Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-10-06; Planning Commission; Resolution 66691 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6669 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 AMEND THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN, AMEND THE ZONING MAP, AND TO 6 ALLOW FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF 3.91 ACRES INTO SEVEN SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND ONE 7 OPEN SPACE LOT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF EL FUERTE STREET AND NORTH OF 8 CACATUA STREET IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT 9 ZONE 6. CASE NAME: EL FUERTE VIEW 10 CASE NO.: GPA 09-08/ZC 09-09/CT 04-13/HDP 04-06/ HMP09-1Q 11 WHEREAS, Michael Schmidt and Nataliya Orlova, "Owner/Developer," has 13 filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as 14 Lot 552 of La Costa Meadows Unit 3 in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map 15 thereof No. 7076, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of 16 San Diego County, October 16,1971 17 ("the Property"); and 18 WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and 19 Reporting Program (MMRP) was prepared in conjunction with said project; and 20 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on March 17, 2010, April 7, 2010, 21 September 1, 2010 and October 6, 2010 hold duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 24 WHEREAS, at said public hearings, upon hearing and considering all testimony 25 and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and ^f\considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors 27 relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and MMRP. 28 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 2 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning 3 Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and MMRP, Exhibit "MND" according to Exhibits "Notice of Intent (NOI)," and "Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Initial Study (EIA)," - attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: 6 Findings: 7 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: o a. it has reviewed, analyzed, and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and MMRP for the El Fuerte View project, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to 10 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the proj ect; and b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration and MMRP has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; 13 and 14 c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and15 d. based on the EIA and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. 17 Conditions: 18 Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the EL FUERTE VIEW - 19 GPA 09-08/ZC 09-09/CT 04-13/HDP 04-06/HMP 09-10 Project Mitigation Monitoring 2Q and Reporting Program. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PC RESO NO. 6669 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on October 6, 2010, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Montgomery, Nygaard and Schumacher NOES: Vice Chairperson L'Heureux ABSENT: Chairperson Douglas ABSTAIN: STEPHEN "HAP" L'HEUtfEUX, Vice Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: DON NEU Planning Director PC RESO NO. 6669 -3- CITY OF CARLSBAD Planning Department www.carlsbadca.gov NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: El Fuerte View CASE NO: GPA 09-08/ZC 09-09/CT 04-13/HDP 04-06/HMP 09-10 PROJECT LOCATION: South side of El Fuerte Street between Chorlito Street and Cacatua Street PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Tentative Tract Map (CT 04-13), Hillside Development Permit (HDP 04-06), and Habitat Management Permit (HMP 09-10) for the subdivision and grading of a 3.9 acre property into seven residential lots greater than 10,000 square feet in size and a common open space lot generally located on the south side of El Fuerte Street and north of Cacatua Street in Local Facilities Management Zone 6. A General Plan Amendment and Zone Change are also proposed to re-designate the open space lot from Residential Low Medium (RLM 0-4 du/ac) and Residential Single Family (R-l) to Open Space (OS) The site has been disturbed previously and includes flat areas as well as manufactured and natural slope areas. Portions of the site are fully disturbed without vegetation, others are disturbed with scattered vegetation and part of the site is in a natural and undisturbed state. The site is a triangular shape, bordered on the south by existing single family home residences, on the north by El Fuerte Street and on the west by an Open Space preserve area. 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 (CEQA) 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 Planning Commission. 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. Pursuant to Section 15204 of the CEQA Guidelines, in reviewing Mitigated Negative Declarations, persons and public agencies should focus on the proposed finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. If persons and public agencies believe that the project may have a significant effect, they should: (1) identify the specific effect; (2) explain why they believe the effect would occur; and (3) explain why they believe the effect would be significant. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 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 Christer Westman in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4614. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD June 30. 2010-July 20, 2010 PUBLISH DATE June 30. 2010 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad. CA 92008-7314 1(760)602-4600 F (760) 602-8559 © MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: El Fuerte View CASE NO: GPA 09-08/ZC 09-09/CT 04-13/HDP 04-06/HMP 09-10 PROJECT LOCATION: South side of El Fuerte Street between Chorlito Street and Cacatua Street PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Tentative Tract Map (CT 04-13), Hillside Development Permit (HDP 04-06), and Habitat Management Permit (HMP 09-10) for the subdivision and grading of a 3.9 acre property into seven residential lots greater than 10,000 square feet in size and a common open space lot generally located on the south side of El Fuerte Street and north of Cacatua Street in Local Facilities Management Zone 6. A General Plan Amendment and Zone Change are also proposed to re-designate the open space lot from Residential Low Medium (RLM 0-4 du/ac) and Residential Single Family (R-l) to Open Space (OS) The site has been disturbed previously and includes flat areas as well as manufactured and natural slope areas. Portions of the site are fully disturbed without vegetation, others are disturbed with scattered vegetation and part of the site is in a natural and undisturbed state. The site is a triangular shape, bordered on the south by existing single family home residences, on the north by El Fuerte Street and on the west by an Open Space preserve area. 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: 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 Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. ADOPTED: [CLICK HERE date] pursuant to [CLICK HERE Administrative Approval PC/CC Resolution No., or CC Ordinance No.1 ATTEST: DON NEU Planning Director ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - INITIAL STUDY CASE NO: GPA 09-08/ZC 09-09/CT Q4-13/HDP 04-06/HMP 09-10 DATE: May 21. 2010 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: El Fuerte View 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Christer Westman (760) 602-4614 4. PROJECT LOCATION: El Fuerte Street between Chorlito Street and Cacatua Street 5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: Hossein Zomorrodi c/o KS Engineering 7801 Mission Center Court Suite 100 San Diego CA 92108 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Low-Medium (RLM) 7. ZONING: One Family Residential (R-l) 8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): N/A 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: A Tentative Tract Map (CT 04-13). Hillside Development Permit (HDP 04-06). and Habitat Management Permit (HMP 09-10) for the subdivision and grading of a 3.91 acre property into seven residential lots greater than 10,000 square feet in size and a common open space lot generally located on the south side of El Fuerte Street and north of Cacatua Street in Local Facilities Management Zone 6. A General Plan Amendment and Zone Change are also proposed to re-designate the open space lot from Residential Low Medium (RLM 0-4 du/ac) and Residential Single Family (R-l) to Open Space (OS) The site has been disturbed previously and includes flat areas as well as manufactured and natural slope areas. Portions of the site are fully disturbed without vegetation, others are disturbed with scattered vegetation and part of the site is in a natural and undisturbed state. The site is a triangular shape, bordered on the south by existing single family residences, on the north by El Fuerte Street and on the west by an Open Space preserve area. GPA 09-08/ZC 09-09/CT 04-137 HDP04-06/HMP09-10 El Fuerte View 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 J Air Quality x\l Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils /\ Noise Hazards/Hazardous Materials LJ Population and Housing Hydrology/Water Quality /\ Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Mandatory Findings of Significance Public Services Recreation Transportation/Circulation Utilities & Service Systems Rev. 02/22/06 GPA 09-08/ZC 09-09/CT 04-137 HDP04-06/HMP09-10 El Fuerte View DETERMINATION. 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 C-/C-/O Planning Director's Signature Date Rev. 02/22/06 GPA 09-08/ZC 09-09/CT 04-13/ HDP04-06/HMP09-10 El Fuerte View ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. • A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. • "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. • "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. • "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly adverse. • Based on an "EIA-Initial Study", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but all potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required. • When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. • A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment. • If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the Rev. 02/22/06 GPA 09-08/ZC 09-09/CT 04-137 HDP04-06/HMP09-10 El Fuerte View appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. • An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the EIA-Initial Study analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears after each related set of questions. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant. Rev. 02/22/06 GPA 09-08/ZC 09-09/CT 04-137 HDP04-06/HMP09-10 El Fuerte View Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: . a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? a), b), c), and d) No Impact. The site is located in an area that has been developed with single family residential homes and does not have significant value as a scenic resource. The project will not generate significant light or glare since it is a typical single family, detached residential subdivision similar to what is existing in the neighborhood. The site is adjacent to El Fuerte Street (a local collector street), at the toe of a manufactured slope, and has been previously graded. The City does not have a view preservation ordinance for the protection of private views. Regardless, the project will not have a significant effect on the views to the north or west from the existing residential neighborhood located south of .the property along Cacatua Street since the project pad elevations range from 20 to 46 feet lower in elevation than the existing home pads on Cacatua Street. As seen from the properties on the north side of El Fuerte Street, the new development will have a backdrop of the protected and undeveloped upper reaches of the existing slopes. Rev. 02/22/06 GPA 09-08/ZC 09-09/CT 04-137 HDP04-06/HMP09-10 El Fuerte View II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - (In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model-1997 prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 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? a), b), and c) No Impact. There is no evidence that the site has been used for agricultural production. Although the site has been graded, there is no reasonable opportunity for use of the site for agricultural production. There is not a Williamson Act contract on the property. Rev. 02722/06 GPA 09-08/ZC 09-09/CT 04-13/ HDP04-06/HMP09-10 El Fuerte View III. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.) Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 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? 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 Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). A Plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state-mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other California non- attainment areas having serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by the Air Resources Board (ARE) after public hearings on November 9th through 10th in 1994, and was forwarded to 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, Rev. 02/22/06 GPA 09-08/ZC 09-09/CT 04-137 HDP04-06/HMP09-10 El Fuerte View then the project presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact. Section 15125(B) of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the following: • Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area? • Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan? The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is being implemented. The project, at a density of 3.2 du/ac is consistent with the General Plan and regional air quality plan and will in no way conflict or obstruct implementation of the regional plan. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is at Camp Pendleton. Data available for this monitoring site from 2000 through December, 2004, indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (a total of 10 days during the 5-year period). No other violations of any air quality standards have been recorded during the 5-year time period. The project would involve minimal short-term emissions associated with grading and construction. Such emissions would be minimized through standard construction measures such as the use of properly tuned equipment and watering the site for dust control. Long-term emissions associated with travel to and from the project will be minimal. Although air pollutant emissions would be associated with the project, they would neither result in the violation of any air quality standard (comprising only an incremental contribution to overall air basin quality readings), nor contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The air basin is currently in a state non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine particulates. The proposed project would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with the proposed project would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the proposed project, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a)(4), the proposed project's contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. d) No impact. 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. Rev. 02/22/06 IV. BIOLOGICAL project: RESOURCES - Would the a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? GPA 09-08/ZC 09-09/CT 04-13/ HDP04-06/HMP09-10 El Fuerte View Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact a) and b) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The project was analyzed in 2005 for biological impacts and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for comment in 2006. The project was redesigned in 2008 and the foot print of disturbance was reduced which in turn reduced impacts to native and non-native habitats and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for comment in early 2010. The project was redesigned in May 2010 addressing concerns raised by surrounding property owners in response to the early 2010 public notice. The following discussion is based on the May 2010 redesigned footprint, the 2005 analysis prepared by Dudek; the 2009 analysis 10 Rev. 02/22/06 GPA 09-08/ZC 09-09/CT 04-13/ HDP04-06/HMP09-10 El Fuerte View prepared by Helix Environmental Planning, and an updated May 2010 geographic information system (GIS) map analysis prepared by the City of Carlsbad. The project will affect a total of 1.33 acres of sensitive vegetation communities comprised of 0.31 acres of non-native grass land, 0.14 acres of coastal sage scrub, 0.59 acres of disturbed coastal sage scrub, 0.11 acres of scrub oak chaparral, and 0.18 acres of disturbed scrub oak chaparral. A total of 1.56 acres will not be disturbed by project development. Habitat Type Existing Impacted Not Impacted Non-native grassland Coastal Sage Scrub Coastal Sage Scrub: Disturbed Scrub Oak Chaparral Scrub Oak Chaparral: Disturbed Developed/Ornamental Ruderal TOTAL 0.31 0.35 0.64 0.73 0.56 0.35 0.97 3.91 0.31 0.14 0.59 0.11 0.18 0.19 0.83 2.35 0.00 0.21 0.05 0.62 0.38 0.16 0.14 1.56 NOTE: Acreage numbers have been rounded down to two decimal points. Mitigation for the impacts to sensitive habitats include the preservation of the 1.56 acre portion of the site in open space, designation of 2.35 acres offsite as hardline preserve, and the payment of the Habitat Management Plan Habitat In-Lieu Fee for each of the specified onsite habitat types. In summary that includes: 1.02 acres of disturbed lands (Group F at al:l ratio); 0.31 acres of non-native grass land (Group E at a 0.5:1.0 ratio), 0.14 acres of coastal sage scrub (Group D at a 1:1 ratio), 0.59 acres of disturbed coastal sage scrub (Group D at a 1:1 ratio), 0.11 acres of scrub oak chaparral (Group D at a 1:1 ratio), and 0.18 acres of disturbed scrub oak chaparral (Group D at a 1:1 ratio) b), c), and e) No Impact. The project site does not contain a riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat natural community and will therefore not have significant impacts to those communities. Impacts to Coastal Sage Scrub are not considered substantially adverse and will be mitigated through onsite preservation and payment of an in-lieu fee. d) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated The site has the potential of containing habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher. Prior to construction, focused protocol surveys for the gnatcatcher shall be conducted to determine occupancy. e), f) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The 3.91 acre site was erroneously identified as an Existing Hardline Preserve area in the City of Carlsbad's Habitat Management Plan. The site has been previously graded and left undeveloped and contains 1.58 acres of disturbed land. With the exception of City-owned parcels, the original Existing HMP Hardline Preserves were intended to include only those properties designated as open space in the City's General Plan or Zoning or those properties encumbered by an open space or conservation easement. The El Fuerte View property was annexed into the City of Carlsbad in 1972 with a General Plan designation of Residential Low Medium (RLM) and a Zoning designation of One Family Residential (R-l) and no changes to those designations have occurred since annexation. The site has never been encumbered by an open space or conservation easement and is shown as developable property in the final subdivision map (La Costa Meadows Unit 3). Since the property was never designated as open space and not encumbered by an easement, and the property owner did not consent to conservation of the property, it was inappropriate for the property to be included in the original Existing HMP Hardline Preserve. 11 Rev. 02/22/06 GPA 09-08/ZC 09-09/CT 04-13/ HDP04-06/HMP09-10 El Fuerte View Section 20.1 of the BMP Implementing Agreement (IA) anticipates that some text and mapping errors may occur and provides a process and criteria for correcting these errors. The process involves a Minor Amendment to the HMP, requiring notification to all signatories of the LA and their concurrence on three findings, detailed below: 1. The Minor Amendment shall not result in operations under the HMP that are significantly different than those analyzed in connection with the HMP; 2. The Minor Amendment shall not result in any adverse effects on the environment that are new or significantly different from those analyzed in the original HMP; 3. The Minor Amendment would not result in additional take not analyzed in connection with the original HMP. The El Fuerte View project is conditioned to provide preservation of the associated future HMP Hardline Preserve in perpetuity, guided by an approved Preserve Management Plan and funded by a non-wasting endowment, prior to issuance of a grading permit. The Preserve Manager must file annual reports detailing the management and monitoring activities on the site and coordinate with the City's Preserve Steward as described in the City's Open Space Management Plan (OSMP); therefore no alterations or revisions to HMP operations or implementation would result from the Minor Amendment. The project site's location at the eastern terminus of a larger habitat area with no nearby habitat to the east, north, or south precludes the parcel from serving as a wildlife movement corridor or linkage. The impacted natural lands (coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and non-native grassland habitats) are all habitat types that the HMP envisioned being impacted by development, hence the ability to mitigate these impacts through payment of an HMP In-Lieu Mitigation Fee. Since there are no listed species located within the impact area, the project would not result in any take not analyzed in the original HMP. With regard to completion of the HMP preserve and satisfaction of the conservation levels described in Table 8 of the HMP, the City is undergoing a Citywide evaluation of all HMP lands and lands currently covered by conservation easements and has identified areas that can be added to the preserve in order to offset the loss of acreage associated with this and other future Minor Amendments for mapping corrections should they occur. This process is a preserve-wide issue and relates to the overall City HMP conservation levels rather than a site or project level conservation. 12 Rev. 02/22/06 GPA 09-08/ZC 09-09/CT 04-13/ HDP04-06/HMP09-10 El Fuerte View Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 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 significance 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? a), b), c), and d) No Impact. The site has been previously graded and there is no evidence that the site has significance as a cultural resource. In addition, the California Historic Resources Information Center conducted a records search in August 2009 to determine the need for a cultural resources survey. The National American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) search did not indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources within one-half mile radius of the Area of Project Effect (APE). 13 Rev. 02/22/06 GPA 09-08/ZC 09-09/CT 04-13/ HDP04-06/HMP09-10 El Fuerte View 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? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? 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? a), b), and e) No Impact. A geotechnical report, Geotechnical Update and Grading Plan Review Report El Fuerte View Project (Carlsbad Tract 04-13) El Fuerte Street Carlsbad, California prepared by Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc. dated June 8, 2009, was prepared for the site. The geotechnical investigation determined that the site is not subject to seismic related ground failure. There is no known earthquake fault within or near the property, 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, As such there is no evidence that development of the site will expose people to strong seismic ground 14 Rev. 02/22/06 GPA 09-08/ZC 09-09/CT 04-13/ HDP04-06/HMP09-10 El Fuerte View shaking resulting in ground failure including liquefaction and landslides. Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42Standard erosion control methods will be implemented to insure that there is no soil erosion or loss of topsoil. The project will not use septic or alternative wastewater, but will connect to the City sewer system. c) and d) Less Than Significant Impact. Per Geotechnical Update and Grading Plan Review Report El Fuerte View Project (Carlsbad Tract 04-13) El Fuerte Street. Carlsbad, California prepared by Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc. dated June 8, 2009, expansive soils were identified onsite. Remedial grading is required which includes excavation and re-compaction of the expansive soils and will be incorporated into the project grading plan. 15 Rev. 02/22/06 GPA 09-08/ZC 09-09/CT 04-13/ HDP04-06/HMP09-10 El Fuerte View Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS - Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? a) No Impact. The City of Carlsbad has not established greenhouse gas emission thresholds to which projects subject to the California Environmental Quality Act may be compared against. However, the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) has prepared a document entitled: CEOA and Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from projects subject to the California Environmental Quality Act January 2008. According to the document, absent an adopted threshold and/or Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, a tiered approach to determining significance is a viable alternative. The report suggests that residential projects of 50 units will have a contribution of 900 metric tons of greenhouse gasses and that this level of contribution cumulatively can be considered insignificant. The project is one-seventh the size of the suggested sample and can therefore be assumed to have a contribution level of approximately 126 metric tons. This assumed contribution is also considered less than significant. To the greatest extent feasible, new buildings should be constructed using passive solar building design, low-energy building, or zero-energy building techniques, using renewable heat sources. Buildings can be made efficient through the use of insulation, high-efficiency appliances (particularly hot water heaters and furnaces), double- or triple-glazed gas-filled windows, external window shades, and building orientation and siting. Renewable heat sources such as shallow geothermal and passive solar energy reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses emitted. In addition to designing buildings which are more energy efficient to heat, it is possible to design buildings that are more energy efficient to cool by using lighter-colored, more reflective materials in the development of urban areas (e.g. by painting roofs white) and planting trees. This saves energy because it cools buildings and reduces the urban heat island effect thus reducing the use of air conditioning. b) No Impact. The City of Carlsbad has not adopted a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan or other regulation regarding the reduction of Greenhouse Gases. 16 Rev. 02/22/06 GPA 09-08/ZC 09-09/CT 04-137 HDP04-06/HMP09-10 El Fuerte View VIII. 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 Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 17 Rev. 02/22/06 GPA 09-08/ZC 09-09/CT 04-13/ HDP04-06/HMP09-10 El Fuerte View a), b), c), and d) No Impact. The project is a subdivision of property for single family homes and will not involve hazardous materials. The site is not included on a list of property known to have hazardous materials. e), f) and g) No Impact. The project site is not within two miles of the McClellan-Palomar Airport. The property is not within the airport Flight Activity Zone. The property is within the Airport Overflight Notification Area and therefore, a notice of overflight will be recorded against the property. The property Zoning and General Plan Land Use designation assumes development of the site as residential, and, the City's adopted emergency response or evacuation plan benefits residential development. h) Less Than Significant Impact. An open space preserve with natural vegetation is west of and adjacent to the project. The project design includes a wildfire interface buffer consistent with City of Carlsbad adopted Landscape Manual. 18 Rev. 02/22/06 GPA 09-08/ZC 09-09/CT 04-137 HDP04-06/HMP09-10 El Fuerte View IX. 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 storm water 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 19 Rev. 02722/06 GPA 09-08/ZC 09-09/CT 04-13/ HDP04-06/HMP09-10 El Fuerte View Potentially Significant Impact Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a), b), c), d), e), f)> g), h), i), and j) No Impact. A hydrology and hydraulics report was prepared for the property by Aleksandar Pantich, dated May 5, 2005. Although the project design has changed somewhat from what was analyzed in 2005, the project footprint and drainage will essentially remain the same as analyzed in the hydrology study. The project will implement all of the recommendations of the hydrology study and accepted Best Management Practices to protect the downstream flow of waters from pollutants. The project's seven single family residential lots will not have a significant demand on groundwater supplies nor will they have adverse effect on aquifer recharge since the property is located 400 feet above sea level and not in close proximity to an aquifer. The site is not near any streams, rivers, lagoons, estuaries, or lakes, is not in a flood plain, nor is it near the ocean or other bodies of water. Because of its inland location, the property is at no risk for being affected by seiche or tsunami. Mudflows are unlikely because of the remedial grading proposed for the site. 20 Rev. 02/22/06 Page 1 of 3 PROJECT NAME: El Fuerte View APPROVAL DATE: FILE NUMBERS: GPA 09-08/ZC 09-09/CT 04-13/HDP 04-06 The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). Mitigation Measure If construction activities are to occur during the raptor nesting season (February 15-August 31), prior to the commencement of construction, the applicant shall hire a qualified biologist who shall perform a breeding/nesting bird survey to determine if there are birds present on or immediately adjacent to the project site. Nests that are detected within the proposed impact areas shall be avoided until nesting is completed Prior to construction, focused protocol surveys for the gnatcatcher shall be conducted to determine occupancy onsite. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the project applicant shall pay habitat in-lieu mitigation fees as established by the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan for impacts to specified habitat types. In summary that includes: 1.02 acres of disturbed lands (Group F at a1:1 ratio); 0.31 acres of non-native grass land (Group E at a 0.5:1.0 ratio), 0.14 acres of coastal sage scrub (Group D at a 1:1 ratio), 0.59 acres of disturbed coastal sage scrub (Group D at a 1:1 ratio), 0.11 acres of scrub oak chaparral (Group D at a 1:1 ratio), and 0.18 acres of disturbed scrub oak chaparral (Group D at a 1:1 ratio). Monitoring Type Project Project Project Monitoring Department Planning Planning Planning Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. 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 information. RD - Appendix P. Page 2 of 3 Mitigation Measure Monitoring Type Monitoring Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit or clearing of any habitat, whichever occurs first, the Developer shall take the following actions to the satisfaction of the Planning Director in relation to the open space lot which is being conserved for natural habitat in conformance with the City's Habitat Management Plan: a. Select a conservation entity, subject to approval by the City, that possesses qualifications to manage the open space lot(s) for conservation purposes. b. Prepare a Property Analysis Record (PAR) or other method acceptable to the City for estimating the costs of management and monitoring of the open space lot(s) in perpetuity in accordance with the requirements of the North County Multiple Habitats Conservation Plan and the City's Open Space Management Plan. c. Based on the results of the PAR, provide a non- wasting endowment or other financial mechanism acceptable to the Planning Director and conservation entity, if any, in an amount sufficient for management and monitoring of the open space lot(s) in perpetuity. d. Record a Conservation Easement over the open space lot(s). e. Prepare a Preserve Management Plan which will ensure adequate management of the open space lot(s) in perpetuity which includes erosion control; landscaping restrictions; fencing, signage, and lighting requirements; and predator and exotic species control. Project Planning Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. 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 information. RD - Appendix P. Page 3 of 3 Mitigation Measure Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, sound rated windows shall be included on elevations facing El Fuerte Street and shown on the building plans. To the greatest extent feasible, buildings should be constructed using passive solar building design, low-energy building, or zero-energy building techniques, using renewable heat sources. Buildings should use insulation, high-efficiency appliances (particularly hot water heaters and furnaces), double- or triple-glazed gas-filled windows, external window shades, and building orientation and siting to increase energy efficiency. Monitoring Type Project Project Monitoring Department Building Building Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. 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 information. RD -Appendix P.