HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-05-07; Planning Commission; Resolution 7046
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
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM AND ADDENDUM TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
3,412 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF JEFFERSON STREET, SOUTH
OF LAS FLORES DRIVE AND WITHIN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: DE ANDA RESIDENCE
CASE NO.: CDP 13-30
WHEREAS, Veronica De Anda, “Developer/Owner,” has filed a verified application with
the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as:
Portion of Tract No. 3 of Laguna Mesa Tracts, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map Thereof No.
1719 filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County,
June 20, 1921, more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the Southeasterly corner of Parcel 1 described in Deed to
Leo S. Karlyn, recorded August 7, 1991, as Document No. 91-0398331
of Official Records, thence along the Southerly Line of said Parcel 1
and the Southerly Line of Parcel 2 of said Deed North 89°27’37” West,
230.29 feet to the Westerly Line of Parcel 2 of said Deed; thence along
said Westerly Line North 19°15’50” East,, 79.19 feet; thence South
89°27’37” East, 204.88 feet to the Easterly Line of Parcel of said deed;
thence along said Easterly Line South 0°32’42” West, 75.00 feet to the
point of beginning
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program and Addendum were prepared in conjunction with said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on May 7, 2014, hold a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering
any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows:
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 7046
PC RESO NO. 7046 -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
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission
hereby ADOPTS the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, Exhibit “MND,” according to Exhibits “Notice of Intent (NOI),”
“Environmental Impact Assessment Form – Initial Study (EIA),” and Addendum, Exhibit
“ADDM,” attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a. it has reviewed, analyzed, and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum for DE ANDA
RESIDENCE – CDP 13-30, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project
and any comments thereon prior to APPROVING the project; and
b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
and Addendum has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection
Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
d. based on the EIA and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project
will have a significant effect on the environment.
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.
NOTICE TO APPLICANT
An appeal of this decision to the City Council must be filed with the City Clerk at 1200 Carlsbad Village
Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92008, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the Planning
Commission’s decision. Pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.54, section 21.54.150, the
appeal must be in writing and state the reason(s) for the appeal. The City Council must make a
determination on the appeal prior to any judicial review.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
Planning Division
1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 760-602-4600 760-602-8558 fax
www.carlsbadca.gov
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT NAME: De Anda Residence
PROJECT NO: CDP 13-30/CDP 13-31
PROJECT LOCATION: West side of Jefferson Street, just south of Las Flores Drive in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project is a request for approval of a Coastal Development Permit to
construct a 3,412 square foot single-family residence with an attached two-car garage, and an attached
640 square foot second dwelling unit with a one-car garage. The project site is a .38 acre parcel located
on the west side of Jefferson Street along the south shore of the Buena Vista Lagoon. The Buena Vista
Lagoon is identified in the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan as an existing hardline preserve
area.
Surrounding land uses include a vacant property to the north with approvals to construct a single-family
home, a single-family home to the south, Jefferson Street and single-family homes to the east, and the
Buena Vista Lagoon to the west.
Topography of the site consists of a flat area adjacent to Jefferson Street and steep slope leading down
to the lagoon. Elevations on site range from approximately 14 feet above mean sea level near the
western site boundary to approximately 65 feet along the eastern site boundary.
The .38 acre project site consists of primarily undeveloped land supporting .01 acres of southern willow
scrub, .26 acres of non-native grassland, .03 acres of non-native vegetation, .06 acres of disturbed land,
and .02 acres of developed land (concrete pad). Southern willow scrub lies within a proposed 100 foot
wetland buffer which would eliminate any impacts to the native vegetation. The project will impact non-
native grassland and grassland which will be mitigated in accordance with the City of Carlsbad’s Habitat
Management Plan (HMP). The 100 foot buffer area will be planted with native plants and an open space
easement will be recorded against the property to restrict future development.
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 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
Mitigated 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.
AVAILABILITY: A copy of the Initial Study documenting reasons to support the proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Division, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008
and is available online at: http://www.carlsbadca.gov/planning-notices.aspx.
COMMENTS: 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. Written comments regarding the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
should be directed to Austin Silva at the address listed below or via email to
austin.silva@carlsbadca.gov. Comments must be received 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 Planning Commission. Additional public notices will be issued when those public hearings are
scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Austin Silva in the Planning Division at (760) 602-4631.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD February 11, 2014 – March 13, 2014
PUBLISH DATE February 11, 2014
Initial Study
June 2013 -1- Initial Study
1. PROJECT NAME: De Anda Residence
2. PROJECT NO: CDP 13-30/CDP 13-31
3. LEAD AGENCY:
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
4. PROJECT APPLICANT:
Beery Group, Inc.
John Beery
2091 Las Palmas Drive, Suite D
Carlsbad, CA 92011
5. LEAD AGENCY CONTACT PERSON: Austin Silva, Assistant Planner, 760-602-4631,
Austin.silva@carlsbadca.gov
6. PROJECT LOCATION: West side of Jefferson Street, just south of Las Flores in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, (APN )
7. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Residential Medium-High Density (RMH)
8. ZONING: R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential)
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project is a request for approval of a Coastal Development Permit to
construct a 3,412 square foot single-family residence with an attached two-car garage, and an attached
640 square foot second dwelling unit with a one-car garage. The project site is a .38 acre parcel located
on the west side of Jefferson Street along the south shore of the Buena Vista Lagoon. The Buena Vista
Lagoon is identified in the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan as an existing hardline preserve
area.
10. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING/SURROUNDING LAND USES: Topography of the site consists of a flat
area adjacent to Jefferson Street and steep slope leading down to the lagoon. Elevations on site range
from approximately 14 feet above mean sea level near the western site boundary to approximately 65
feet along the eastern site boundary.
The .38 acre project site consists of primarily undeveloped land supporting .01 acres of southern
willow scrub, .26 acres of non-native grassland, .03 acres of non-native vegetation, .06 acres of
disturbed land, and .02 acres of developed land (concrete pad). Southern willow scrub lies within a
proposed 100 foot wetland buffer which would eliminate any impacts to the native vegetation. The
project will impact non-native grassland and grassland which will be mitigated in accordance with the
City of Carlsbad’s Habitat Management Plan (HMP). The 100 foot buffer area will be planted with
native plants and an open space easement will be recorded against the property to restrict future
development.
Surrounding land uses include a vacant property to the north with approvals to construct a single-
family home, a single-family home to the south, Jefferson Street and single-family homes to the east,
and the Buena Vista Lagoon to the west.
11. OTHER REQUIRED AGENCY APPROVALS (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements):
California Coastal Commission
12. PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: None
13. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
DEANDA RESIDENCE
COP 13-30/13-31
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.
D Aesthetics D Greenhouse Gas Emissions D Population & Housing
D Agriculture & Forestry Resources D Hazards/Hazardous Materials D Public Services
D Air Quality D Hydrology/Water Quality D Recreation
181 Biological Resources D land Use & Planning D Transportation/Traffic
181 Cultural Resources D Mineral Resources D Utilities & Service Systems
D Geology/Soils D Noise D Mandatory Findings of Significance
14. PREPARATION: The Initial Study for the subject project was prepared by:
Austi~sis~er Z-/0:: :1-<'l'f
June 2013 -2-Initial Study
DE ANDA RESIDENCE
CDP 13-30/13-31
June 2013 -4- Initial Study
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported
by the information sources a lead agency cites 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 (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No
Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general
standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist
answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation,
or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that
an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a
"Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier
Analyses," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an
effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In
this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify 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 Measures
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.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside
document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is
substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.
DE ANDA RESIDENCE
CDP 13-30/13-31
June 2013 -5- Initial Study
I. AESTHETICS
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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, c) Less than Significant Impact. A single-family home is proposed for construction on a vacant parcel of
land with westerly views of the Buena Vista Lagoon and the Pacific Ocean. These views are currently visible
from the Jefferson Street frontage. While the proposed development will partially block these existing views,
the project is not considered to have a substantially adverse effect on a scenic vista given that the area is not
identified in either the Local Coastal Program or the City of Carlsbad’s General Plan as such. Additionally, the
property has a General Plan Land Use designation of RMH (Residential Medium-High Density) and is zoned R-
3 (Multi-Family Residential), which would allow development at a density of 8 to 15 dwelling units per acre
with a maximum building height of 35 feet. The proposed single-family home is 22 feet tall as measured from
the front of the house viewed from Jefferson Street. Surrounding land uses are consistent with the proposed
development both in scale and use. Development of the site will not adversely affect scenic vistas or
substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.
b) No Impact. The proposed project is not located adjacent to any state scenic highways, nor are there any
rock outcroppings or historic buildings on-site. Southern willow scrub, consisting of .01 acres in size, is
located on the northwest corner of the site. The trees however are located outside of the development area
and will not be impacted by the project. Therefore, no scenic resources will be damaged as a result of the
proposed project.
d) No Impact. The proposed use is consistent with the surrounding single-family residential uses and will be
designed similar to surrounding single-family residential uses such that it does not contribute a significant
amount of light or glare. No impact assessed.
DE ANDA RESIDENCE
CDP 13-30/13-31
June 2013 -6- Initial Study
II. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES *
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No 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 or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
* 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. In determining whether impacts
to forest resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range
Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in
Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.)
a-c) No Impact. There will be no impacts to agricultural resources since the site is not designated, nor has it
been historically or currently used for farmland. The proposed project is consistent with the City of
Carlsbad’s General Plan. The subject site is zoned R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) and is not subject to a
Williamson Act Contract. The project would not result in other changes to the environment that would
result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. The General Plan Land Use designation is
Residential Medium-High Density (RMH), which anticipates one-family, two-family and multiple-family
residential development. Given the steep slopes, surrounding residential development and lack of
existing or historical agricultural infrastructure, it is unlikely that agricultural operations would be viable
at this location. Development of the site as proposed would not adversely affect agricultural resources.
No impact assessed.
DE ANDA RESIDENCE
CDP 13-30/13-31
June 2013 -7- Initial Study
III. AIR QUALITY*
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under
an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds
for ozone precursors)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
* 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.
a) No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is currently designated as a
nonattainment area for the state standard for PM10, PM2.5, 1-Hour and 8-Hour ozone, and the Federal 8-Hour
Standard for ozone. 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). The RAQS
outlines the APCD’s plans and regulatory control measures designed to attain state air quality standards for
ozone. The RAQS, which was initially adopted in 1991, is updated on a triennial basis with the most recent
update occurring in April 2009.
The APCD has also developed the SDAB’s input into the State Implementation Plan (SIP) which is required
under the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) for pollutants that are designated as being in nonattainment of
national air quality standards for the air basin. The SIP relies on the same information from SANDAG to
develop emission inventories and emission control strategies that are included in the attainment
demonstration for the air basin.
The proposed project relates to the SIP and/or RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that are
incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city’s and
the County’s general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the
project presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency
would ensure that the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact.
Section 15125(d) 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
DE ANDA RESIDENCE
CDP 13-30/13-31
June 2013 -8- Initial Study
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 growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan and will
in no way conflict with or obstruct implementation of the regional plan.
b) Less than Significant Impact. The closest air quality monitoring stations to the project site are at Camp
Pendleton and Escondido (E. Valley Parkway). Data available for these monitoring sites from 2009 through
2011, indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded were as follows: the 1-Hour ozone
concentration did not exceed the state standard any time during the years 2009 through 2011; the 8-Hour
ozone concentration exceeded both the state and federal standard in 2009 and 2010 and the state standard
was exceeded twice in 2011; the daily PM10 concentration exceeded the state standard in 2009, but not in
2010 or 2011; and the federal standard for PM10 and the federal 24-Hour PM2.5 standard was not exceeded
during the 2009 through 2011 time period. No other violations of any air quality standards have been
recorded during the years 2009 through 2011.
The project would involve minimal short-term emissions associated with grading and construction. Such
emissions would be minimized through standard construction measures and Best Management Practices
(BMPs) that would reduce fugitive dust emissions and other criteria pollutant emissions during construction.
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 15064(h)(3), the proposed project’s
incremental contribution to the cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable. 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.
DE ANDA RESIDENCE
CDP 13-30/13-31
June 2013 -9- Initial Study
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
a, b, c, & f) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project is a single-family home
located adjacent to the south shore of the Buena Vista Lagoon, which is identified in the City of Carlsbad’s
Habitat Management Plan (HMP) as an existing hardline preserve area. The project site is identified in the
HMP as being development area. The project site is not located within an existing or proposed HMP hardline
preserve area or a proposed HMP standards area. The project is designed to be consistent with the HMP. The
HMP Zone 1 conservation goals require conservation of the majority of sensitive habitats in or contiguous
with biological core areas, including a no net loss of wetland habitat, and preservation of coastal sage scrub
and maritime succulent scrub adjacent to the lagoons. The HMP requires additional conservation standards
to be applied to properties in the Coastal Zone. A 100-foot buffer is required for all wetland/riparian habitats
between preserved habitats and development.
A Biological Resources Report was prepared by Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. on August 5, 2013 (VDA-
01). This report indicates that the project site contains primarily undeveloped land supporting .01 acres of
southern willow scrub, .26 acres of non-native grassland, .03 acres of non-native vegetation, .06 acres of
disturbed land, and .02 acres of developed land (concrete pad). Southern willow scrub lies within a proposed
100 foot wetland buffer which would eliminate any impacts to the native vegetation. The project will impact
non-native grassland and grassland which will be mitigated in accordance with the City of Carlsbad’s Habitat
Management Plan (HMP). The 100 foot buffer area will be planted with native plants and an open space
easement will be recorded against the property to restrict future development. The proposed development
DE ANDA RESIDENCE
CDP 13-30/13-31
June 2013 -10- Initial Study
will impact both non-native grasslands and disturbed land. There will be no impacts to the southern willow
scrub which is located within a proposed (required) 100 foot wetland buffer adjacent to the lagoon. The HMP
allows impacts to non-native grassland, non-native vegetation, and disturbed land to be mitigated through
the payment of an in-lieu mitigation fee.
Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species
The biological resources report also indicates that no Federal, State, or HMP sensitive plant or animal species
were observed on site. Focused surveys for rare plants and sensitive animal species were not conducted as
part of the survey and report. Rather, a general biological survey was conducted on the site. However, a
listing of sensitive species with a “potential to occur” on the property was determined through searches of
the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) sensitive species database. The 18 plants and animals listed in the
HMP as narrow endemic species were included in this search. A majority of the plant species identified in the
report were listed as having a very low potential to occur on site. The majority of the animal species
identified in the report were listed as having a very low potential to occur on site due to the poor quality of
existing habitat and the sites isolation as a result of development on three sides, and the Buena Vista Lagoon
on the other.
Sensitive Vegetation Communities/Wetland Habitat
The biological resources report identified an area of.01 acres of southern willow scrub located along the
northwest portion of the property adjacent to the lagoon. Southern willow scrub is identified in the HMP as a
sensitive vegetation community. The area of southern willow scrub occurring on site is considered potential
USACE, CDFW and Carlsbad LCP jurisdictional wetland and riparian habitat. However, only the regulating
agencies can make a final determination of jurisdictional boundaries. The HMP Zone 1 conservation goals
require a no net loss of wetland habitat. To mitigate any potential impact to the wetland area, the project has
been designed in accordance with the Local Coastal Program and the city’s HMP to provide a 100 foot buffer
between the wetland habitat area and project development. Furthermore, an open space easement will be
placed over the 100 foot wetland buffer between the wetland habitat area to preclude any future
development of this area, which will also be planted with native plant species as required in the biological
resources report.
Indirect Impact
The project site is located adjacent to the Buena Vista Lagoon, which is considered an existing HMP Hardline
Preserve area. In order to minimize edge effects, the following standards have been incorporated into the
project as mitigation to reduce indirect impacts to a level considered less than significant:
1. Buffers and Fuel Modification Zones: Buffers shall be provided between preserved areas and
development. The minimum buffer width for riparian areas is 50 feet and wetlands require a 100-
foot buffer width. No development, grading, or alterations, including clearing of vegetation, shall
occur in the buffer area with two exceptions: no fuel modification shall take place within 50 feet of
riparian areas or wetlands, and recreation trails and public pathways may occur within 50 feet of
riparian areas or wetlands, and recreation trails and public pathways may occur within the 15 feet
closest to the development provided it is consistent with the preservation goals of the preserved
habitat and appropriate measures are taken for physical separation from sensitive areas. Buffer
areas that do not contain native habitat shall be landscaped with native plants. Signage and barriers
shall be required to minimize edge effects.
DE ANDA RESIDENCE
CDP 13-30/13-31
June 2013 -11- Initial Study
2. Grading and Landscaping Requirements: Grading activity shall be prohibited during the rainy season
(October 1 to April 1). The City Engineer may extend the October 1 deadline if specific provisions are
met regarding special erosion control measures. A coastal development permit or permit
amendment would allow grading activities during the winter if resource agencies prohibit grading on
site during the summer to protect endangered or rare species. All graded areas shall have temporary
or permanent landscaping installed prior to October 1 and shall be maintained and replanted if not
well established by December 1 following the initial planting.
3. Bird Nesting: In order to comply with the California Fish and Wildlife Code, the project shall clear
vegetation outside of the nesting bird season (generally February 1 through August 31), or that a
preconstruction nesting bird survey be conducted within three days prior to any clearing, grubbing,
or grading activities. The pre-construction nesting bird survey would identify the locations of any
active nests within the proposed development area. Active nests would need to be avoided until the
young have fledged or the nest is otherwise abandoned.
In addition, the 100 foot wetland buffer area between the HMP preserve and development will need to be
protected by an open space easement to preclude any future development of this area. The conditioned
mitigation will result in a less than significant impact to biological resources.
d, e) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located within Local Facility Management Zone (LFMZ) 1
and just outside of the Core Area 1 boundary of the HMP. Core 1 consists of the Buena Vista Lagoon and
adjoining wetland and upland habitats. The Buena Vista Lagoon and its surrounding vegetation provide
habitat for critical populations of the California least tern, western snowy plover, light-footed clapper rail,
American peregrine falcon, California brown pelican, white-faced ibis and the southwestern pond turtle. As a
result, the lagoon and its associated vegetation have been designated as a “Hardline Preserve Area” by the
City of Carlsbad and “Conserved Lands” by the CDFW. However, the project site is located outside of, but
adjacent to the “Hardline Preserve Area.”
Pursuant to the Carlsbad HMP, LFMZ is almost entirely developed, containing scattered fragments of natural
vegetation, including major and critical strand of riparian habitat and scattered patches of coastal sage scrub,
non-native grassland, maritime succulent scrub, salt marsh, and freshwater marsh.
Several HMP Conservation Goals for LFMZ 1 are applicable to the project:
a) No net loss of wetland habitat.
b) Preserving coastal sage scrub and maritime succulent scrub adjacent to the Buena Vista Lagoon
c) Retaining and managing natural habitats adjacent to the lagoons to buffer wetland resources from
adverse effects and to provide upland nesting habitat for pond turtles and other HMP species.
The proposed project has taken these goals into consideration and is avoiding the small amount of wetland
habitat that occurs on site. A 100 foot buffer between the wetlands and the development area has been
incorporated into the project design. Although the project site is located adjacent to an existing HMP
Hardline Preserve area, it is identified in the biological resources report as being in a highly disturbed state
and located adjacent to developed properties on three sides. As such, the property is of limited value to
wildlife, and the habitat on site is not expected to provide suitable nesting habitat for HMP species.
Therefore, project associated impacts are considered to be less than significant.
DE ANDA RESIDENCE
CDP 13-30/13-31
June 2013 -12- Initial Study
V. CULTURAL/PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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 paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
a, b & d) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. A Cultural Resources Study was prepared on
July 16, 2013 by ASM Affiliates, Inc. The study 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.
A records search requested from the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC) identified that a prehistoric site
(CA-SDI-8455) is located adjacent to the project boundaries. A field survey was conducted on the site, but
failed to produce any evidence of archaeological materials within the project area. The report indicates there
is a minimal potential still remaining that the proposed project could disturb elements of SDI-8455 that may
be buried beneath the fill slope. Consequently, it is required that archaeological monitoring by a qualified
archeologist is required during construction in order to identify previously unidentified subsurface cultural
deposits. Monitoring is recommended during initial ground disturbance including soil testing, soil
remediation, and the initial grading. In the event that cultural resources are encountered, all work should
cease in the vicinity of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist has evaluated the resource to determine
significance. Monitoring will not be required for non-native fill soils or after initial grading. Implementation of
the mitigation measures recommended in the cultural resources study will reduce project associated impacts
to a level of less than significant.
c) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A Paleontological Resource Assessment was
prepared on July 15, 2013 by the Department of Paleoservices, San Diego Natural History Museum. According
to the report, the project site is underlain by geologic deposits mapped as Pleistocene-age marine terrace
deposits and Eocene-age strata of the Sespe Formation. There are no previous records of fossil localites
occurring within the Pleistocene marine terrace deposits on the south side of the Buena Vista Lagoon.
Although, there are recorded paleontological collecting sites in correlative deposits to the north of the
project site. There are several recorded fossil collecting sites from the Sespe Formation located southwest of
the project site in the sea cliffs of north Carlsbad. Another recorded fossil collecting site is known from a
residential housing development along the north side of the San Luis Rey River Valley in Oceanside. The
Pleistocene-marine terrace and Sespe Formation are both assigned a high paleontological resource sensitivity
rating because of previous records and the following of the paleontological guidelines developed by the
County of San Diego. Because of this, the report recommends a mitigation program which includes a
paleontologist attending the pre-construction meeting, full-time paleontological monitoring of the mass
grading and excavation activities by a qualified paleontologist, proper fossil recovery techniques if
discovered, and a final summary report that outlines the results of the mitigation program. Implementation
of the recommended mitigation measures will reduce the project impacts to a level of less than significant.
DE ANDA RESIDENCE
CDP 13-30/13-31
June 2013 -13- Initial Study
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
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 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 geotechnical update and review (W.O. 6612-A-SC) of the site was
prepared by GeoSoils, Inc. on October 28, 2013 after previous studies of the site in 1993, 2003, and 2008. The
reports identified the site as having a relatively low exposure to seismic risks (i.e. liquefaction, surface
rupture, etc.), and did not find any evidence of slope instability (i.e., slope creep, surficial failures, or deep-
seated landslides). All existing artificial fill, colluvium/topsoil materials, and near surface weathered terrace
deposits will require removal and recompaction in accordance with the recommendations outlined within the
referenced reports. The site is suitable for the proposed project, and will not expose people or structures to
geotechnical related hazards.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. Grading of the site is primarily restricted to the footprint of the home. Some
grading is anticipated around the border of the home to allow for guest parking, front yard improvements,
DE ANDA RESIDENCE
CDP 13-30/13-31
June 2013 -14- Initial Study
and a pool in the rear yard. The perimeter of the home will be landscaped and a majority of the drainage
from the site will be directed towards Jefferson Street by directing runoff from the roof into the drainage
patterns towards the street. The remainder of the runoff towards the rear of the graded pad area will be
directed into bioretention areas and then through three rip-rap energy dissipaters which will assist in
preventing the loss of top soil. Therefore, impacts to soil erosion or loss of top soil are considered to be less
than significant.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. The geotechnical update and review indicates that existing artificial fill and
colluvium/topsoil materials will require removal and re-compaction in accordance with the recommendations
of the reports. Onsite soils are considered very low to low in expansion potential and recommendations for
foundation design and construction are presented in the report. The report indicates that development of
the property appears to be feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint, provided the recommendations
presented in the report are properly incorporated into the design and construction of the project. Standard
conditions of approval require implementation of the recommendations included in the geotechnical update
and review. Therefore, impacts are considered to be less than significant.
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 assessed.
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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 & b) Less than Significant Impact. The project is expected to generate GHG emissions in the short-term as a
result of construction emissions and in the long-term as a result of automobile trips and energy consumption.
The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) published a white paper with a suggested
significance screening threshold criteria of 900 metric tons of GHGs. While the proposed project is expected
to generate some short-term and long-term GHG emissions that could contribute directly and indirectly to
the environment, the total GHG emissions generated by the project, combined with the state and federal
reduction measures are not considered significant. Therefore, impacts from GHG emissions on the
environment are considered to be less than significant.
DE ANDA RESIDENCE
CDP 13-30/13-31
June 2013 -15- Initial Study
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a-h) No Impact. The project is a single-family home, which does not involve the transport or storage of
hazardous materials. The site is not listed as a hazardous materials site. The proposed home is designed with
fire rated construction and sprinklers to reduce the risk of loss, injury or death resulting from wildland fires.
The project, which is approximately 4.5 miles northwest of the McClellan-Palomar Airport and well outside of
the Airport Influence Area, will not expose people to airport safety hazards. No impact assessed.
DE ANDA RESIDENCE
CDP 13-30/13-31
June 2013 -16- Initial Study
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
a) Less than Significant Impact. The subject property is required to comply with all federal, state and local
water quality regulations, including the Clean Water Act (California Administrative Code Title 23). The
project will comply with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. The
project will implement specific erosion control measures and Storm Water Management techniques to
protect the downstream water quality of Buena Vista Lagoon. These include the use of bioretention
areas and rip-rap energy dissipaters. The storm water management plan will ensure acceptable water
quality standards will be maintained both during the construction phase as well as post-development.
DE ANDA RESIDENCE
CDP 13-30/13-31
June 2013 -17- Initial Study
b) No Impact. This project does not propose to directly draw any groundwater. The project will be served
via existing public water distribution lines that are adjacent to the site. No impact assessed.
c-e) Less Than Significant Impact. Grading of the site consists of 26 cubic yards of export dirt from the .38
acre site. No streams or rivers are present on the site. The project is designed to match the historical
drainage pattern of the site, with the exception of grading for the footprint of the home. Storm runoff
generated from the roof of the home and driveway will be directed towards Jefferson street to the
maximum extent possible. A portion of the driveway is proposed to be constructed of permeable pavers
to reduce off-site runoff. All other drainage will be routed through vegetated bio-swales to eliminate
pollutants of concern. The total post development runoff discharging from the site will not significantly
exceed the pre-development amounts. Therefore, the project will not violate any water quality
standards, deplete groundwater supplies or quality, substantially alter existing drainage patters, cause
substantial erosion or flooding, or significantly impact the capacity of storm water drainage systems.
f) Less Than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project improvements will comply with all
federal, state and local water quality agency regulations, including the Clean Water Act and associated
NPDES regulations. A grading permit is required for the project prior to commencement of grading,
which requires review and approval of an erosion control plan. The erosion control plan will employ
grading construction BMPs which will reduce temporary impacts on water quality. In addition, a storm
water management plan (SWMP) was prepared for the project by Sampo Engineering, Inc., dated
September 25, 2013. Through implementation of the recommended site design and source control
BMPs, post construction impacts to water quality will be mitigated. Therefore, the project will not result
in permanent or long term degradation of water quality and impacts are considered to be less than
significant.
g-i) No Impact. The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according to the Flood
Insurance Rate Map, Map No. 06073C0761G, May 16, 2013. Therefore, the proposed project will not
result in the placement of housing or structures within a 100-year flood hazard area. According to the
City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992, the project site is
not located within any dam failure inundation area. No impact assessed.
j) Less Than Significant Impact. According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and
Mapping Study, November 1992, and based on historical events, and the generally accepted and
favorable geologic and seismic conditions along the San Diego County Coastline, the potential for
damage to the project site caused by tsunamis or seiches is considered to be low.
DE ANDA RESIDENCE
CDP 13-30/13-31
June 2013 -18- Initial Study
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a-c) No Impact. The project is a single-family residence and second dwelling unit consistent with the
surrounding land use. The site does not physically divide an established community. The proposed project
does not conflict with any existing or proposed land use plans or policies of the City of Carlsbad. The project
is consistent with both the City of Carlsbad General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use
designations. The General Plan Land Use designation is RMH (Residential Medium High Density). RMH
anticipates two-family and multiple –family dwellings at 8 to 15 dwelling units per acre, but allows single-
family dwellings that fall below the minimum density range when a single, one-family dwelling is constructed
on a legal lot that existed as of October 28, 2004. The subject lot was created prior to October 28, 2004 and,
therefore is consistent with the General Plan. The Local Coastal Land Use designation RLM (Residential Low-
Medium Density). RLM anticipates single-family residences at 0 to 4 dwelling units per acre. The project
proposes one single-family residence, and therefore is consistent with the RLM land use designation. The
project is consistent with the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan and does not conflict with any
applicable plans or policies. No impact assessed.
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a-b) No Impact. Carlsbad is devoid of non-renewable energy resources. Mineral resources within the City
are no longer being utilized and extracted as exploitable natural resources. Therefore, no mineral resource
impacts will occur as a result of any project. (MEIR 93-01, page 5.13-1)
DE ANDA RESIDENCE
CDP 13-30/13-31
June 2013 -19- Initial Study
XII. NOISE
Would the project result in: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b & d) Less Than Significant Impact. The anticipated grading operation associated with the proposed single-
family residence will result in temporary and a minor increase in ground borne vibration and ambient noise
levels. Following the end of the grading, the ambient noise level and vibrations are expected to return to pre-
existing levels.
a, c, e, & f) No Impact. The project consists of a single-family dwelling which is consistent in use and intensity
with the surrounding residential development. As such, the project would not result in sustained ambient
noise levels which exceed the established standards. No impact assessed.
DE ANDA RESIDENCE
CDP 13-30/13-31
June 2013 -20- Initial Study
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a-c) No Impact. The project is one single-family dwelling unit, which is consistent with the surrounding land
uses. The area surrounding the proposed development is designated for residential development and was
analyzed in the city’s Growth Management Plan accordingly. The density of the proposed development is
consistent with the City of Carlsbad’s General Plan. No impact assessed.
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a) No Impact. The project’s size of one single-family dwelling unit is consistent with the General Plan and
surrounding land uses, and therefore will not affect the provision and availability of public facilities (fire
protection, police protection, schools, parks, libraries, etc.). The proposed project shall be subject to the
conditions and facility service level requirements within the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1.
Therefore, no significant public service impacts will occur as a result of this project. No impact assessed.
DE ANDA RESIDENCE
CDP 13-30/13-31
June 2013 -21- Initial Study
XV. RECREATION Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a-b) No Impact. The project’s size of one single-family dwelling unit will not result in the deterioration of
existing neighborhood or regional parks or cause such parks to be expanded. Therefore, no adverse
physical effect on the environment will occur as a result of this project.
DE ANDA RESIDENCE
CDP 13-30/13-31
June 2013 -22- Initial Study
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation
system, taking into account all modes of transportation including
mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of
the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections,
streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and
mass transit?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel
demand measures, or other standards 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) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public
transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the
performance or safety of such facilities?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a) Less than Significant Impact. The project will generate 20 Average Daily Trips (ADT) and 4 peak hour trips
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 less than significant.
b) No Impact. In 2009 the congestion management agency (SANDAG) employed an “opt out” option defined
in Assembly Bill (AB) 2419. The congestion management program is no longer relevant to development in
the City of Carlsbad.
c) No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components. 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.
DE ANDA RESIDENCE
CDP 13-30/13-31
June 2013 -23- Initial Study
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 project is located along the west side of Jefferson Street and is served by the North
County Transit District (NCTD) bus route 322. The proposed single-family dwelling unit will not conflict with
any adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. No impact assessed.
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a-g) No Impact. The proposed residential development will be required to comply with all Regional Water
Quality Control Board Requirements. In addition, the Zone 1 LFMP anticipated that the project site would
be developed with a residential use and wastewater treatment facilities were planned and designed to
accommodate future residential uses on the site. All public facilities, including water facilities,
wastewater treatment facilities and drainage facilities have been planned and designed to accommodate
the growth projections for the city at build out. The proposed development on the site will increase the
demand for these facilities. However, the proposed density is less than originally anticipated for this site
and will not result in an overall increase in the city’s growth projection in the NW quadrant. 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 assessed.
DE ANDA RESIDENCE
CDP 13-30/13-31
June 2013 -24- Initial Study
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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? (“Cumulatively 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) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project’s mitigation, as outlined in the Biological Resources
section of this study, will preclude any possible degrading of the environment or substantial reductions of
habitat and wildlife species. Cumulative impacts to sensitive plant and wildlife species within the MHCP
Subarea would occur through the proposed project, in absence of the implementation of the HMP, and
specifically the adjacent preserve system. However, the implementation of the HMP provides mitigation
for these cumulative impacts because the plan has anticipated region-wide impacts and has adopted a
preserve system that mitigates for these impacts. The project is consistent with the MCHP guidelines and
the HMP regional planning efforts in the City of Carlsbad. Therefore, there will be no cumulative impacts
to sensitive uplands, and plant and wildlife species. Furthermore, the project’s required mitigation as
outlined in the Cultural Resourced 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. 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, 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 is a regional issue that development within the City of Carlsbad has the potential to have a
cumulatively considerable impact on. That issue is air quality. As described above, air quality would
essentially be the same whether or not the development is constructed.
DE ANDA RESIDENCE
CDP 13-30/13-31
June 2013 -25- Initial Study
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.
DE ANDA RESIDENCE
CDP 13-30/13-31
June 2013 -26- Initial Study
XIX. LIST OF MITIGATION MEASURES (if applicable)
1. Paleontological mitigation measures shall be implemented as follows:
a) A qualified paleontologist should attend the pre-construction meeting to consult with the
grading and excavation contractors concerning excavation schedules, paleontological field
techniques, and safety issues. (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,
who is knowledgeable in the geology and paleontology of San Diego County, and who has
worked as a paleontological mitigation project supervisor in the county for at least one year.)
b) A paleontological monitor should be on-site on a full-time basis during the original cutting of
previously undisturbed deposits of high paleontological resource potential to inspect exposures
for contained fossils. Because of the destructive nature of surface weathering processes, only
the deeper (i.e. > five feet deep) excavations into the Pleistocene marine terrace deposits should
be monitored full-time. In contrast, any excavations extending below elevation 46 feet and
impacting the Sespe Formation should be monitored full-time (A paleontological monitor is
defined as an individual who has experience in the collection and salvage of fossil materials. The
paleontological monitor should work under the direction of a qualified paleontologist.)
c) When fossils are discovered, the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) should 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) should be
allowed to temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil remains in a
timely manner. Because of the potential for the recovering of small fossil remains, such as
isolated mammal teeth, it may be necessary to set up a screen-washing operation on the site.
d) Fossil remains collected during monitoring and salvage should be cleaned, repaired, sorted, and
cataloged as part of the mitigation program.
e) Prepared fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos, and maps, should be
deposited (as a donation) in a scientific institution with permanent paleontological collections
such as the San Diego Natural History Museum. Donation of the fossils should be accompanied
by financial support for initial specimen storage.
f) A final summery report should be completed that outlines the results of the mitigation program.
This report should include discussions of the methods used, stratigraphic section(s) exposed,
fossils collected, and significance or recovered fossils.
2. Archeological mitigation measures shall be implemented as follows:
a) Archeological monitoring by a qualified archeologist is required during construction in order to
identify previously unidentified subsurface cultural deposits. Monitoring is recommended during
initial ground disturbance including soil testing, soil remediation, and the initial grading. In the
event that cultural resources are encountered, all work should cease in the vicinity of the
discovery until a qualified archaeologist has evaluated the resource to determine significance.
Monitoring will not be required for non-native fill soils or after initial grading.
DE ANDA RESIDENCE
CDP 13-30/13-31
June 2013 -27- Initial Study
3. The following biological resource mitigation measures shall be implemented:
a) Prior to issuance of a grading permit, mitigation for impacts to .26 acres of Group E Non-Native
Grassland, and .06 acres of Group F Disturbed Land shall be mitigated by payment of an in-lieu
mitigation fee.
b) Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the 100 foot wetland buffer shall be placed within a
dedicated open space easement.
c) Buffer areas that do not contain native habitat shall be landscaped with native plants. Signage
and barriers shall be provided to minimize edge effects.
d) No development, grading, or alterations, including clearing of vegetation, shall occur in the
buffer area with two exceptions: no fuel modification shall take place within 50 feet of riparian
areas or wetlands, and recreation trails and public pathways may occur within 50 feet of riparian
areas or wetlands, and recreation trails and public pathways may occur within the 15 feet
closest to the development provided it is consistent with the preservation goals of the preserved
habitat and appropriate measures are taken for physical separation from sensitive areas.
e) Grading activity shall be prohibited during the rainy season (October 1 to April 1). All graded
areas shall have temporary or permanent landscaping installed prior to October 1 and shall be
maintained and replanted if not well established by December 1 following the initial planting.
f) Vegetation shall be cleared outside of the nesting bird season (generally February 1 through
August 31), or a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted within three days prior
to any clearing, grubbing, or grading activities. The pre-construction nesting bird survey would
identify the locations of any active nests within the proposed development area. Active nests
would need to be avoided until the young have fledged or the nest is otherwise abandoned.
g) Lighting in the back yard adjacent to the HMP Preserve shall be of the minimum necessary for
safety and security and shall be shielded and directed to shine downward and not into the HMP
Preserve. This requirement shall be reflected on the building plans.
DE ANDA RESIDENCE
CDP 13-30/13-31
June 2013 -28- Initial Study
EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or
more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D).
In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,”
describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document
and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad
Planning Division located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01), City
of Carlsbad Planning Division, March 1994.
2. Carlsbad General Plan, City of Carlsbad Planning Division, dated March 1994, as updated.
3. City of Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC), Title 21 Zoning, City of Carlsbad Planning Division, as updated.
4. Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad (HMP), City of Carlsbad
Planning Division, final approval dated November 2004.
5. San Diego Regional Airport Authority/San Diego County Airport Land Use Commission. McClellan-
Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). Amended December 1, 2011.
6. City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992.
7. Flood Insurance Rate Map, No. 06073C0761G, May 16, 2013.
8. Biological Resources Letter Report (VDA-01), Helix Environmental Planning, Inc., August 5, 2013.
9. Storm Water Management Plan, De Anda Residence, Sampo Engineering, Inc., September 25, 2013.
10. Geotechnical Update and Review (W.O. 6612-A-SC), GeoSoils, Inc., October 28, 2013.
11. Paleontological Resource Assessment, De Anda Residence, Department of Paleoservices, San Diego
Natural History Museum, July 16, 2013.
12. Cultural Resource Assessment for the De Anda Residence Project, ASM Affiliates, July 16, 2013.
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.
Legend
PLN Planning Division
ENG Land Development Engineering Division
BLDG Building Division
Page 1 of 4
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
PROJECT NAME: DE ANDA RESIDENCE
PROJECT NO: CDP 13-30/CDP 13-31
APPROVAL DATE/RESOULTION NUMBER(S): May 7, 2014; Resolution No. 7047
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 Monitoring Type Monitoring Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks
PALEO-1
1. Paleontological mitigation measures shall be implemented as
follows:
a) A qualified paleontologist shall attend the pre-construction
meeting to consult with the grading and excavation contractors
concerning excavation schedules, paleontological field techniques,
and safety issues. (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, who is
knowledgeable in the geology and paleontology of San Diego
County, and who has worked as a paleontological mitigation
project supervisor in the county for at least one year.)
b) A paleontological monitor shall be on-site on a full-time basis
during the original cutting of previously undisturbed deposits of
high paleontological resource potential to inspect exposures for
contained fossils. Because of the destructive nature of surface
weathering processes, only the deeper (i.e. > five feet deep)
Project
Planning/Eng
PROJECT NAME: DE ANDA RESIDENCE
PROJECT NUMBER: CDP 13-30/CDP 13-31
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 2 of 4
MITIGATION MEASURE Monitoring Type Monitoring Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks excavations into the Pleistocene marine terrace deposits should be
monitored full-time. In contrast, any excavations extending below
elevation 46 feet and impacting the Sespe Formation should be
monitored full-time (A paleontological monitor is defined as an
individual who has experience in the collection and salvage of
fossil materials. The paleontological monitor should work under
the direction of a qualified paleontologist.)
c) When fossils are discovered, the paleontologist (or paleontological
monitor) should 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) should be allowed to
temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil
remains in a timely manner. Because of the potential for the
recovering of small fossil remains, such as isolated mammal teeth,
it may be necessary to set up a screen-washing operation on the
site.
d) Fossil remains collected during monitoring and salvage should be
cleaned, repaired, sorted, and cataloged as part of the mitigation
program.
e) Prepared fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field notes,
photos, and maps, should be deposited (as a donation) in a
scientific institution with permanent paleontological collections
such as the San Diego Natural History Museum. Donation of the
fossils should be accompanied by financial support for initial
specimen storage.
PROJECT NAME: DE ANDA RESIDENCE
PROJECT NUMBER: CDP 13-30/CDP 13-31
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 3 of 4
MITIGATION MEASURE Monitoring Type Monitoring Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks f) A final summery report should be completed that outlines the
results of the mitigation program. This report should include
discussions of the methods used, stratigraphic section(s) exposed,
fossils collected, and significance or recovered fossils.
CUL-01 Archeological mitigation measures shall be implemented as follows:
a) Archeological monitoring by a qualified archeologist is required
during construction in order to identify previously unidentified
subsurface cultural deposits. Monitoring is required during initial
ground disturbance including soil testing, soil remediation, and the
initial grading. In the event that cultural resources are
encountered, all work should cease in the vicinity of the discovery
until a qualified archaeologist has evaluated the resource to
determine significance. Monitoring will not be required for non-
native fill soils or after initial grading.
Project Planning/Eng
BIO-1 The following biological resource mitigation measures shall be
implemented:
a) Prior to issuance of a grading permit, mitigation for impacts to .26
acres of Group E Non-Native Grassland, and .06 acres of Group F
Disturbed Land shall be mitigated by payment of an in-lieu
mitigation fee.
b) Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the 100 foot wetland buffer
shall be placed within a dedicated open space easement.
c) Buffer areas that do not contain native habitat shall be landscaped
with native plants. Signage and barriers shall be provided to
minimize edge effects.
Project Planning
PROJECT NAME: DE ANDA RESIDENCE
PROJECT NUMBER: CDP 13-30/CDP 13-31
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 4 of 4
MITIGATION MEASURE Monitoring Type Monitoring Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks d) No development, grading, or alterations, including clearing of
vegetation, shall occur in the buffer area with two exceptions: no
fuel modification shall take place within 50 feet of riparian areas or
wetlands, and recreation trails and public pathways may occur
within 50 feet of riparian areas or wetlands, and recreation trails
and public pathways may occur within the 15 feet closest to the
development provided it is consistent with the preservation goals
of the preserved habitat and appropriate measures are taken for
physical separation from sensitive areas.
e) Grading activity shall be prohibited during the rainy season
(October 1 to April 1). All graded areas shall have temporary or
permanent landscaping installed prior to October 1 and shall be
maintained and replanted if not well established by December 1
following the initial planting.
f) Vegetation shall be cleared outside of the nesting bird season
(generally February 1 through August 31), or a preconstruction
nesting bird survey shall be conducted within three days prior to
any clearing, grubbing, or grading activities. The pre-construction
nesting bird survey would identify the locations of any active nests
within the proposed development area. Active nests would need
to be avoided until the young have fledged or the nest is otherwise
abandoned.
g) Lighting in the back yard adjacent to the HMP Preserve shall be of
the minimum necessary for safety and security and shall be
shielded and directed to shine downward and not into the HMP
Preserve. This requirement shall be reflected on the building
plans.
ADDENDUM TO THE
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR
MILES PACIFIC SUBDIVISION
COP 13-30/CDP 13-31-DEANDA RESIDENCE
EXHIBIT "ADDM"
The purpose of the Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration is to describe revisions to the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program associated with the De Anda Residence project, and to state the
determination that this revision does not create any new significant environmental effects, that none of the
conditions contained in Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act {CEQA) have occurred, and
that a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration is not required.
The revisions contained in this addendum clarify language contained within Mitigation Measures CUL-01 to the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The following clarifications/revisions are to be added to
mitigation measures CUL-01:
• Luiseiio Native American monitors should be contracted with during this project.
• The developer shall enter into a Pre-Excavation Agreement, otherwise known as a Cultural. [!esources
Treatment-and Moni'toring Agreement, with the tribe prior to the commencement of any ground
disturbing activities. This agreement will contain provisions to address the proper treatment of any
cultural resources or Luiseno Native American human remains inadvertently uncovered during the
course of the project. The agreement will outline the roles and powers of the Luiseiio Native American
monitors and the archaeologist.
• Any and all uncovered artifacts of Luiseiio Native American cultural importance should be returned to
the tribe, and/or the most likely descendant and not be curate d.
• Native American monitors and archaeological monitors should have joint authority to temporarily divert
and/or halt construction activities. If cultural resources are discovered during construction, all earth
moving activity within and around the immediate discovery area must be diverted until the Luiseiio
Native American monitor and the archaeologist can assess the nature and significance of the find.
• The Luiseiio Native American monitor shall be present at the project's preconstruction meeting to
consult with grading and excavation contractors concerning excavation schedules and safety issues, as
well as consult with the principal archaeologist concerning the proposed archaeologist techniques
and/or strategies for the project.
• If a significant cultural resource and/or unique archaeological resource are unearthed during ground
disturbing activities for this ·project, the tribe respectfully requests that they by notified and consulted
with in regards to the respectful and dignified treatment of those resources.
• When cultural resources are discovered during the project, if the archaeologist collects such resources, a
Luiseiio Native American monitor must be present during any testing or cataloging of those resources. If
the archaeologist does not collect the cultural resources that are unearthed during the ground
disturbing activities, the Luiseiio Native American monitor, may in their discretion, collect said resources
and provide them to the tribe for respectful and dignified treatment in accordance with the tribe's
cultural and spiritual traditions.
• If suspected Native American remains are discovered, the Native American remains shall be kept in situ,
or in a secure location in close proximity to where they were found, and that the analysis of the remains
occur only on-site in the presence of a Luiseiio Native American monitor.
• In the event that fill is imported into the project area, the fill shall be clean of cultural resources and
documented as such.
These clarifications/revisions to the Mitigation Measures are not considered substantial or significant as it
relates to the environmental effects associated with the project, or the conditions contained in Section 15162 of
C3~ 7~ ~s~s;;uent Mitigated Negative Declar_a,[:=n"-is-'--'n?{;'-t-r-e=u'-ir-ed_. ___________ _
Date: Don Neu
City Planer