has a density that exceeds the GMCP for the applicable density range unless: a) the project will
provide sufficient additional public facilities for the density in excess of the control point to ensure that the adequacy
of the City's public facilities plans will not be adversely impacted, b) there have been sufficient developments
approved in the quadrant at densities below the control point to cover the units in the project above the control point
so that approval does not result in exceeding the quadrant limit; and c) all necessary public facilities will be
constructed or guaranteed to be constructed concurrently with their need and in compliance with the adopted City
standards.
The project is compatible with all of the General Plan objectives, policies, general land uses and programs.
Infrastructure is in place along Black Rail Road, Surf Crest Drive and Avena Court East to support the proposed
project. The project density of 4.32 dwelling units per acre does not exceed the maximum density allowed at the top
24 Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 05-11/ZC 05-10/LCPA 05-06/CT 05-18/PUD 05-14/SDP 05-12/CDP 05-37/HDP 06-02/HMP 07-09
Seascape
of the range by more than an additional 25% (5 dwelling units per acre maximum). To comply with the City's
Growth Management Ordinance, a difference of 4,6 dwelling units above the GMCP occurs as a result of this
project (Total Dwelling Units Proposed (15 units) - GMCP Unit Yield (10.37 units) = 4.6 excess dwelling units). In
order to insure that densities do not exceed the quadrant limit established for the City's SW Quadrant, a total of 4.6
dwelling units will be removed from the City's excess dwelling unit bank in accordance with City Council Policy
43. Currently the SW Quadrant has available unit capacity to accommodate the 4.6 excess dwelling units without
exceeding the quadrant cap. Therefore, no impact is assessed.
25 • Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 05-11/ZC 05-10/LCPA 05-06/CT 05-18/PUD 05-14/SDP 05-12/CDP 05-37/HDP 06-02/HMP 07-09
Seascape
X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region
and the residents of the State?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
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. No impact is assessed.
26 Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 05-11/ZC 05-10/LCPA 05-06/CT 05-I8/PUD 05-14/SDP 05-12/CDP 05-37/HDP 06-02/HMP 07-09
Seascape
XI. NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels
in excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of
other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise
levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
X
a) No Impact. The project will not result in 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. The
project site is located a distance greater than 500 feet from a General Plan Circulation Element Roadway, and
furthermore, according to the City of Carlsbad Noise Guidelines Manual (Carlsbad Future 2010 Noise Corridor
Map) is outside of the 60 dB(A) CNEL contour.
b & d) Less Than Significant Impact. The anticipated grading operation associated with the proposed single-
family dwellings will result in a temporary and minor increase in groundborne vibration and ambient noise levels.
Following the conclusion of grading, ambient noise level and vibrations are expected to return to pre-existing levels.
c) No Impact. The project consists of 12 detached single-family homes, which are consistent in use and intensity
with the surrounding residential development. As such, the project would not result in sustained ambient noise
levels which would exceed the established standards. No impact assessed.
e) Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The subject site is located approximately 1.15
miles south of the McClellan-Palomar Airport. The project site is located well outside of the Airport Influence
Area, Flight Activity Zone, and/or the Runway Protection Zones that are established by the McClellan-Palomar
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ACLUP). However, the site is located within the Noise Impact Notification
Area (NINA), which encompasses most of the City of Carlsbad. According to the ACLUP, much of the noise in this
area occurs on an irregular basis, and is often called single event noise. This type of noise, although not generally
27 Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 05-11/ZC 05-10/LCPA 05-06/CT 05-18/PUD 05-14/SDP 05-12/CDP 05-37/HDP 06-02/HMP 07-09
Seascape
considered to be a health or safety issue, may be a nuisance. Therefore, all residential projects located within the
NINA are required to record a notice that the property is subject to over flight, site, and sound of aircraft operating
from McClellan-Palomar Airport. Mitigation measures have been included to reduce this impact to a level
considered to be less than significant.
f) No Impact. No private airstrip exists within the vicinity of the subject project. No impact is assessed.
28 Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 05-11/ZC 05-10/LCPA 05-06/CT 05-18/PUD 05-14/SDP 05-12/CDP 05-37/HDP 06-02/HMP 07-09
Seascape
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
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
a-c) No Impact. The project's size of 12 detached single-family dwelling units and 3 second dwelling units is
consistent with the intensity of the surrounding land uses. The area surrounding the proposed development is
designated for residential development and was analyzed accordingly in the Zone 20 Local Facilities Management
Plan and the Zone 20 Specific Plan EIR. As indicated above in Section IX., the density of the proposed
development is consistent with the City of Carlsbad General Plan. The project will not displace people or existing
housing, thus necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact is assessed.
29 Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 05-11/ZC 05-10/LCPA 05-06/CT 05-18/PUD 05-14/SDP 05-12/CDP 05-37/HDP 06-02/HMP 07-09
Seascape
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
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
a.i. - a.v.) No Impact. The project's size of 12 detached single-family dwelling units and 3 second dwelling units
is consistent with the General Plan and therefore 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 20. Therefore, no
significant public service impacts will occur as a result of this project. No impact assessed.
30 Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 05-11/ZC 05-10/LCPA 05-06/CT 05-18/PUD 05-14/SDP 05-12/CDP 05-37/HDP 06-02/HMP 07-09
Seascape
XIV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
a-b) No Impact. The project's size of 12 detached single-family dwelling units and 3 second dwelling units will not
result in the deterioration of existing neighborhood or regional parks or cause such parks to be expanded. The
development of this site is anticipated by the General Plan, and in accordance with the Zone 20 Local Facilities
Management Plan the project is conditioned to pay park-in-lieu fees to Park District 3. Therefore, no adverse
physical effect on the environment will occur as a result of this project. No impact is assessed.
31 Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 05-11/ZC 05-10/LCPA 05-06/CT 05-18/PUD 05-14/SDP 05-12/CDP 05-37/HDP 06-02/HMP 07-09
Seascape
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 No
Impact Impact
D
D
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The 12 proposed single-family homes and 3 second dwelling units will generate
144 Average Daily Trips (ADT), which is not substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system. 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. The proposed project will not cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street system. Project associated impacts are therefore considered to be 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 one highway segment
in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The existing LOS on these designated roads and highway in
Carlsbad is:
Rancho Santa Fe Road
El Camino Real
Palomar Airport Road
SR78
LOS
"A-D"
"A-D"
"A-D"
32 Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 05-11/ZC 05-10/LCPA 05-06/CT 05-18/PUD 05-14/SDP 05-12/CDP 05-37/HDP 06-02/HMP 07-09
Seascape
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 Highway 78 are currently operating at or better than the acceptable standard LOS.
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 highway 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 project is located within an area conducive to public transportation, being in close proximity to
Poinsettia Lane and Aviara Parkway, both of which are major circulation element roadways. No impact is assessed.
33 Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 05-11/ZC 05-10/LCPA 05-06/CT 05-18/PUD 05-14/SDP 05-12/CDP 05-37/HDP 06-02/HMP 07-09
Seascape
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?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 20 Local Facilities Management Plan and the Program EIR for
the Zone 20 Specific Plan anticipated residential development on this site and wastewater treatment facilities were
planned and designed to accommodate the future residential uses. 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 will increase the demand for these facilities;
however, the proposed density (4.32 dwelling units per acre) will not result in an overall increase in the City's
growth projection in the SW quadrant because there is adequate dwelling unit capacity in the SW Quadrant and 4.6
dwelling units will be withdrawn from the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank in accordance with City Council Policy No
43. Therefore, the project does not create development that will result in a significant need to expand or construct
new water facilities/supplies, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage facilities. No impact is assessed.
34 Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 05-11/ZC 05-10/LCPA 05-06/CT 05-18/PUD 05-14/SDP 05-12/CDP 05-37/HDP 06-02/HMP 07-09
Seascape
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
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?
a) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project's required mitigation, as
outlined in the Biological Resources section of this report, will preclude any possible degradation of the
environment or substantial reductions of habitat and wildlife species. Cumulative impacts to sensitive plant and
wildlife species within the MHCP Subarea would occur through the proposed project, in absence of the
implementation of the HMP, and specifically the adjacent preserve system. However, the implementation of the
HMP provides mitigation for these cumulative impacts because the plan has anticipated region-wide impacts and has
adopted a preserve system that mitigates for these impacts. The project is consistent with the MCHP guidelines and
the HMP regional planning efforts in the City of Carlsbad. Therefore, there will be no cumulative impacts to
sensitive upland habitat, and plant and wildlife species. Furthermore, the project's required mitigation as outlined in
the Cultural Resources section of this report will preclude any elimination of important examples of major periods of
California history or prehistory, thus reducing impacts to less than significant.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projects regional
growth for the greater San Diego area, and local General Plan Land Use policies are incorporated into SANDAG
projections. Based upon those projections, region-wide standards, including storm water quality control, air quality
standards, habitat conservation, congestion management standards, etc., are established to reduce the cumulative
impacts of development in the region. All of the City's development standards and regulations are consistent with
the region wide standards. The City's standards and regulations, including grading standards, water quality and
drainage standards, traffic standards, habitat and cultural resource protection regulations, and public facility
standards, ensure that development within the City will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact.
There are two regional issues that development within the City of Carlsbad has the potential to have a cumulatively
considerable impact on. Those issues are air quality and regional circulation. As described above, the project would
contribute to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. However, the
air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the development is implemented.
35 Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 05-11/ZC 05-10/LCPA 05-06/CT 05-18/PUD 05-14/SDP 05-12/CDP 05-37/HDP 06-02/HMP 07-09
Seascape
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. No impact assessed.
36 Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 05-11/ZC 05-10/LCPA 05-06/CT 05-18/PUD 05-14/SDP 05-12/CDP 05-37/HDP 06-02/HMP 07-09
Seascape
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.
37 Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 05-11/ZC 05-10/LCPA 05-06/CT 05-18/PUD 05-14/SDP 05-12/CDP 05-37/HDP 06-02/HMP 07-09
Seascape
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 Program Environmental Impact Report for the Zone 20 Specific Plan (EIR 90-03).
Brian F. Mooney Associates. June 1992.
2. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for McClellan Palomar Airport. Carlsbad. California. San Diego
County Regional Airport Authority, as amended October 4, 2004.
3. Carlsbad General Plan. City of Carlsbad Planning Department, dated March 1994.
4. City of Carlsbad Municipal Code. Title 21 Zoning. City of Carlsbad Planning Department, as updated.
5. City Council Policy 43 - Proposition E "Excess Dwelling" Unit Bank. City of Carlsbad Planning
Department, dated April 26, 2005.
6. City Council Policy 44 - Neighborhood Architectural Design Guidelines. City of Carlsbad Planning
Department, dated May 2, 2006.
7. City Council Policy 66 - Livable Cities. City of Carlsbad Planning Department, December 11,2001.
8. Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad, City of Carlsbad Planning
Department, final approval dated November 2004.
9. An Archeological Survey for the Seascape Project. Brian F. Smith & Associates, April 19, 2007.
10. Habitat Assessment for the Seascape Project. Brian F. Smith & Associates, October 18, 2007.
11. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation. Proposed Residential Subdivision. Northeast of Avena Court and
Black Rail Road. APN'S 215-040-09 and 215-040-11 (Project No. 041256-001). Leighton and Associates,
Inc., September 29, 2004.
12. Hydrology Calculations for Seascape (Job No. 1269). CIVCOM & Associates, dated March 11, 2008.
13. Preliminary Storm Water Prevention Plan for Seascape. CIVCOM & Associates, dated March 14, 2008.
14. City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study. Catastrophic Dam Failure
Inundation. Tsunami and Seiche Hazard Zone Maps. City of Carlsbad Planning Department, September
1992.
15. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. APNS 215-040-09 and 215-040-11. Black Rail Road. Carlsbad.
California (Project No. LES-04-001Rep01). LaMontagne Engineering Services, October 6, 2004.
38 Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 05-11/ZC 05-10/LCPA 05-06/CT 05-18/PUD 05-14/SDP 05-12/CDP 05-37/HDP 06-02/HMP 07-09
Seascape
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE1)
1. To offset the conversion of non-prime agricultural land to urban land uses per the requirements of the Mello II
Segment of the City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, the applicant shall provide payment of an agricultural
conversion mitigation fee, the amount of which shall not be less than $10,000 for each net converted acre (5.05
acres) of non-prime agricultural land. The fee shall be paid prior to final map, or issuance of grading permit or
building permit, whichever occurs first.
2. Fire Management: The project shall provide a 60-foot wide Fire Suppression Zone separating the structures
proposed on Lots 11 & 12 from the HMP Preserve boundary. Fire Suppression Zones 2 and 3, located closest to
the HMP Preserve boundary, shall be planted with a low water use, naturalizing plant species, known to have
low fuel characteristics.
3. Erosion Control: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall obtain approval of an erosion control
plan. The plan shall identify areas susceptible to erosion on the property and immediately adjacent to the HMP
Preserve. All potentially sensitive slopes shall be stabilized and, if necessary, planted with native vegetation
consistent with the plant community in the adjacent preserve. The erosion control plan shall contain elements
preventing runoff and the transport of fertilizers, pesticides, and similar materials into the HMP Preserve.
4. Landscaping Restrictions: The project shall prohibit the use of any non-native, invasive plant species in
landscaping adjacent to the HMP Preserve, or in any area where undesirable plant materials may have an
opportunity to spread into the preserve area. The Final Landscape Plans prepared for the project shall include a
list of HMP non-native invasive plant species that are to be avoided. The project shall control irrigation of
landscaping adjacent to the HMP Preserve to prevent runoff from spreading into the preserve.
5. Fencing. Signs and Lighting: A 4 to 5 ft. tall black vinyl coated chain link fence shall be constructed along the
entire boundary where Open Space Lot 15 and the existing HMP Preserve Area converge. Signage shall be
installed on the fence to educate and inform the public about the goals of the HMP Preserve and to prohibit
public access. Lighting in back yards adjacent to the HMP preserve shall be of a minimum necessary for safety
and security, and shall be shielded and directed to shine downward and not into the preserve area. Homeowner
lighting restrictions shall be included in the project CC&R's.
6. Predator and Exotic Species Control: Project CC&R's shall educate homeowners regarding responsible pet
ownership (e.g., keeping pets indoors, spaying/neutering pets, and not releasing pets into the wild). For exotic
species control, the project shall not use any non-native, invasive plant species in landscaping adjacent to the
HMP Preserve.
7. Archeological mitigation measures shall be implemented as follows:
a. 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 this agreement will be to
establish the requirement of tribal monitoring and to formalize procedures for the treatment of Native
American human remains and burial, ceremonial, or cultural items that may be uncovered during any
ground disturbance activities.
b. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project developer shall retain the services of a qualified
archeologist to monitor all ground disturbing activities. The applicant shall provide verification that a
qualified archeologist has been retained, and verification shall be documented by a letter from the
applicant and the archeologist to the Planning Director.
c. A qualified archeologist shall be present at the pre-construction meeting to consult with the grading
and excavation contractors.
d. In the event that any cultural resources, concentration of artifacts, or culturally modified soil deposits
are discovered within the project area at any time during construction, the archeological monitor shall
39 Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 05-11/ZC 05-10/LCPA 05-06/CT 05-18/PUD 05-14/SDP 05-12/CDP 05-37/HDP 06-02/HMP 07-09
Seascape
be empowered to suspend work in the immediate area of the discovery until such time as a data
recovery plan can be developed and implemented.
e. The discovery of any resource shall be reported to the City of Carlsbad Planning Director prior to any
evaluation testing.
f. If any deposits are evaluated as significant under CEQA, mitigation may be required as recommended
by the qualified archeologist.
8. Paleontological mitigation measures shall be implemented as follows:
a. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the project developer shall retain a qualified paleontologist to
carry out the mitigation program outlined here. (A qualified paleontologist is defined as an individual
with a MS or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology that is familiar with paleontological procedures and
techniques.) The applicant shall provide verification that a qualified paleontologist has been retained,
and verification shall be documented by a letter from the applicant and the paleontologist to the
Planning Director.
b. A qualified paleontologist shall be present at a pre-construction meeting to consult with the grading
and excavation contractors.
c. A paleontological monitor shall be onsite at all times during mass grading and excavation activities,
including utility trenching, etc. (A paleontological monitor is defined as an individual who has
experience in the collection and salvage of fossil materials. The paleontological monitor shall work
under the direction of a qualified paleontologist.)
d. When fossils are discovered, the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall recover them. In
most cases this fossil salvage can be completed in a short period of time. However, some fossil
specimens (such as a complete large mammal skeleton) may require an extended salvage period. In
these instances the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall be allowed to temporarily direct,
divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely manner. Due to the small nature
of some fossils it may be necessary to collect matrix samples for processing through fine mesh screens.
e. Any fossils collected shall be prepared to the point of identification and properly curated before they
are donated to their final repository.
f. Prepared fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos, and maps, shall be deposited (as
a donation) in a non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the San Diego
Natural History Museum.
g. A final summary report shall be completed that outlines the results of the mitigation program. This
report shall include discussions of the methods used, stratigraphic section(s) exposed, fossils collected,
and significance of recovered fossils.
9. Prior to the recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, the
Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft
operating from McClellan-Palomar Airport, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and the City
Attorney (see Noise Form #2 on file in the Planning Department).
10. Developer shall post aircraft noise notification signs in all sales and/or rental-offices associated with the new
development. The number and locations of said signs shall be approved by the Planning Director (see Noise
Form #3 on file in the Planning Department).
40 Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 05-11/ZC 05-10/LCPA 05-06/CT 05-18/PUD 05-14/SDP 05-12/CDP 05-37/HDP 06-02/HMP 07-09
Seascape
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR
WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
41 Rev. 12/13/07
Page 1 of 5
PROJECT NAME: Seascape
FILE NUMBERS: GPA 05-11/ZC 05-10/LCPA 05-06/CT 05-18/PUD 05-14/SDP 05-12/CDP 05-37/HDP 06-02/HMP 07-09
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 ^180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6).
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Type;
Monitoring
Department
Shown on
Plans
Verified
Implementation Remarks
To offset the conversion of non-prime agricultural land to
urban land uses per the requirements of the Mello II Segment
of the City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, the applicant
shall provide payment of an agricultural conversion mitigation
fee, the amount of which shall not be less than $10,000 for
each net converted acre (5.05 acres) of non-prime
agricultural land. The fee shall be paid prior to final map, or
issuance of grading permit or building permit, whichever
occurs first.
Project Planning
2.. Fire Management: The project shall provide a 60-foot wide
Fire Suppression Zone separating the structures proposed
on Lots 11 & 12 from the HMP Preserve boundary. Fire
Suppression Zones 2 and 3, located closest to the HMP
Preserve boundary, shall be planted with a low water use,
naturalizing plant species, known to have low fuel
characteristics.
Project Planning
3. Erosion Control: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the
applicant shall obtain approval of an erosion control plan.
The plan shall identify areas susceptible to erosion on the
property and immediately adjacent to the HMP Preserve. All
potentially sensitive slopes shall be stabilized and, if
necessary, planted with native vegetation consistent with the
plant community in the adjacent preserve. The erosion
control plan shall contain elements preventing runoff and the
transport of fertilizers, pesticides, and similar materials into
the HMP Preserve.
Project 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 2 of 5
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Type
Monitoring
Department
Shown on
Plans
Verified
Implementation Remarks
Landscaping Restrictions: The project shall prohibit the use
of any non-native, invasive plant species in landscaping
adjacent to the HMP Preserve, or in any area where
undesirable plant materials may have an opportunity to
spread into the preserve area. The Final Landscape Plans
prepared for the project shall include a list of HMP non-native
invasive plant species that are to be avoided. The project
shall control irrigation of landscaping adjacent to the HMP
Preserve to prevent runoff from spreading into the preserve.
Project Planning
5. Fencing, Signs and Lighting: A 4 to 5 ft. tall black vinyl
coated chain link fence shall be constructed along the entire
boundary where Open Space Lot 15 and the existing HMP
Preserve Area converge. Signage shall be installed on the
fence to educate and inform the public about the goals of the
HMP Preserve and to prohibit public access. Lighting in back
yards adjacent to the HMP preserve shall be of a minimum
necessary for safety and security, and shall be shielded and
directed to shine downward and not into the preserve area.
Homeowner lighting restrictions shall be included in the
project CC&R's.
Project Planning
6. Predator and Exotic Species Control: Project CC&R's shall
educate homeowners regarding responsible pet ownership
(e.g., keeping pets indoors, spaying/neutering pets, and not
releasing pets into the wild). For exotic species control, the
project shall not use any non-native, invasive plant species in
landscaping adjacent to the HMP Preserve.
Project 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 3 of 5
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Type
Monitoring
Department
Shown on
Plans
Verified
Implementation Remarks
7. Archeological mitigation measures shall be implemented as
follows:
a. 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 this agreement will be to
establish the requirement of tribal monitoring and to
formalize procedures for the treatment of Native American
human remains and burial, ceremonial, or cultural items
that may be uncovered during any ground disturbance
activities.
b. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project developer
shall retain the services of a qualified archeologist to
monitor all ground disturbing activities. The applicant shall
provide verification that a qualified archeologist has been
retained, and verification shall be documented by a letter
from the applicant and the archeologist to the Planning
Director.
c. A qualified archeologist shall be present at the pre-
construction meeting to consult with the grading and
excavation contractors.
d. In the event that any cultural resources, concentration of
artifacts, or culturally modified soil deposits are discovered
within the project area at any time during construction, the
archeological monitor shall be empowered to suspend
work in the immediate area of the discovery until such time
as a data recovery plan can be developed and
implemented.
e. The discovery of any resource shall be reported to the City
of Carlsbad Planning Director prior to any evaluation
testing.
Project 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 5
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Type
Monitoring
Department
Shown on
Plans
Verified
Implementation Remarks
f. If any deposits are evaluated as significant under CEQA,
mitigation may be required as recommended by the
qualified archeologist.
8. Paleontological mitigation measures shall be implemented as
follows:
a\ Prior to issuance of a grading permit the project developer
shall retain a qualified paleontologist to carry out the
mitigation program outlined here. (A qualified
paleontologist is defined as an individual with a MS or
Ph.D. in paleontology or geology that is familiar with
paleontological procedures and techniques.) The
applicant shall provide verification that a qualified
paleontologist has been retained, and verification shall be
documented by a letter from the applicant and the
paleontologist to the Planning Director.
b. A qualified paleontologist shall be present at a pre-
construction meeting to consult with the grading and
excavation contractors.
c. A paleontological monitor shall be onsite at all times
during mass grading and excavation activities, including
utility trenching, etc. (A paleontological monitor is defined
as an individual who has experience in the collection and
salvage of fossil materials. The paleontological monitor
shall work under the direction of a qualified
paleontologist.)
d. When fossils are discovered, the paleontologist (or
paleontological monitor) shall recover them. In most
cases this fossil salvage can be completed in a short
period of time. However, some fossil specimens (such as
a complete large mammal skeleton) may require an
extended salvage period. In these instances the
paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall be allowed
to temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading to allow
Project 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 5 of 5
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
• Type
Monitoring
Department
Shown on
Plans
Verified
Implementation Remarks
recovery of fossil remains in a timely manner. Due to the
small nature of some fossils it may be necessary to collect
matrix samples for processing through fine mesh screens.
e. Any fossils collected shall be prepared to the point of
identification and properly curated before they are donated
: to their final repository.
f. Prepared fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field
notes, photos, and maps, shall be deposited (as a
donation) in a non-profit institution with a research interest
in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History
Museum.
g. A final summary report shall be completed that outlines
the results of the mitigation program. This report shall
include discussions of the methods used, stratigraphic
section(s) exposed, fossils collected, and significance of
recovered fossils.
9. Prior to the recordation of the final map or the issuance of
building permits, whichever occurs first, the Developer shall
prepare and record a Notice that this property is subject to
overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating from
McClellan-Palomar Airport, in a form meeting the approval of
the Planning Director and the City Attorney (see Noise Form
#2 on file in the Planning Department).
Project Planning
10. Developer shall post aircraft noise notification signs in all
sales and/or rental, offices associated with the new
development. The number and locations of said signs shall
be approved by the Planning Director (see Noise Form #3
on file in the Planning Department).
Project 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.