Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-11-14; City Council; 18790 Part I; Robertson Ranch Master PlanCITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL 16 AB# 18,790 MTG. 11-14-06 DEPT. PLN Robertson Ranch Master Plan EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 1dfR}/HMP OR-Od DEPT. HEAD \£r] * CITY ATTY. (& CITYMGR. ~^$>4- W fe > RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council INTRODUCE Ordinance No. NS-822 Master Plan (MP 02-03) and ADOPT Resolution No. 2006-324 , APPROVING the Robertson Ranch '_, CERTIFYING the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR 03-03), and ADOPTING the Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and APPROVING the General Plan Amendment (GPA 02-04) in concept, Zone 14 Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment (LFMP 14(B)), and Habitat Management Plan Permit (HMP 06-04) as recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. ITEM EXPLANATION: On May 31, 2006, June 21, 2006, and September 20, 2006, the Planning Commission conducted public hearings for the Robertson Ranch project. The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend certification of the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and adoption of the Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and approval of the Robertson Ranch Master Plan; General Plan Amendment; Zone 14 Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) Amendment; and Habitat Management Plan Permit. The vote also reflected the Planning Commission's approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit and Special Use Permit (Floodplain) for the Robertson Ranch East Village, subject to the City Council approving the remaining actions. A separate vote to recommend incorporating Circulation Alternative 2 into the Master Plan passed with a vote of 6-1 (Segall-No). Project application(s) EIR 03-03 MP 02-03 GPA 02-04 LFMP 14(B) HMP 06-04 CT02-16 HDP 02-07 SUP 02-05 Planning Commission Action Recommend Certification & Recommend Adoption Recommend Approval Recommend Approval Recommend Approval Recommend Approval Approve* Approve* Approve* Final at Planning Commission X X X To be Reviewed Final at Council X X X X X *Subject to City Council approval of the remaining actions. The project site is located in the northeastern quadrant of the City within Local Facilities Management Zone 14. The Robertson Ranch Master Plan encompasses a 398 acre site located north of El Camino Real, east of Tamarack Avenue, east and west of College Boulevard, and east and west of Cannon Road. The Robertson Ranch property is divided into two ownerships. The East Village contains about 178 acres and is owned by a partnership of McMillin Companies and Brookfield Homes. The remaining 220 acres in the West Village are owned by the Robertson family. FOR CITY CLERKS USE ONLY. COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED D DENIED D CONTINUED D WITHDRAWN D AMENDED D CONTINUED TO DATE SPECIFIC D CONTINUED TO DATE UNKNOWN D RETURNED TO STAFF D OTHER - SEE MINUTES D Council introduced Ordinance NS-822 as amended and adopted Resolution No 2006-324. Page 2- Robertson Ranch Master Plan - EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 Proposed land uses include open space preservation, active recreation uses, residential, non-residential, and elementary school. The project includes the preservation of over 140 acres of the site (35%) as preserved open space in conformance with the City's Habitat Management Plan (HMP). Active recreation uses include a 13.5 acre City park proposed for development of three full-size soccer fields, community recreation areas and pocket parks within both the East and West Villages, and an extensive trail system that includes both citywide and local trails. A 10 acre site is reserved for the Carlsbad Unified School District (CUSD) as a potential elementary school site. The residential component of the project includes 1,122 dwelling units (du's) (1,154 du's without school site) of various product types and lot sizes. A total of 543 single-family units are proposed within eight neighborhoods with varying lot sizes of 5,000 sf, 6,000 sf, 7,500 sf, and 10,000 sf. Two neighborhoods totaling 114 du's are planned for either attached or detached condominium development. The remaining three neighborhoods contain a total of 465 multi-family units and will include the project's 15% Inclusionary Housing requirement (East Village: 70 du's/West Village: 98 du's), 56 moderate-rate units (within West Village), and over 100 units of senior housing in Planning Area (PA) 7. The remaining non-residential development consists of the RV storage for the Master Plan, a 13.0 net acre site that includes Local Shopping Center and Community Facility uses, and a 4.3 acre site located adjacent to the Rancho Carlsbad community that is designated as "Unplanned Area". The project requires an allocation of 171 dwelling units from the City's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. For Growth Management purposes, the existing LFMP anticipated 1,122 du's for the project area. However, based on a more precise constraints analysis, the number of allowable du's was calculated to be 951 du's. There are adequate units in the "Bank" for the requested allocation and the transfer of these units would not exceed the Proposition E (Growth Management Plan) dwelling unit cap of 9,042 du's for the Northeast Quadrant. The current residential build-out for the Northeast Quadrant is estimated to be 7,435 du's including the Master Plan proposal of 1,122 du's. The Robertson Ranch project includes a number of public benefits in addition to the open space, park land, trails, commercial and community facility uses, and diversity of housing types outlined above. Improvements to three General Plan Circulation Element Roadways are included as part of the Robertson Ranch project. The East Village development area would provide full-width improvements (two lanes in each direction) on both Cannon Road and College Boulevard. The West Village development area would provide full-width improvements (three lanes in each direction) on El Camino Real. The East Village would also be required to construct an 84" storm drain line on the north side of Cannon Road which will reduce flooding in Rancho Carlsbad. Numerous individuals, many of whom were from the Colony neighborhood, spoke during the public testimony portion of the three Planning Commission hearings. Issues were raised related to project density, increased traffic, validity of the traffic reports, safety, planned road extensions at Glasgow Drive and Edinburgh Drive, the need for senior housing, and dissatisfaction with public noticing. Representatives for the Rancho Carlsbad HOA, Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce, and the Boys and Girls Club spoke in favor of the project. City staff, consultants and the project applicant responded to the public comments at each of the hearings. Over 100 written comments, with the majority from residents of Rancho Carlsbad, were also received during the 60-day public review and comment period for the Draft Program EIR. A full record of the comments and responses to questions and comments from the public can be found in the Planning Commission Minutes dated May 31, 2006, June 21, 2006 and September 20, 2006, in addition to the Final Program EIR Response to Comments dated April 2006. FISCAL IMPACT: All required improvements needed to serve this project will be funded by the developer. The Facility Financing Section of the Zone 14 LFMP lists the financing techniques used to guarantee the public facilities needed to serve development within Zone 14. A report entitled "Fiscal Impact Analysis of Master Plan", dated October 12, 2005, evaluates the revenue generated by the project and the costs of providing services to it. The report was previously distributed and copies are on file in the Planning Department, both libraries, and at the Office of the City Clerk. Page 3- Robertson Ranch Master Plan - EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: A Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the Robertson Ranch Master Plan in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the Environmental Protection Procedures (Title 19) of the CMC. The Program EIR addresses the environmental impacts associated with all discretionary applications for the proposed project, including ultimate build-out of the entire project. The analysis contained in the EIR concluded that all significant impacts would be mitigated to below a level of significance with the exception of significant direct and cumulative impacts to Traffic/Circulation and Air Quality (Long-Term Mobile Emissions). Direct impacts, also referred to as primary effects, are those caused by the project and that occur at the same time and place. In contrast, cumulative impacts refer to two or more individual impacts that, when considered together, are considerable or that compound or increase other environmental impacts. The cumulative impact of several projects is the change in the environment that results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other, closely related past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects. The cumulative impacts all arise from the marginal contribution the proposed project will make, when combined with the impacts from existing and other future projects, to pre- existing conditions that fail to meet applicable traffic and air quality standards currently. Under CEQA, before a project which is determined to have significant, unmitigated environmental effects can be approved, the public agency must consider and adopt a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15043 and 15093. The primary purpose of CEQA is to fully inform the decision makers and the public of the environmental effects of a proposed project and to include feasible mitigation measures and alternatives to reduce any such adverse effects below a level of significance. However, CEQA recognizes and authorizes the approval of projects where not all adverse impacts can be fully lessened or avoided. The Lead Agency must explain and justify its conclusion to approve such a project through the Statement of Overriding Considerations setting forth the proposed project's general social, economic, policy or other public benefits which support the agency's informed conclusion to approve the project. The CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for impacts to Traffic/Circulation and Air Quality (Long-term Mobile Emissions) are attached to the Planning Commission Resolution 6105 for the Program EIR. EXHIBITS: 1. City Council Ordinance No. NS-S22 2. City Council Resolution No. 2006-324 3. Location Map 4. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6105, 6106, 6107, 6108, and 6109 5. Planning Commission Staff Reports, dated May 31, 2006, June 21, 2006 and September 20, 2006 6. Planning Commission Minutes, dated May 31, 2006, June 21, 2006 and September 20, 2006 7. Correspondence received after September 20, 2006 8. Final Program EIR for Robertson Ranch and Response to Comments for the Final EIR dated April 2006, (previously distributed; copy on file in the Planning Department) 9. Zone 14 Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment, dated May 1, 2006, (previously distributed; copy on file in the Planning Department) 10. Robertson Ranch Master Plan, dated May 2006, (previously distributed; copy on file in the Planning Department) 11. Fiscal Impact Analysis of Master Plan, dated October 12, 2005, (previously distributed; copy on file in the Planning Department). DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Barbara Kennedy, 760-602-4626 bkenn ©ci.carlsbad.ca.us \ b \-V* 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2006-324 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA CERTIFYING PROGRAM 3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR 03-03, ADOPTING THE CANDIDATE FINDINGS OF FACT, THE STATEMENT OF 4 OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE 5 ROBERTSON RANCH PROGRAM EIR, AND APPROVING THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE 14 LOCAL FACILITIES 6 MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN PERMIT FOR THE ROBERTSON RANCH 7 PROJECT GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF EL CAMINO REAL, EAST OF TAMARACK AVENUE, EAST AND WEST OF 8 COLLEGE BOULEVARD, AND EAST AND WEST OF CANNON ROAD WITHIN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 14. 9 CASE NAME: ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN CASE NO.: EIR 03-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(BVHMP 06-0410 The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as follows: WHEREAS, on May 31, 2006, June 21, 2006 and September 20, 2006, the Carlsbad Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings to consider a proposed Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR 03-03), General Plan Amendment (GPA 02-04), Zone 14 Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment (LFMP 14(B)), and Habitat Management Plan Permit (HMP 06-04), and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 6105 recommending certification of EIR 03-03 and adoption of the Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; 20 and adopted Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6107, 6108 and 6109 recommending approval of GPA 02-04, LFMP 14(B) and HMP 06-04, respectively; and 22 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, did on the 14th . day of 23 November , 2006, hold a public hearing to consider the recommendations and heard 24 all persons interested in or opposed to EIR 03-03, GPA 02-04, LFMP 14(B), and HMP 06-04; 25 and 26 WHEREAS, a Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared 27 and submitted to the State Clearinghouse and a Notice of Completion filed, published, and 28 mailed to responsible agencies and interested parties providing a 60-day public review period. 1 1 All comments received during the review period are contained in the Final Program EIR as well 2 as the responses to comments. 3 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of 4 Carlsbad, California, as follows: 5 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 6 2. That the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR 03-03) on the above referenced project is certified and that the Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are adopted and that the R findings and conditions of the Planning Commission contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 6105, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, are the g findings and conditions of the City Council. 10 3. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the approval of the General Plan Amendment (GPA 02-04) is hereby accepted, approved in concept and shall be 11 formally approved with Batch No. 4 of 2006, and that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 6107, on file with the 12 City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council. 13 4. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the approval of the 14 Zone 14 Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment (LFMP 14(B)) is approved and that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission contained in Planning Commission 15 Resolution No. 6108, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council. 16 5. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the approval of the 17 Habitat Management Plan Permit (HMP 06-04) is approved and that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 6109, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council. 2Q "NOTICE TO APPLICANT' 21 "The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, 22 which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other 23 paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court not later than the ninetieth day following the date on which this 24 decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the record of the 25 proceedings accompanied by the required deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of preparation of such 26 record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on 27 which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney of record, if he has one. A written request 28 r 1 for the preparation of the record of proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, 2 Carlsbad, California 92008." 3 EFFECTIVE DATE: This resolution shall be effective upon its adoption, except 4 as to the General Plan Amendment, which shall be effective thirty (30) days following its 5 adoption. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 14th day of November, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Hall, Packard NOES: Council Members Kulchin, Sigafoose ABSENT: None >, Mayor ATTEST: -lORRXlNE M. WOOD, City Clerk '> /^•'Si^fe 1 ORDINANCE NO. NS-822 2 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE ROBERTSON 3 RANCH MASTER PLAN, MP 02-03 ON 398 ACRES FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF EL CAMINO 4 REAL, EAST OF TAMARACK AVENUE, EAST AND WEST OF COLLEGE BOULEVARD, AND EAST AND WEST OF CANNON 5 ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 14. CASE NAME: ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN 6 CASE NO.: MP 02-03 1 The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does ordain as follows: 8 WHEREAS, the Robertson Ranch Master Plan is in conformance with the City of 9 Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan for the subject property as well as current City ordinances; 10 and 11 WHEREAS, the City Council did on the 14th day of November 12 2006 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Master Plan as shown on 14 Exhibit "MP 02-03" dated May 31, 2006, incorporated by reference; and 15 WHEREAS, on May 31, 2006, June 21, 2006 and September 20, 2006, the Carlsbad Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings to consider the proposed 17 Robertson Ranch Master Plan (MP 02-03) and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 18 6106 recommending approval of MP 02-03. 19 NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad does ordain as 20 follows: 21 SECTION I: That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission in 22 Planning Commission Resolution No. 6106 shall also constitute the findings and conditions of 23 the City Council. 24 SECTION II: That Master Plan MP 02-03 dated May 31, 2006, attached and 25 incorporated herein by reference, and incorporating all recommended changes included in 26 Planning Commission Resolution No. 6106, is approved. The Master Plan shall constitute the 27 28 f- 1 development plan for the property and all development within the plan area shall conform to the 2 plan. 3 EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its 4 adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be 5 published at least once in a publication of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within 6 fifteen days after its adoption. 7 /// 8 /// 9 /// 10 /// /// 12 /// 13 /// 14 /// 15 /// 16 /// 17 /// 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- 1 INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council on 2 the 14th day of November, 2006, and thereafter. 3 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the 4 City of Carlsbad on the day of , 2006, by the following vote: 5 6 AYES: 7 NOES: 8 ABSENT: 9 ABSTAIN: 10 11 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY 12 13 RONALD R. BALL, City Attorney 15 16 CLAUDE A LEWIS, Mayor I?" 18 ATTEST: 19 20 LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk 21 (SEAL) 22 " 23 24 25 26 27 28 EXHIBIT 3 NOT TO SCALE S/7E MAP ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 EXHIBIT 4 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6105 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF A PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL 4 IMPACT REPORT, EIR 03-03, FOR THE ROBERTSON - RANCH MASTER PLAN, AND RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE CANDIDATE FINDINGS OF FACT, A 6 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 7 ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF EL CAMINO REAL, EAST OF TAMARACK AVENUE, EAST8 AND WEST OF COLLEGE -BOULEVARD, AND EAST AND o WEST OF CANNON ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 14. 10 CASE NAME: ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN CASE NO.: EIR 03-03 11 12 WHEREAS, Calavera Hills II, LLC, "Developer," has filed a verified 13 application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Calavera Hills II, LLC, and 14 Gary Robertson and Brian Robertson, as co-successor trustees of the Robertson Family ^ 1995 Trust dated April 19,1995, as to an undivided one-half interest; Gary Robertson and 16 Brian Robertson, co-successor trustees under Declaration of Trust dated October 8, 1976, 17 as to an undivided 7% interest; and Gary Robertson and Brian Robertson, co-successor 18 trustees of the Elsie M. Kelly Irrevocable Trust dated June 19, 1989, as to an undivided 2Q 43% interest, "Owners," described as: 21 Those portions of Lots D and E of Rancho Agua Hedionda, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. 22 According to Map thereof No. 823, filed in the Office of the ~~ County Recorder of San Diego County, November 16, 1896, described as follows: 24 Parcel 1: 25 Parcel 1 on Certificate of Compliance recorded November 28, 2001, as File No. 2001-0865064 of Official Records.26 27 Parcel 2: Parcel 2 on Certificate of Compliance recorded November 28, 28 2001, as File No. 2001-0865065 of Official Records. 1 Parcel3: 2 Parcel 1 and the remainder parcel of Carlsbad Minor Subdivision 02-10 as shown on Parcel Map No. 19804 recorded 3 August 3,2005, as File No. 2005-0659805 of Official Records. 4 ("the Property"); and WHEREAS, a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR 03-03) was 6 prepared in conjunction with said project; and 7 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 31st day of May, 2006, hold a o o duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 10 WHEREAS, after hearing the staff presentation for the Robertson Ranch 11 Master Plan and public testimony on the project, the Planning Commission did continue 12 the public hearing to June 21, 2006; and 13 WHEREAS, after hearing the additional staff presentation for the Robertson 14 Ranch Master Plan and public testimony on the project, the Planning Commission did , x- continue the public hearing to a date uncertain; and 17 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 20th day of September, IB 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing on the continued Robertson Ranch Master Plan 19 project; and 20 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony 21 and arguments, examining the Program EIR, Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of 22 Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, analyzing 24 the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning 25 Commission considered all factors relating to the Program EIR. 26 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning 27 Commission as follows: 28 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. PCRESONO. 6105 -2- 1 B) That the Final Environmental Impact Report consists of the Final Program 2 Environmental Impact Report, EIR 03-03, dated April 2006, appendices, written comments and responses to comments, as amended to include the 3 comments and documents of those testifying at the public hearing and responses thereto hereby found to be in good faith and reason by incorporating a copy of the 4 minutes of said public hearing into the report, all on file in the Planning Department incorporated by this reference, and collectively referred to as the "Report." 6 C) That the Environmental Impact Report, EIR 03-03, as so amended and evaluated 7 is recommended for acceptance and certification as the final Environmental Impact Report and that the final Environmental Impact Report as recommended is ° adequate and provides reasonable information on the project and all reasonable o and feasible alternatives thereto, including no project. 10 D) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS CERTIFICATION of the Environmental 11 Impact Report, EIR 03-03; RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Candidate Findings of Fact ("CEQA Findings"), and the Statement of Overriding Considerations ("Statement"), attached hereto marked as Exhibit "EIR-A" 13 and incorporated by this reference; and of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("Program"), attached hereto marked as Exhibit 14 "EIR-B" and incorporated by this reference; based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions. .g Findings: 17 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find that the Final Program EIR 03-03, the Candidate Findings of Fact, the Mitigation Monitoring and 18 Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations have been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines, and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Carlsbad. 20 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed, and 21 considered Final Program EIR 03-03, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project; the Candidate Findings of Fact ("Findings" or "CEQA Findings") and the 22 Statement of Overriding Considerations attached hereto as Exhibit "EIR-A," and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("Program") attached hereto as Exhibit 23 "EIR-B," prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of this project. 24 3. As evidenced in the discussion included in the staff report dated September 20, 25 2006, the Tamarack Connection will not result in any new significant impacts and, therefore, would not constitute a significant change in the project description or significant new information requiring an amendment and recirculation of the Final 27 EIR. If approved, the Tamarack Connection would lessen traffic in the Colony neighborhood, thus reducing the overall effects of the project. The Tamarack 28 Connection, therefore, could be considered an appropriate project modification that is made in response to new insights gained during the public discussion of the project. PCRESONO. 6105 -3- /,/ 1 - 2 4. The Planning Commission finds that Final Program EIR 03-03 reflects the independent judgment of the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission. 3 5. The Planning Commission does accept as its own, incorporate as if set forth in full herein, and make each and every one of the findings contained in the CEQA Findings , (Exhibit "EIR-A"), including feasibility of mitigation measures pursuant to Public Resources Code 21081 and CEQA Guidelines 15091, and infeasibility of project 6 alternatives. 7 6. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the Program (Exhibit "EIR-B") is designed to ensure that during project implementation, the Developer and any other responsible parties implement the project components and comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified in the CEQA Findings and the Program. 10 7. Although certain significant or potentially significant environmental effects caused by the project will remain, even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures and any 11 feasible alternatives, there are specific economic, social and other considerations that render the unavoidable significant adverse environmental effects acceptable, as set forth in the Statement. 13 8. The Record of Proceedings for this project consists of The Report, CEQA Findings, 14 Statement and Program; all reports, applications, memoranda, maps, letters and other planning documents prepared by the planning consultant, the project -^ Applicant, the environmental consultant, and the City of Carlsbad that are before the decision makers as determined by the City Clerk; all documents submitted by members of the public and public agencies in connection with the Program EIR; 17 minutes of all public meetings and public hearings; and matters of common knowledge to the City of Carlsbad which they may consider, including but not 18 limited to, the Carlsbad General Plan, Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance, and Local Facilities Management Plan which may be found at 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive in the custody of the City Clerk, and 1635 Faraday Avenue in the custody of the Director 20 of Planning. 21 Conditions: 22 l. The Developer shall implement the mitigation measures described in Exhibit _, "EIR-B," the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, for the mitigation measures and monitoring programs applicable to development of the Robertson 24 Ranch Master Plan. 25 2. The Program EIR Errata labeled as Attachment 16 of the staff report (dated September 20, 2006) shall be incorporated into the Final Program EIR (EIR 03-03).26 27 28 PCRESONO. 6105 -4- 1 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning 2 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of September, 2006, by 3 the following vote, to wit: 4 AYES: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman, Segall, and Whitton 6 NOES: 7 ABSENT:8 9 ABSTAIN: 10 11 12 16 MARTELL B. MONT<5OMERYiinairperson 13 CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 14 ATTEST: 15 SLTL 17 DONNEU Assistant Planning Director 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PCRESONO. 6105 -5- CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Exhibit "EIR-A" City of Carlsbad Planning Commission Resolution No.6105 California Environmental Quality Act Findings of Fact (Public Resource Code § 21081 CEQA Guidelines § 15091) and Statement of Overriding Considerations (CEQA Guidelines §15093) for the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR 03-03) Robertson Ranch Master Plan (SCH No. 2004051039) 1.0 Introduction A Final Program Environmental Impact Report (hereafter "Final Program EIR" or "FPEIR") has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act to address the potential environmental effects of the proposed Robertson Ranch Master Plan and associated actions (hereafter "Proposed Project") and considered by the City in connection with its public consideration of requested approvals for the Proposed Project. While the full scope of the Proposed Project and associated approvals are detailed further in Section 1.4 Description of the Proposed Project, the Proposed Project generally consists of the Robertson Ranch Master Plan, which would provide a comprehensive set of guidelines, regulations, and implementation programs intended to ensure the orderly development of a 398-acre community, and the conservation of open space areas in accordance with the City's General Plan, amended Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 14, the City's Habitat Management Plan, and applicable policies and regulations. The Final Program EIR also analyzed the environmental effects of a range of project alternatives as well. The Final Program EIR and its separately bound technical appendices are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 1 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 1.1 Purpose of CEQA Findings; Terminology CEQA Findings play an important role in the consideration of projects for which an EIR is prepared. Under PRC §21081 and Guidelines §15091 above, where a final EIR identifies one or more significant environmental effects, a project may not be approved until the public agency makes written findings supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record as each of the significant effects. In turn, the three possible findings specified in Guidelines §15091 (a) are: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. ' (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. In turn, Guidelines §15092(b) provides that no agency shall approve a project for which an EIR was prepared unless either: (1) The project as approved will not have a significant effect on the environment, or (2) The agency has: (A) Eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible as shown in the findings under Section 15091, and (B) Determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable under Section 15091 are acceptable due to overriding concerns as described in Section 15093. Based on the foregoing, the Guidelines do not provide a bright distinction between the meaning of "avoid" or "substantially lessen." The applicable Guidelines are based on PRC §21081, which uses the phrase "mitigate or avoid," and hence it is generally considered that to "avoid" is to include changes or alterations that result in the significant effect being reduced to below a level of significance. In contrast, the phrase "substantially lessen" is used to describe changes or alterations that materially reduce the significant effect, but not below a level of significance, thus, while mitigated, the effect remains significant. These Findings will distinguish, for the purposes of clarity, between effects that have been "avoided" (thereby reduced below a level of significance) and those that have been "substantially lessened" (and thus remain significant). Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 2 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations In combination with the mitigation and monitoring program discussed immediately below, the following Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations are binding obligations of the project to implement all required mitigation measures. 1.2 Purpose and Legal Authorities The California Environmental Quality Act (hereafter "CEQA") was adopted in 1970 and is codified in California Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et.seq. (hereafter "PRC §21000"). CEQA is an important environmental law applicable to mos't public agency decisions to carry out, authorize or approve projects that could have adverse effects on the environment. CEQA does not directly regulate project implementation or approvals through substantive standards or prohibitions, but rather CEQA generally requires only that agencies inform themselves about the potential environmental effects of a Proposed Project, carefully consider all pertinent environmental information effects of a Proposed Project, carefully consider all pertinent environmental information before they act, provide the public an opportunity to review and comment on any environmental issues, and include conditions or other requirements to avoid or reduce potential significant adverse effects of the project or action when feasible. The City has codified environmental protection procedures implementing CEQA and the state administrative guidelines issued pursuant to CEQA in Carlsbad Municipal Code, Chapter 19.04. Chapter 19.04 provides for the protection and enhancement of the environment by establishing principles, objectives, criteria, definitions and procedures for evaluation of both public and private projects, implementing CEQA and the state guidelines and providing for the preparation and evaluation of environmental documents in accordance therewith. The City's consideration of Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations are key steps in the process of considering the approval of the Proposed Project while concurrently protecting and enhancing the environment. The applicable standards and scope of the City's responsibilities are detailed in the following excerpts from the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter's, §§ 15000 et. seq.; hereafter "Guidelines §15000"). Guidelines §15091. Findings. The purpose of this resolution is to adopt the findings required by this CEQA Guideline section and the underlying California Public Resource Code § 20181. (a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 3 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 19 CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or-project alternatives identified in the final EIR. / (b) The findings required by subsection (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) The finding in subsection (a) (2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subsection (a) (3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives. (d) When making the findings required in subsection (a)(l), the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes, which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. (e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based. (f) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the findings required by this section. 1.3 Program Environmental Impact Report Process In accordance with CEQA, the Guidelines and Chapter 19.04, the City considered an Initial Study. Based on the Initial Study, the City concluded that the Proposed Project could have a significant impact on the environment and that preparation of an environmental impact report was necessary and issued its Notice of Preparation ("MOP") on May 7, 2004. The NOP was mailed to city, county, and state and federal agencies, other public agencies, and various interested private organizations and individuals. A number of written responses were received, and the City held two public scoping meetings in order to increase opportunities for public input. The scoping meetings took place on May 18 and 26, 2004. At the scoping meetings, the public was invited to ask questions regarding the proposed project and environmental review process, and to comment on the scope and content of the EIR. The meetings were attended by a combined total of approximately 360-380 people. A copy of the Initial Study, NOP, the written comments Robertson Ranch Master Plan Rnal EIR 4 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations received in response to the NOP and public scoping session are included in Volume IA, Appendix A to the Final Program EIR. After consideration of the Initial Study, comments from the Scoping meetings, and other comments in response to the NO?, the City identified that the Draft Program EIR should analyze the potential for environmental impacts associated with the following fourteen substantive potential impact areas in the Environmental Impact Analysis section: t Land Use Traffic/Circulation ' Air Quality Noise Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Paleontological Resources Agricultural Resources Hazardous Materials and Hazards Grading and Aesthetics Hydrology/Water Quality Population/Housing Public Services and Utilities Additionally, the Draft EIR was directed to include other CEQA substantive sections including Executive Summary, Project Description, Cumulative Effects, Effects Found Not to Be Significant, and Growth Inducing Effects and Alternatives. Because of the scope of the Proposed Project, a Program EIR was determined to be the most useful and appropriate form of EIR. Guidelines §15168 establishes the benefits of a Program EIR. On October 4, 2005 the Draft Program EIR was published and the City duly notified interested Responsible and Trustee Agencies, as well as other interested agencies and sent out over 75 "Notice(s) of Completion of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Robertson Ranch Master Plan" to all members of the public who had signed on the interested party list at the scoping meeting or otherwise requested notification. The "Notice of Completion" commenced an initial 60-day public review and comment period expiring on December 1, 2005. The "Notice of Completion" advised that the Draft Program EIR was available, and it was in fact available, for review at four locations: the City of Carlsbad Planning Department (1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008); the City Clerk's Office (1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008); Georgina Cole Public Library (1250 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008); and the Carlsbad Main Public Library (1775 Dove Lane, Carlsbad, CA 92009). Copies were available through the Planning Department, upon payment of a reproduction charge. Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Following expiration of the public review and comment period 'to the Draft Program EIR, every written comment letter was reviewed and written responses were prepared. The written public comments and the written responses thereto are contained in the Final Program EIR, Volume IB. On XXXX, 2006 the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider, among other things. Certification of the Final Program EIR in accordance with CEQA, the Guidelines and Chapter 19.04. By City Council Resolution No. XXXX, the Council certified the Final Program EIR as complete. Resolution No. XXXX is incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. * 1.4 Description of Proposed Project' 1.4.1 Project Description The proposed Robertson Ranch Master Plan is envisioned as a balanced master planned community integrating residential, commercial, community facilities, educational, recreational and open space land uses, as well as supporting infrastructure and utilities. The proposed Master Plan contains extensive design guidelines and implementation standards intended to ensure high quality development and recognizable community identities, while providing the architectural and landscape design flexibility necessary to accommodate future market demands. The project design incorporates requirements of the City's Livable Neighborhood Policy and Livable Streets Ordinance and reflects smart growth elements, as exemplified by the Ahwahnee Principles. The Master Plan project site is owned by the Calavera Hills II, LLC and the Robertson Family Trust. The Master Plan would create two distinct villages following the ownership of the property. A total of 1,383 dwelling units are proposed1. These dwelling units would include a range of housing product types, densities and prices, including multi-family neighborhoods and dwelling units provided as required by the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Additionally, a total of 175,000 square feet of community commercial and community facility uses would be provided within the Village Center. Other non-residential building square footage on the project site would include school buildings and recreational facilities (e.g., recreation center). Easf Village. The East Village is owned by Calavera Hills II, LLC and comprises 178.6 acres of land. Land uses proposed in the East Village include a mixture of residential uses, a portion of the school site, recreation, and open space. Primary local access to the East Village will be provided by Cannon Road. Wesf Village. The West Village is owned by the Robertson Family Trust and comprises 219.4 acres of land. Land uses proposed in the West Village include a mixture of residential uses, village center (commercial and community facilities), community park, a portion of the school site, recreational vehicle storage, recreation, and open space. Primary access to the West Village will be provided via El Camino Real, with 1 A total of 1,176 residential units are proposed under the proposed project; however, the Master Plan allows alternative uses, which if implemented, would allow a maximum of 1,383 residential units (See Section 3.0 Project Description). Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 6 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations local access also proposed via Tamarack Avenue and the proposed extensions of Glasgow Drive and Edinburg Drive. The Master Plan project site lies within Zone 14 of the City of Carlsbad Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP). The public services needed to serve the proposed project are addressed in the proposed amendment to the Zone 14 LFMP and include city administration, library, wastewater treatment, parks, drainage, circulation, fire, open space, schools, sewer and water. Additionally, the Robertson Ranch Master Plan will accommodate and implement elements of the regional transportation system, including improvements to El Camino Real, Cannon Road and College Boulevard. Proposed roadway improvements include the construction of El Camino Real to its ultimate wfdth of a 63-foot right-of-way, as well as providing setbacks, walls and landscaping as required by the City Landscape Manual, El Camino Real Corridor development standards, and Scenic Corridor Guidelines. The Robertson Ranch Master Plan project will also be responsible for completing College Boulevard and Cannon Road by constructing the outside lanes, landscaping medians, and ultimate project landscaping components. Access to the individual residential neighborhoods in both the East and West Villages will be provided by collector and local streets constructed in accordance with the City's Livable Streets Policy. Additionally, internal streets in the East Village have been designed in a grid pattern to achieve maximum circulation connectivity in accordance with the City's Livable Streets Policy and the Ahwahnee Principles. A primary feature of the proposed project is the proposed open space plan. The project site is located within a "Standards Area" in the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP). The Master Plan would preserve approximately 146.3 acres of open space which would include re-vegetated manufactured slopes, water quality treatment facilities, Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat, and riparian and wetland habitats. In accordance with the standards for the project site contained in the City's HMP, the proposed Master Plan would permanently preserve more than 70.4 percent of the existing 71.6 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat on the site, and would establish a permanent HMP Hardline Map in accordance with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency requirements. The proposed HMP Hardline would create a wildlife corridor through the project site. The California Department of Fish and Game and United States Fish and Wildlife Service have determined that the proposed project complies with the City's HMP and establishes an acceptable hardline for resource protection under the HMP. This determination was reached during extensive consultation with the Wildlife Agencies as required under the HMP as a prerequisite to preparing and submitting the Master Plan. Volume II, Appendix E of the EIR provides the February 11, 2005 wildlife agency concurrence letter for the proposed hardline design. 1.4.2 Discretionary Actions The following discretionary actions must be taken by the City in order to approve the proposed project: I. Master Plan (MP 02-03). The applicant is requesting approval of a Master Plan that will allow for the phased development of the East and West Villages. The land uses, habitat preserve areas, open space, and supporting infrastructure will be established as part of the Master Plan. Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 7 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 2. Genera/ Plan Amendment (GPA 02-04). An amendment!to the City's General Plan is required in order to designate the various types of development and to designate the proposed open space preservation areas. The GPA is also required in order to cluster the allowable project density provided for by the existing General Plan onto the developable portions of the site and to preserve the HMP "hardline" as open space. The General Plan Land Use designations within the project site will be amended to be consistent with the land uses proposed by the Master Plan document. The project site has General Plan designations of "RM" (Medium Density, 4 t6 8 du/ac), and "RLM" (Low Medium Density, less than 4 du/ac), as well as two "floating" designations, "L" (Local Shopping Center) and "E" (Elementary School). The redistribution of lancfuses proposed by the General Plan Amendment would include the following designations: "OS" (Open Space), "RLM", "RM," "RMH" (Medium High Density, 8-14 du/ac), "RH" (High Density, 15 to 23 du/ac), "E," "CF" (Community Facilities) and "L." 3. Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment for lone 14 (LFMP 14(B). Pursuant to the requirements of the City of Carlsbad's Growth Management Program, Title 21, Chapter 21.90 of the Municipal Code, an amendment to LFMP Zone 14 is proposed in conjunction with the proposed project. The amended LFMP will describe all public facilities requirements and set forth the timing of installation and financing for all public facilities within the East and West Villages. 4. Tentative Map (CT 02-16). The applicant is requesting approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map (TM) for the East Village. A subsequent TM will be required for the West Village. A TM is required for the implementation of the proposed initial phase of development by the California Subdivision Map Act (Government Code §66426 ef seq), as the initial step in subdividing the proposed project into separate development parcels. 5. Tenfaft've Map for Residential Subdivision (CT 04-26). A Tentative Subdivision Map has been submitted for the East Village (Phase I). Although this application may be processed concurrently with the Master Plan, it is anticipated that it will not go forward to Planning Commission and City Council until after the Master Plan is approved. 6. Site Development Plan. A Site Development Plan will be required for the affordable housing components and will be required to be processed concurrently with any residential subdivisions. 7. Planned Development Permit (PUD 02-08). A Planned Development Permit will be required for any condominium or small-lot planned developments and will need to be processed concurrently with any residential subdivisions. 8. Hillside Development Permit (HDP 02-07). Grading within the proposed project is controlled by the City's Hillside Development Ordinance. Because grading within the project site would disturb some natural slopes with gradients of 15 percent or greater and elevation differentials greater than 15 feet, Hillside Development Permits are required. The purpose of these permits is to regulate grading conformance with the City's Hillside Development Ordinance (Municipal Code §21.95.010) Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 8 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations standards and policies. The Hillside Permit application currently under review for this project is for the East Village only. The West Village Hillside Permit will follow at the time the West Village proceeds with a development application. 9. Scenic Corridor Special Use Permit. Scenic Corridors, as designated within the City of Carlsbad Scenic Corridor Guidelines, consist of selected arterial streets which the City has determined are worthy of special treatment in order to improve or protect scenic viewscapes and traffic safety. Although segments of three scenic corridors lie within or adjacent to the proposed project boundaries, currently the City has only finalized scenic corridor standards for El Camino Real. As a condition of project approval, a Scenic Corridor Special Use Permit would be' required for development within the project site adjacent to El Camino Real to ensure project consistency with City scenic corridor adopted standards. 10. Floodplain Special Use Permits (SUP 02-05). A Floodplain Special Use Permit is required before construction or development begins within any area of special flood hazards, flood-related erosion hazards or mudslide hazards, as established in §21.110.070 of the City Municipal Code. Floodplain Special Use Permits would be required for portions of the project site where grading and/or development is proposed within the 100-year floodplain as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Construction of proposed drainage improvements in the project site, including the 84" storm drain in Cannon Road, will modify existing floodplain boundaries. Therefore it will not be necessary to process special use permits for those future projects that are taken out of the floodplain by construction of the proposed Master Plan drainage improvements. /I. Conditional Use Permit. Approval of a Conditional Use Permit is required for the proposed RV storage site in PA 2. 12. HMP Consistency Findings. The City will adopt HMP Consistency Findings as the project will result in an impact to coastal sage scrub. With the adoption of the HMP, HMP consistency findings are required of all projects affecting coastal sage scrub or other sensitive biological resources. 1.5 Environmental Setting The proposed Robertson Ranch Master Plan project site comprises 398 acres of land located in the northeastern quadrant of the City of Carlsbad in northern San Diego-County. The City of Carlsbad is a coastal city located approximately 30 miles north of downtown San Diego. The City is bordered to the north by the City of Oceanside, to the south by the City of Encinitas, to the east by the cities of Vista and San Marcos, and on the west by the Pacific Ocean. The project site is located approximately 1.5 miles east of Interstate 5 and two miles south of State Route 78. The majority of the project site is located north of El Camino Real, east of Tamarack Avenue, west of Cannon Road, and south of College Boulevard; however, the project site also includes 39.7 acres of land immediately north of College Boulevard. The northern site boundary is generally defined by The Colony, an existing single-family residential development and the Calavera Hills II development. Existing access to the Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 9 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations project site is available from numerous locations including a privafe road that extends onto the site from El Camino Real, as well as dirt roads and informal trails throughout the site. El Camino Real is designated as a "Primary Arterial" in the General Plan Circulation Element and as a "Community Theme" Corridor in the City's Scenic Corridor Guidelines. College Boulevard and Cannon Road are designated "Major Arterial" roadways by the General Plan Circulation Element, and as "Community Scenic Corridors" in the City's Scenic Corridor Guidelines. Tamarack Avenue is designated as a "Secondary Arterial" in the General Plan Circulation Element. ' The site presently contains two residential and two non-residential General Plan designations, as foll&ws: Residential Low-Medium (RLM); Residential Medium (RM); Local Shopping Center (L), and Elementary School (E). The majority of the project site (approximately 283 acres) is currently used for agricultural purposes, including the cultivation of field crops and flowers and the operation of a wholesale palm tree nursery. Structures on the site include one single-family residence, several agricultural outbuildings and irrigation infrastructure. Wetland restoration activities are also underway within the portion of the project site located north of College Boulevard and adjacent to Calavera Creek. The project site is also traversed by two SDG&E utility easements containing high voltage electrical transmission lines, poles and associated access roads. In addition to agricultural cropland, the site contains a variety of native vegetation including chamise chaparral and Diegan coastal sage communities located on the higher slopes and canyons of the site, with riparian habitat located within the natural drainages. Calavera Creek, an intermittent tributary of Agua Hedionda Creek, runs north to south along the eastern boundary of the site within PA 23E and through an existing box culvert under College Boulevard and Cannon Road. A variety of mammalian, reptilian and avion species occur in the habitat of the site. Topographically, the site varies considerably and ranges in elevation from approximately 40 feet to 225 feet above mean sea level. The topography is dominated by high terraces and canyons crosscut by drainages and is underlain by sedimentary layers of the Eocene-aged Santiago Formation and metavolcanic bedrock. No active faults are known to exist on the project site or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Land uses surrounding the project site vary considerably and include undeveloped/agricultural land to the south and east, established residential subdivisions located to the north, west and south, and the Rancho Carlsbad mobile home subdivision located along the Master Plan southeast property line. The Calavera Hills II residential development is under construction adjacent to the eastern portion of the projects' northern boundary. Directly to the east of the site is an undeveloped parcel which is owned by the Carlsbad Unified School District. To the northeast is an undeveloped parcel under the ownership of the State of California, which is part of the City's Habitat Management Plan (HMP). The project site is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 14. Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final El R 10 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations More detailed information on the project area and its environs is provided in Sections 4.0 and 5.1 through 5.12 of the FPEIR and incorporated herein by this reference. 1.6 Mitigation Monitoring Program Pursuant to PRC §21081.6, the City has also adopted a detailed mitigation and monitoring program prepared by the EIR consultant under the direction of the City. The program is designed to assure that all mitigation measures as hereafter required are in fact implemented on a timely basis as the Proposed Project progresses through its development and construction phases. Compliance with the "Robertson Ranch Master Plan Mitigation and Monitoring Program" (a copy of which is attached to this Resolution as "Attachment B") is a condition of any City approvals and incorporated herein by this reference. 1.7 Record of Proceedings For all purposes of CEQA compliance, including these Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, the administrative record of all City proceedings and decisions regarding the environmental analysis of the Proposed Project shall include but are not limited to the following: • The Draft and Final Program EIR for the Proposed Project, together with all appendices and technical reports referred to therein, whether separately bound or not; • All final reports, letters, applications, memoranda, maps or other final planning and engineering documents prepared by the City, planning consultant, environmental consultant, project applicant or others presented to or before the decision-makers as determined by the City Clerk; • All final letters, final reports or other final documents submitted to the City by members of the public or public agencies in connection with the City's environmental analysis on the Proposed Project; • All minutes of any public workshops, meetings or hearings, including the scoping session, and any recorded or verbatim transcripts/videotapes thereof; • Any final letters, final reports or other final documents or other evidence submitted into the record at any public workshops, meetings or hearings; and • Matters of common general knowledge to the City which they may consider, including applicable state or local laws, ordinances and policies, the General Plan and all applicable planning programs and policies of the City. The custodian of the full administrative record shall be the City Clerk's Office, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008 provided however, that portions of the record may be contained in other offices of the City. Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 11 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 2.0 Findings of Significant Impacts, Required Mitigation Measures and Supporting Facts 2.1 Traffic/Circulation 2.1.1 Year 2010 Intersection #3: College Boulevard/Plaza Drive A. Impact. In the Year 2010, Intersection #3 would operate at Level of Service (LOS) "F" during the PM peak hours with or without the addition of project traffic. Since the increase in intersection delay resulting from project traffic is less than two seconds the direct impacts resulting from the project are less than significant; however, the cumulative impacts are significant, B. Finding. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. C. Mitigation Measure T-1. The physical improvements require widening of southbound College Boulevard to provide a third southbound thru-lane and widen westbound Plaza Drive to provide an additional left-turn lane. The project applicant shall provide a fair-share contribution to the City of Oceanside for the improvement of this intersection if the City of Oceanside adopts a program to accept payments in lieu of construction. The fair-share methodology is provided as Appendix B to the MMRP. The changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City of Oceanside. The City of Oceanside does not appear to have adopted a program to construct such improvements and there does not appear to be a program to accept payments in lieu of construction. Due to the fact that the subject impacted intersection is located outside the jurisdiction and regulatory authority of the City of Carlsbad, these impacts are considered significant and unmitigable. D. Factual Support and Rationale. The changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City of Oceanside. The project is required to participate, on a fair share basis, to intersection improvement projects for College Boulevard between W. Vista Way and Lake Boulevard if the City of Oceanside adopts a program to accept payments in lieu of construction. However, there is no guarantee that the City of Oceanside will accept a fair share contribution or that adequate funding for the mitigation will be available in Year 2010. Because there is no evidence that the City of Oceanside has adopted such program or that the City of Oceanside will implement the necessary improvements if the project makes a fair share payment or that the improvements are in fact physically feasible, the impact at the subject intersection is considered significant and unavoidable. In addition, the following improvements would be required in Year 2010: Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 12 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 1. Intersection #14: El Camino Real/Tamarack Avenue Mitigation Measure T-4. The developer of the West Village shall widen El Camino Real northbound to provide three thru-lanes and a separate right-turn lane. This improvement shall also include construction of a southbound shared thru/right-turn lane at Tamarack Ave. which is expected to be accomplished through re-striping. These improvements shall be funded by the developer of the West Village. Implementation of this measure shall be designed and secured as approved by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the first master final map for the West Village. 2. El Camino Real - Tamarack Avenue to Canon Road Mitigation Measure T-5. The developer of the West Village shall widen northbound El Camino Real to provide a right-turn only lane at Tamarack Ave., and a third northbound thru-lane along the entire project frontage, and re-stripe northbound El Camino Real north of the Tamarack/El Camino Real intersection to allow for a transition from three to two lanes as required. These improvements shall be funded by the developer of the West Village. Implementation of this measure shall be designed and secured as approved by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the first master final map for the West Village. 3. Intersection #28: El Camino Real/West Village Driveway/Lisa Street Mitigation Measure T-6. The developer of the West Village shall install a signal and provide a northbound separate right-turn lane at the intersection of El Camino Real and the West Village Driveway entrance. Implementation of this measure shall be designed and secured as approved by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the first master final map for the West Village. 4. Intersection #25: El Camino Real/Kelly Drive Mitigation Measure T-7. The developer of the West Village shall modify the traffic signal at the intersection of El Camino Real and Kelly Drive and construct a third northbound lane and the PA 1 driveway and construction of a shared third southbound shared thru-right turn lane. These improvements shall be funded by the developer of the West Village. Implementation of this measure shall be designed and secured as approved by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the first master final map for the West Village. 5. Cannon Road - El Camino Real to College Boulevard Mitigation Measure T-8. The developer of the East Village shall provide frontage improvements along both sides of Cannon Road and install traffic signals at the time directed by the City Engineer at new intersections (intersections #29, and #30). These improvements shall be funded by the developer of the East Village. Implementation of this measure shall be designed and secured as approved by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the first master final map for the East Village. 6. College Boulevard Mitigation Measure T-9. The developer of the East Village shall provide frontage improvements along both sides of College Boulevard. These improvements shall be funded by the developer of the East Village. Implementation of this measure shall be designed and secured as approved by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the first master final map for the East Village. Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 13 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Intersection #23: Cannon Road/El Camino Real A. Impact. In the Year 2010, Intersection #23 would operate at LOS "E" during the PM peak hours with or without the addition of project traffic. Since the increase in intersection delay resulting from project traffic is more than two seconds, both direct and cumulative impacts resulting from the project are considered significant. B. Finding. (1) With incorporation of the following mitigation measure, the identified direct and cumulative significant impacts would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. C. Mitigation Measure T-2. The developer of the West Village shall re-stripe northbound El Camino Real after frontage improvements have been installed along the West Village (as part of the development of the West Village) to allow for a shared thru/right turn lane. Implementation of this measure shall be designed and secured as approved by the City engineer prior to the recordation of the first master final map for the West Village. D. Factual Support and Rationale. After implementation of Mitigation Measure T-2, the Cannon Road/El Camino Real intersection would operate at LOS "D" during PM peak hours, which would reduce direct and cumulative project impacts to a level less than significant. In addition, the following mitigation measures would be required in Year 2010: 1. Intersection #14: El Camino Real/Tamarack Avenue Mitigation Measure T-4. The developer of the West Village shall widen El Camino Real northbound to provide three thru-lanes and a separate right-turn lane. This improvement shall also include construction of a southbound shared thru/right-turn lane at Tamarack Ave. which is expected to be accomplished through re-striping. These improvements shall be funded by the developer of the West Village. Implementation of this measure shall be designed and secured as approved by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the first master final map for the West Village. 2. El Camino Real - Tamarack Avenue to Canon Road Mitigation Measure T-5. The developer of the West Village shall widen northbound El Camino Real to provide a right-turn only lane at Tamarack Ave., and a third northbound thru-lane along the entire project frontage, and re-stripe northbound El Camino Real north of the Tamarack/El Camino Real intersection to allow for a transition from three to two lanes as required. These improvements shall be funded by the developer of the West Village. Implementation of this measure shall be designed and secured as approved by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the first master final map for the West Village. 3. Intersection #28: El Camino Real/West Village Driveway/Lisa Street Mitigation Measure T-6. The developer of the West Village shall install a signal and provide a northbound separate right-turn lane at the intersection of El Camino Real and the West Village Driveway Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 14 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations Bo CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations entrance. Implementation of this measure shall be designed pnd secured as approved by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the first master final map for the West Village. 4. Intersection #25: El Camino Real/Kelly Drive Mitigation Measure T-7. The developer of the West Village shall modify the traffic signal at the intersection of El Camino Real and Kelly Drive and construct a third northbound lane and the PA 1 driveway and construction of a shared third southbound shared thru-right turn lane. These improvements shall be funded by the developer of the West Village. Implementation of this measure shall be designed and secured as approved by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the first master final map for the West Village. 5. Cannon Road - El Camino Real to College Boulevard Mitigation Measure T-8. The developer of the East Village shall provide frontage improvements along both sides of Cannon Road and install traffic signals at the time directed by the City Engineer at new intersections (intersections #29, and #30). These improvements shall be funded by the developer of the East Village. Implementation of this measure shall be designed and secured as approved by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the first master final map for the East Village. 6. College Boulevard Mitigation Measure T-9. The developer of the East Village shall provide frontage improvements along both sides of College Boulevard. These improvements shall be funded by the developer of the East Village. Implementation of this measure shall be designed and secured as approved by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the first master final map for the East Village. Intersection #28: West Village Driveway/El Camino Real/Lisa Street A. Impact. In the Year 2010, Intersection #28 would operate at LOS "F" during the AM peak hours with the addition of project traffic. Both direct and cumulative impacts resulting from project traffic are considered significant. B. Finding. (1) With incorporation of the following mitigation measure, the identified direct and cumulative significant impacts would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. C. Mitigation Measure T-3. The West Village developer shall add a third southbound lane on El Camino Real from Tamarack Avenue to Cannon Rd. This improvement shall be funded by the developer of the West Village and may be subject to reimbursement through formation of a financing district or other public improvement funding mechanism. Implementation of this measure shall be designed and secured as approved by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the first master final map for the West Village. D. Factual Support and Rationale. After implementation of Mitigation Measure T-3, Intersection #28 would operate at an acceptable LOS "D" in the AM peak hour with project traffic added. As a result, the project's direct and cumulative impacts would be mitigated to a level less than significant. Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 15 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations In addition, the following mitigation measures would be required in'Year 2010: 1. Intersection #14: El Camino Real/Tamarack Avenue Mitigation Measure T-4. The developer of the West Village shall widen El Camino Real northbound to provide three thru-lanes and a separate right-turn lane. This improvement shall also include construction of a southbound shared thru/right-turn lane at Tamarack Ave. which is expected to be accomplished through re-striping. These improvements shall be funded by the developer of the West Village. Implementation of this measure shall be designed and secured as approved by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the first master final map for the West Village. 2. El Camino Real - Tamarack Avenue to Canon Road Mitigation Measure T-5. The developer of the West Village shall widen northbound El Camino Real to provide a right-turn only lane at Tamarack Ave., and a third northbound thru-lane along the entire project frontage, and re-stripe northbound El Camino Real north of the Tamarack/El Camino Real intersection to allow for a transition from three to two lanes as required. These improvements shall be funded by the developer of the West Village. Implementation of this measure shall be designed and 'secured as approved by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the first master final map for the West Village. 3. Intersection #28: El Camino Real/West Village Driveway/Lisa Street Mitigation Measure T-6. The developer of the West Village shall install a signal and provide a northbound separate right-turn lane at the intersection of El Camino Real and the West Village Driveway entrance. Implementation of this measure shall be designed and secured as approved by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the first master final map for the West Village. 4. Intersection #25: El Camino Real/Kelly Drive Mitigation Measure T-7. The developer of the West Village shall modify the traffic signal at the intersection of El Camino Real and Kelly Drive and construct a third northbound lane and the PA 1 driveway and construction of a shared third southbound shared thru-right turn lane. These improvements shall be funded by the developer of the West Village. Implementation of this measure shall be designed and secured as approved by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the first master final map for the West Village. 5. Cannon Road - El Camino Real to College Boulevard Mitigation Measure T-8. The developer of the East Village shall provide frontage improvements along both sides of Cannon Road and install traffic signals at the time directed by the City Engineer at new intersections (intersections #29, and #30). These improvements shall be funded by the developer of the East Village. Implementation of this measure shall be designed and secured as approved by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the first master final map for the East Village. 6. College Boulevard Mitigation Measure T-9. The developer of the East Village shall provide frontage improvements along both sides of College Boulevard. These improvements shall be funded by the Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 16 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations developer of the East Village. Implementation of this measure shajl be designed and secured as approved by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the first master final map for the East Village. 2.1.2 Year 2030 Intersection #1: Vista Way/College Boulevard A. Impact. In the Year 2030, Intersection #1 would operate at LOS "F" during the PM peak hours with or without the addition of project traffic. Since the increase in intersection delay resulting from project traffic is less than two seconds, the direct impacts resulting from the project are less than significant; however, the cumulative impacts are significant. B. Finding. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. C. Mitigation Measure T-10. The physical improvements would be to widen the College Boulevard/Vista Way intersection. The project applicant shall provide a fair-share contribution to the City of Oceanside for the improvement of this intersection if the City of Oceanside adopts a program to accept payments in lieu of construction. The fair-share methodology is provided as Appendix B to -the MMRP. The changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City of Oceanside. The City of Oceanside does not appear to have adopted a program to construct such improvements and there does not appear to be a program to accept payments in lieu of construction. Due to the fact that the subject impacted intersection is located outside the jurisdiction and regulatory authority of the City of Carlsbad, these impacts are considered significant and unmitigable. D. Factual Support and Rationale. The changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City of Oceanside. The project is required to participate, on a fair share basis, to intersection improvement projects for the Vista Way/College Boulevard intersection if the City of Oceanside adopts a program to accept payments in lieu of construction. However, there is no guarantee that the City of Oceanside will accept a fair share contribution or that adequate funding for the mitigation will be available in Year 2030. Because there is no evidence that the City of Oceanside has adopted such program or that the City of Oceanside will implement the necessary improvements if the project makes a fair share payment or that the improvements are in fact physically feasible, the impact at the subject intersection is considered significant and unavoidable. Cumulative impacts to the Vista Way/College Boulevard intersection will remain significant and unmitigated in 2030 Intersection #4: College Boulevard/Lake Avenue A. Impact. In the Year 2030, Intersection #4 would operate at LOS "F" during the PM peak hours with or without the addition of project traffic only if Marron Road is extended westerly to connect with El Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 17 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Camino Real. If Marron Road is not extended, 2030 projection's" conclude an acceptable LOS at this intersection. The direct and cumulative impacts associated with this intersection are considered significant. B. Finding. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. C. 'Mitigation Measure T-11. The physical improvements would be to widen the College .Boulevard/Lake Avenue intersection. The project-applicant shall provide a fair-share contribution to the City of'Oceanside for the improvement of this intersection if the City of Oceanside adopts a program to accept payments in lieu of construction. The fair-share methodology is provided as Appendix B to the MMRP. The changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City of Oceanside. The City of Oceanside does not appear to have adopted a program to construct such improvements and there does not appear to be a program to accept payments in lieu of construction. Due to the fact that the subject impacted intersection is located outside the jurisdiction and regulatory authority of the City of Carlsbad, these impacts are considered significant and unmitigable. D. Factual Support and Rationale. Necessary improvements would be to widen the College Boulevard/Lake Avenue intersection. However, the changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City of Oceanside. The project is required to participate, on a fair share basis, to intersection improvement projects for the College Boulevard/Lake Avenue intersection if the City of Oceanside adopts a program to accept payments in lieu of construction. However, there is no guarantee that the City of Oceanside will accept a fair share contribution or that adequate funding for the mitigation will be available in Year 2030. Because there is no evidence that the City of Oceanside has adopted such program or that the City of Oceanside will implement the necessary improvements if the project makes a fair share payment or that the improvements are in fact physically feasible, the impact at the subject intersection is considered significant and unavoidable. Therefore, if sufficient funds are not made available for the third southbound through lane, and if Marron Road is extended, the project's direct and cumulative impacts to this intersection will remain significant and unmitigated. Intersection #14: El Camino Real/Tamarack Avenue A. Impact. In the Year 2030, Intersection #14 would operate at LOS "F" during the AM and PM peak hours, without intersection improvements with or without the project. The direct and cumulative impacts associated with this intersection are considered significant. B. Finding. (1) With incorporation of the following mitigation measure, the identified direct and cumulative significant impacts would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. C. Mitigation Measure T-5. Implementation of Mitigation Measure T-5, as described above. Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 18 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations D. Factual Support and Rationale. Mitigation Measure T-5 requires the developer of the West Village to widen northbound El Camino Real to provide a right-turn only lane at Tamarack Avenue, and a third northbound thru-lane along the entire project frontage, and re-stripe northbound El Camino Real north of the Tamarack Avenue/El Camino Real intersection. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the project level and cumulative impacts to a level less than significant. Intersection #25: El Camino Real/Kelly Drive A. Impact. In the Year 2030, Intersection #25 would operate at LOS "F" during the AM peak hours and LOS "E" during fhe PM peak hours, without intersection improvements beyond those described for Year 2010. The direct and cumulative impacts associated with this intersection are considered significant. B. Finding. (1) With incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct and cumulative significant impacts would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. C. Mitigation Measures T-3 and T-5. Implementation of Mitigation Measures T-3 and T-5, as described above. D. Factual Support and Rationale. Mitigation Measure T-3 requires the developer of the West Village to provide a third southbound lane on El Camino Real from Tamarack Avenue to Cannon Road. Mitigation Measure T-5 requires the developer of the West Village to widen northbound El Camino Real to provide a right-turn only lane at Tamarack Avenue, and a third northbound thru-lane along the entire project frontage, and re-stripe northbound El Camino Real north of the Tamarack Avenue/El Camino Real intersection. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce project level and cumulative impacts to a level less than significant. Intersection #23: El Camino Real/Cannon Road A. Impact. In the Year 2030, Intersection #23 would operate at LOS "F" during the PM peak hours, with or without the project traffic added only if Cannon Road Reach 4 is extended easterly to connect with Cannon Road in Oceanside. if Reach 4 is not extended, 2030 projections conclude an acceptable LOS at this intersection. The direct and cumulative impacts associated with this intersection are considered significant. B. Finding. (1) With incorporation of the following mitigation measure, the identified direct and cumulative significant impacts would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. C. Mitigation Measure T-12. The developers of the West Village shall make their fair share contribution through the TIP program toward construction of a separate right-turn lane from northbound El Camino Real to eastbound Cannon Road. This improvement shall be installed by the City of Carlsbad or their designee and funded through the TIF program, when determined by the City to be needed. Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad Engineering Department prior to recordation of the first master final map for the West Village. Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 19 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Also, the developer of the West Village shall construct a second southbound left turn lane for southbound El Camino Real to eastbound Cannon Road at the time that the West Village El Camino Real frontage improvements and third northbound lane are constructed. It is anticipated that this improvement can be accomplished through re-striping of the standard right-of-way section. Implementation of this measure shall be designed and secured as approved by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the first master final map for the West Village. D. Factual Support and Rationale. The improvements identified in Mitigation Measure T-12 mitigate this intersection to a level less than significant. The applicant's contribution to their fair share through payment of TIP fees represents their fair share and mitigates these impacts to a level of insignificance. The City is in the process of updating their TIP program. If this project is included in the TIP program prior to issuance of building permits for the West Village then the impact is considered mitigated to a level of insignificance. If this project is not included for funding in the TIP program, then the impact is significant and unmitigated in 2030. If sufficient funds are not made available for the separate right-turn lane and added southbound left turn lane, and if Cannon Road Reach 4 is extended, the project's direct and cumulative impacts to this intersection will remain significant and unmitigated in 2030. Intersection #15: El Camino Real/Faraday Avenue A. Impact. In the Year 2030, Intersection #15 would operate at LOS "F" during the PM peak hours and LOS "E" during the AM peak hours. The direct and cumulative impacts associated with this intersection are considered significant. B. Finding. (1) With incorporation of the following mitigation measure, the identified direct and cumulative significant impacts would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. C. Mitigation Measure T-13. The developers of the East and West Villages shall make their fair share contribution toward construction of a westbound right-turn only lane and re-striping in the eastbound direction of a single left-turn lane, one thru lane, one shared thru/right-turn lane, and a separate right-turn lane at the intersection of El Camino Real and Faraday Avenue, all of which shall be installed by the City of Carlsbad or their designee when determined by the City to be needed. Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad Engineering Department prior to recordation of the first master final map for the East and West Villages, respectively. D. Factual Support and Rationale. The applicant's contribution to their fair share through payment of TIP fees represents their fair share and mitigates these impacts to a level of insignificance. The City is in the process of updating their TIP program. If this project is included in the TIP program prior to issuance of building permits for the East and West Villages, then the impact is considered mitigated to a level of less than significant. If this project is not included for funding in the TIP program, then the impact is significant and unmitigated in 2030. Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 20 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Intersection #33: Palomar Airport Road/Melrose Drive ' • A. Impact. In the Year 2030, Intersection #33 would operate at LOS "E" during the AM and PM peak hours, with or without the addition of project traffic. Since the increase in intersection delay resulting from the project traffic is less than two seconds, the direct impacts resulting from the project are less than significant; however, the cumulative impacts are significant. B. Finding. (1) With incorporation of the following mitigation measure, the identified cumulative significant impacts would be avoided and thereby-reduced below a level of significance. / C. Mitigation Measure T-14. The developers of the East and West Village shall make their fair share contribution toward construction of a fourth northbound thru-lane, a separate eastbound right-turn only lane and dual southbound right-turn only lanes at the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and Melrose Avenue. This project may be funded through the TIP program. Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad Engineering Department prior to recordation of the first master final map for the East and West Villages, respectively. D. Factual Support and Rationale. The applicant's contribution to their fair share through payment of TIP fees represents their fair share and mitigates these impacts to a level of insignificance. The City is in the process of updating their TIP program. If this project is included in the TIP program prior to issuance of building permits for the East and West Villages, then the impact is considered mitigated to a level of less than significant. There is no guarantee that adequate funding will be provided for the construction of the fourth northbound thru-lane and second right turn lane on Melrose Drive. Therefore, if this project is not included for funding in the TIP program, the cumulative impacts to this intersection will remain significant and unmitigated in 2030. 2.2 Air Quality A. Impact. A significant short-term impact to localized air quality is associated with grading and earthwork activities for the proposed project. As depicted in Table 5.3-4 of the FPEIR, grading and earthwork will generate 425.56 pound per day of NOx and 354.088 pounds per day of PMio. These values exceed the SDAPCD Rule 20.2 construction emission thresholds. B. Finding. (1) With incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. C. Mitigation Measures. AQ-1. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a construction dust abatement management program shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Carlsbad for approval. Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad Engineering Department on establishment of the program, and periodic inspection during grading. Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 21 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 37 CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Off-Road Mobile Source PMio Emission Reduction • At a minimum, water active sites twice daily. • Sweep streets at the end of the day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public paved roads (recommended water sweepers with reclaimed water). Fine Particulate Matter (PMw) Emission Reduction In disturbed areas, replace gfound cover as quickly as possible. • Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders according to manufactures' specification to exposed piles (i.e., gravel, sand, and dirt) with five percent silt content. • During construction, use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this should include wetting down such areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. Increased watering frequency shall be required whenever the winds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed water shall be used, as feasible. • Suspend all excavating and grading operations when wind speeds exceed 25 mph. • Builders and/or contractors shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust offsite. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the Air Pollution Control District prior to land use clearance for map recordation and land use clearance for finish grading for the structure. Paved Roads • At a minimum, sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent streets. • All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., minimum vertical distance between top of the load and the top of the trailer) in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 23114. • Gravel pads (construction entrances) must be installed at all access points 'to prevent tracking of mud onto public streets. Unpaved Roads • Apply water a minimum of three times daily to all unpaved roads, parking and staging areas. • Traffic speeds on all unpaved roads to be reduced to 15 mph or less. AQ-2. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, an off-road and on-road mobile source emission reduction program shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Carlsbad for approval. Implementation of this Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 22 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad Engineering • Department on establishment of the program, and periodic inspection during construction of the project. Off-Road Mobile Source NOx Emission Reduction • Heavy-duty diesel-powered construction equipment manufactured after 1996 (with federally mandated "clean" diesel engines) should be utilized wherever feasible. The engine size of construction equipment shall be the minimum practical size. i • The number of construction equipment operating simultaneously shall be minimized through efficient management practices to ensure that the smallest practical numbers are operating at any one time. • Construction equipment shall be maintained in tune per the manufacturer's specifications. • Construction equipment operating onsite shall be equipped with two to four degree engine timing retard or precombustion chamber engines. Catalytic converters shall be installed on gasoline-powered equipment, if feasible. • Diesel catalytic converters shall be installed, if available. • Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel or gasoline power generators. On-Road Mobile Source Emission Reduction • Trip reduction plan to achieve a 1.5 average vehicle ratio (AYR) for construction employees. By encouraging an AVR of 1.5, the criteria pollutant emissions identified would effectively be reduced by roughly 33 percent. • Construction worker trips should be minimized by requiring carpooling and by providing for lunch onsite. D. Factual Support and Rationale. The foregoing fugitive dust and dirt remedies will be effective in reducing air born dust and particulate emissions from grading and earthwork operations. The combination of on-site watering, sweeping of pavement, load requirement limitations, installing gravel pads at construction entrances, suspension of excavation and grading activities when winds exceed 25 mph, and trip reduction plans for construction employees have proven to be effective in mitigating construction dust and particulate emissions. Implementation of the mitigation measures will reduce the short-term construction related air quality impacts to a level of less than significant. A. Impact. A significant operational impact has been identified with the operational emission levels associated with the proposed project. The combined mobile source emission levels from the East and West Villages are expected to exceed the thresholds established by the SDAPCD by 1,141.2 pounds per day for CO, 205.7 pounds per day for NOx, and 11.4 pounds per day for ROGs. This is considered a significant impact. In addition, fixed source emissions, associated with wood-burning fireplaces would exceed the allowable threshold for PMioin a little over three hours. Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 23 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations B. Finding. (3) Specific economic, legal, social technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. Mitigation Measures AQ-3 and AQ-4 will reduce the impact to the extent feasible; however, no feasible mitigation measures are available to mitigate this project-level impact and the impact remains significant and unavoidable. C. Mitigation Measures. t AQ-3. Prior to approval of site development plans for PA 11, the City shall assure that all of the operational mitigation measures identified below are identified and included as part of the project development plans, as applicable. These measures shall be implemented by the project applicant of each individual project when development plans are "proposed, and shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad Planning Department. The City shall recommended that the proposed surrounding commercial facilities which incorporate gas stations utilize pumps dispensing oxygenated gasoline (especially during winter months, typically taken as November through February inclusive) in an effort to reduce overall CO emissions within the air basin due to traffic traveling to and from the project site. In addition, the City shall recommend that workers at surrounding commercial facilities participate in ride-share programs and or seek alternate forms of transportation to the site. Future onsite commercial land uses shall implement shuttle services for their employees and patrons, as applicable. • Future project specific developments shall implement design measures the promote the use of alternative modes of transportation, such as: — Mixed-use development (combine residential, retail, employment, and commercial). — Sidewalks; safe street and parking lot crossings; showers and locker rooms; sheltered transit stops; theft-proof well-lighted bicycle storage facilities with convenient access to building entrance; carpools and vanpools. — Onsite services to reduce need for offsite travel such as: child care; telecommute center; retail stores; postal machines; and automatic teller machines. — Commercial and retail businesses should schedule operations during off-peak travel times; adjust business hours; and allow alternative work schedules, telecommuting. — Provide preferential parking for carpool/vanpool vehicles. — Construct transit facilities such as bus turnouts/bus bulbs, benches, shelters, etc. — Provide direct, safe, attractive pedestrian access from project to transit stops and adjacent development. • Increase walls and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements. • Plant shade trees in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from parked vehicles. Robertson Ranch Master Plan Rnal EIR 24 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations • Use lighting controls and energy-efficient interior, .lighting, and built-in energy efficient appliances. • Use double-paned windows. Use energy-efficient low sodium parking lot and street lights. AQ-4. Gas-burning "fireplaces," which would not be subject to the NSPS particulate emission requirements shall be required for residential units that have fireplaces. This requirement shall be shown on building plans and verified prior to the issuance of building permits. Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad Building and Planning Departments. • D. Factual Support and Rationale. The foregoing -operational mitigation measures will reduce this impact to the extent feasible. Mitigation Measure AQ-3 requires that future project land uses incorporate methods to reduce mobile source emissions. These methods include, but are not limited to, the implementation of shuttle services and ride-share programs, and design measures such as mixed-use development and the provision of on-site services. Mitigation Measure AQ-4 requires gas-burning fireplaces not subject to the NSPS particulate emission requirements be required for residential units that have fireplaces. Development of the proposed project would be incremental, over approximately 10 years. The mitigation measures would reduce the proposed project's long-term CO, NOx, and ROG air quality impact, as a result of vehicular emissions, to the extent feasible; however, based on the current non-attainment status of the San Diego Air Basin, the CO, NOx, and ROG air quality impacts associated with the proposed project will remain significant and unavoidable. A. Impact. The potential for the proposed project to create VOC impacts is considered a significant impact. B. Finding. (1) With incorporation of the following mitigation measure, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. C. Mitigation Measure AQ-5. Zero emission VOC paints shall be utilized for all architectural coatings within the proposed Master Plan development. D. Factual Support and Rationale. Mitigation Measure AQ-5 would ensure that only zero emission VOC paints are used for architectural coatings within the proposed Master Plan development. As a result, no significant VOC emissions would be released from the proposed project and the potential for VOC impacts would be eliminated. Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 25 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 2.3 Noise A. Impact. Traffic associated with arterial roadway noise and future development within the proposed Master Plan will result in a significant noise impact as noise levels in excess of the established 60 decibel (dBA) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) exterior standard could be exceeded. B. Finding. (1) With incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. ! C. Mitigation Measures. N-1. Prior to determining that a discretionary review application is complete, a site-specific (e.g., per Planning Area) acoustical assessment shall be prepared for future proposed residential projects in the East and West Village Planning Areas that front Tamarack Avenue, El Camino Real, Cannon Road, and/or College Boulevard (PA's 1, 7, 15, 17, 18, 21, and 22) and non-residential uses in PA's 11 and 22. This shall occur at the time specific grading and site plans are available, in order to determine the specific mitigation requirements for exterior and interior noise level compliance. The site-specific acoustical mitigation shall be identified on, and included as part of the project development plans. Mitigation based on the site-specific acoustical assessments may include installation of noise barriers greater than 12 feet in height (with respect to the finished pad vs. final roadway elevation) along portions of Tamarack Avenue, Cannon Road, College Boulevard, and El Camino Real to achieve a noise reduction of up to 18 dB, which is necessary in order to achieve attainment of the City of Carlsbad exterior and interior noise limits. City policy dictates that walls greater than six feet in height are not allowed. The recommended barrier height could include a combination of berm, wall (not to exceed six feet in height), plexiglass and/or elevational differential between the noise source and receptor. Compliance with this measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad Planning Department in conjunction with review of grading plans. N-2 For residential uses within PA's 1,7, 15, 17, 18, 21, and 22 and non-residential uses in PA's 11 and 22, architectural features needed to achieve the interior noise standard shall be noted on the building plans. A statement certifying that the required architectural features have been incorporated into the building plans, signed by the acoustical analyst/acoustician shall be located on the building plans. The architect shall also include his registration stamp in addition to the required signature. All noise level reduction architectural components shall be shown on the architectural building plans, and shall be approved. This measure shall be implemented prior to the issuance of building permits for residential projects located within PA's 1,7, 15, 17, 18, 21, and 22) and non-residential uses in PA's 11 and 22 and verified by the City of Carlsbad Building and Planning Departments. D. Factual Support and Rationale. Mitigation Measure N-1 requires that a site-specific acoustical assessment be prepared for the above-mentioned Planning Areas when specific grading and site plans are available. This will ensure proper mitigation of potential noise impacts through installation of various noise barriers. Mitigation Measure N-2 requires that architectural features needed to achieve the interior noise Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 26 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations standard be noted on.the building plans for the above-mentioned Planning Areas. This will ensure proper mitigation of potential interior noise impacts through architectural features. These mitigation measures require that the noise impacts be mitigated prior to on-site development. Implementation of these mitigation measures will ensure proper mitigation of potential impacts associated with on-site roadway noise levels to a level less than significant. A. Impact. The project site is located within the McClellan-Palomar Airport Noise Impact Notification Area (NINA). The NINA includes a three-mile radius, where 90 percent of all overflight* noise related complaints are received. The noise in this area typically occurs on an irregular basis, and although not generally considered a health or safety issue, it may be a nuisance. A significant impact is associated with the intermittent single-event aircraft overflight at the project site. B. Finding. (1) With incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. C. Mitigation Measures. N-3 New residents within the McClellan-Palomar Noise Impact Notification Area as defined by the CLUP shall be notified as part of the sales disclosure package and through CC&Rs that the project area is outside the 65 db(A) CNEL airport noise impact area, but still subject to intermittent single-event noise impacts, sight and sound of aircraft operating from McClellan-Palomar Airport. This measure shall be implemented concurrent with the sales disclosure package and prior to approval of CC&Rs. The City of Carlsbad Planning Department shall be responsible for verification of implementation of this measure. N-4 The following condition of approval shall be placed on all projects within the McClellan-Palomar Airport Noise Impact Notification Area: "Prior to the recordation of the first final (tract/parcel) map, or the issuance of the building permits, whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a notice that the property is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating from McClellan-Palomar Airport, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney. (See Noise Form #2, on file in the Planning Department)." This measure shall be implemented prior to the recordation of the first neighborhood final (tract/parcel) map, or the issuance of building permits. The City of Carlsbad Planning Department shall be responsible for verification of implementation of this measure. D. Factual Support and Rationale. The foregoing mitigation measures require all new residential projects located within NINA to record a notice informing residents of the potential environmental impacts related to the aircraft, and that the property is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating from McClellan-Palomar Airport. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the potential noise impact associated with intermittent single-event aircraft overflight to a level less than significant. Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 27 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 2.4 Biological Resources A. Impact. The proposed project would the following upland habitats: 21.22 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub and 0.14 acre of chamise chaparral. B. Finding. (1) With incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. t C. Mitigation Measures./ B-1 The primary mitigation for impacts to HMP Species under the HMP is the conservation and management of habitat for the species in the preserve system. The HMP also states, "In addition, in compliance with the Endangered Species Act requirements that the impacts of incidental take be minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent practicable, measures to avoid and reduce impacts will apply citywide on a project level basis." This measure requires that the development configuration depicted on the Master Tentative Map for the East and West Villages include a minimum of 70% of the on-site coastal sage scrub for preservation. A conservation easement shall be established for the proposed open space conservation areas. As a condition of project approval, the applicant must comply with the requirements of all regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over the project and any mitigation requirements of the environmental documents for the project. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65871 and Carlsbad Municipal Code Title 20, Chapter 20.04, Section 20.04.140, the applicant shall grant a conservation easement for the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants and the habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of certain species thereof, in accordance with the City's adopted Habitat Management Plan. As such, prior to recordation of the final map or prior to issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first, the project applicant shall take the following actions to the satisfaction of the City of Carlsbad Planning Director in relation to the open space lot(s). The Wildlife Agencies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game) shall review and approve the conservation entity, Property Analysis Record, and conservation easement: a. Select a conservation entity, subject to approval by the City, that possesses the necessary qualifications to hold title to the open space lot(s) and manage it for conservation purposes. b. Prepare a Property Analysis Record (PAR) or other method acceptable to the City for estimating the costs of management and monitoring of the open space lot(s) in perpetuity. c. Based on the results of the PAR, provide a non-wasting endowment or other financial mechanism acceptable to the Planning Direct and Wildlife Agencies, to the selected Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 28 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations conservation entity in an amount sufficient for management and monitoring of the open space lot(s) in perpetuity. d. The PAR analysis for the open space preserve shall account for all of the monitoring and management items identified for all Carlsbad covered species, including the monitoring strategy identified in MHCP Volume III (see Appendix A.3). e. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or recordation of the first final map for each Phase, provide evidence of transfer of fee title or easement over the open space lot(s) (for each respective Phase) to the selected conservation entity. Timing of Open Space Dedication: East Village. An open space and/or conservation easement shall be recorded over PA 23D and PA 23E with the first final map (master final map) for the East Village. At that time, title to the land and/or beneficiary of the easement shall be transferred to the conservation entity or other management body acceptable to the City of Carlsbad. The developer shall continue to hold maintenance responsibility for restored or revegetated areas within these planning areas until the success criteria for the restored or revegetated areas has been met, and maintenance responsibility has been transferred. An easement for an area of coastal sage scrub restoration located within the habitat corridor on the West Village (which is the responsibility of the East Village developer) shall also be provided with the first final map (master final map) for the East Village. West Village. An open space and/or conservation easement shall be recorded over PA 23A, PA 23B and PA 23C with the first final map (master final map) for the West Village. At that time, title to the land and/or beneficiary of the easement shall be transferred to the conservation entity or other management body acceptable to the City of Carlsbad. The developer shall continue to hold maintenance responsibility for restored or revegetated areas within these planning areas until the success criteria for the restored or revegetated areas has been met, and maintenance responsibility has been transferred. B-2 Development and preservation areas shall be as shown on the exhibit labeled "HMP Hardline Map" dated September 15, 2004 (as shown on Figure 3-6 of this FPEIR). No fuel modification is permitted within the "hardline" open space areas depicted on Figure 3-7 (fuel modification is limited to those areas shown on Figures 5.10-1 and 5.10-2 only). A coastal sage scrub restoration program shall be implemented as shown on Figure 5.5-6. Restoration is proposed under two separate restoration plans as follows: All slopes within the wildlife corridor (East and West Villages) that are graded as part of the proposed project shall be restored with coastal sage scrub vegetation. The restoration program shall be subject to a five-year maintenance and monitoring program, with a requirement to meet agency-approved success criteria. This restoration program shall be approved by the Wildlife Agencies prior to the commencement of any clearing or grading associated with implementation of the proposed project (East and West Villages). The restoration program shall include site preparation guidelines, implementation monitoring, performance standards, long-term maintenance and monitoring methodology, and contingency Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 29 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations measures with a commitment to funding. Such measure shall also" be applicable to the ten (10) acres of additional coastal sage scrub restoration Calavera Hills II LLC will implement within the preserve areas of the project. The revegetation of Area A (MMRP Table A, as provided in Appendix D to the MMRP) will be the responsibility of the developer of the East Village and will be initiated prior to any clearing or grading of existing coastal sage scrub for the Robertson Ranch development. The revegetation of Area B (MMRP Table A, as provided in Appendix D to the MMRP) shall occur once grading to an approximate 5:1 slope gradient has been completed. This grading will be accomplished by the developer of the West Village upon expiration of the Parkway Nursery lease and vacation of the property by the Nursery operation. West Village - PA 23C. A separate restoration plan shall be prepared and implemented for the portions of the project site within the habitat corridor currently subject to agricultural activity and the Parkway Nursery lease. The restoration program shall be subject to a five-year maintenance and monitoring program, with a requirement to meet agency-approved success criteria. This restoration program shall be approved by the Wildlife Agencies prior to the commencement of any clearing or grading associated with implementation of the proposed West Village. The restoration program shall include site preparation guidelines, implementation monitoring, performance standards, long-term maintenance and monitoring methodology, and contingency measures with a commitment to funding. However, this component of the restoration plan would be less extensive than that identified above (restored slopes and 10-acre restoration area), consisting primarily of hydroseeding, and with limited plantings, with the goal to re-introduce native vegetation into these areas. This program would be implemented upon the expiration of the Parkway Lease (which expires in August 2006 and which will not be renewed). Upon the expiration of the Parkway Nursery lease, the entire habitat corridor along the SDG&E easement will be subject to a conservation easement and managed as open space, except for those specific activities SDG&E undertakes within its utility easement consistent with SDG&E's operation and maintenance requirements. Management of the corridor is anticipated to be performed by an independent private or public conservation entity experienced in management of biological resource areas. The amount of funds required to manage and ensure long-term biological integrity of the habitat corridor will be determined by a property analysis record (PAR) based on the specific requirements and potential for urban stress on the corridor. Standard protocol for funding of such corridors dictates that a non-wasting account (endowment) be set up by the owner of each portion of the property (East Village, West Village) for their respective portion of corridor to be managed. The re-introduction of CSS vegetation to Area C (MMRP Table A, as provided in Appendix D to the MMRP) will commence upon completion of grading within the corridor.. The Future West Village Revegetation (re-introduction of CSS at PA3/EI Camino Real) shall occur at the time that grading for the future residential street between Planning Area 8/11 and Planning Area 10 in the West Village is completed. Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 30 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations B-3 Prior to the recordation of a final map or issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall contribute an In-lieu Mitigation Fee (Category F) consistent with Section E.6 of the City's Habitat Management Plan and City Council Resolution No. 2000-223 as follows: • Non-Native Vegetation Mitigation Fee: East Village = 0.76 acre; West Village = 0.52 acre • Eucalyptus Woodland Mitigation Fee: East Village = 0.52 acre; West Village = 1.88 acre • Agricultural Lands Mitigation Fee: East Village = 0.00 acre; West Village = 8.47 acre • Agricultural Lands Mitigation Fee: East Village = 84.50 acre; West Village = 135.50 acre B-4 To avoid impacts to adjacent open space habitats during construction all impacted-open space interfaces will require construction fencing, which clearly delineates the edge of the approved limits of grading and clearing and environmentally sensitive areas beyond. This fencing shall be maintained for the duration of construction activity. Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the project Biological Monitor and reported to the City of Carlsbad Planning Department concurrent with construction. • The project applicant shall temporarily fence (with silt barriers) the limits of project impacts (including construction staging areas and access routes) to prevent additional habitat impacts and prevent the spread of silt from the construction zone into adjacent habitats to be avoided. Fencing shall be installed in a manner that does not impact habitats to be avoided. The applicant shall submit to the Service for approval, at least seven days prior to initiating project impacts, the final plans and photographs for initial clearing and grubbing of habitat and project construction. These final plans shall include photographs that show the fenced limits of impact and all areas (including riparian/wetland or CSS) to be impacted or avoided. If work occurs beyond the fenced or demarcated limits of impact, all work shall cease until the problem has been remedied to the satisfaction of the Service. Any upland habitat impacts that occur beyond the approved fenced shall be mitigated at a minimum 5:1 ratio. Temporary construction fencing shall be removed upon project completion. B-5 A Wildlife Agency-approved biological monitor shall be present to monitor clearing, grading, and construction activities in the vicinity of biological open space areas. The biological monitor shall have the authority to stop construction and require additional precautions or conservation measures to protect the proposed open space preserve areas, including the wildlife movement corridor, as necessary. Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad Planning Department prior to and concurrent with construction. B-16 The project's open space shall be included within (contribute to) the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan preserve areas. Management of the designated open space shall be undertaken by a professional management entity (e.g.. Center for Natural Lands Management) with experience in managing biological open space in the Southern California region. An area specific management plan shall be developed and a non-wasting endowment or other financial guarantee shall be established (based upon a Property Analysis Record) by the developer to fund the management of the preserve except where other management funds become available. The designated management entity would ensure compliance with the HMP conditions of coverage for HMP species through implementation of the approved area specific management plan. Specifically, suitable riparian habitat for least Bell's vireo and yellow-breasted chat and suitable upland habitats for California gnatcatcher and southern California Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 31 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations rufous-crowned sparrow within the open space will be managed. Jo meet the conditions of coverage for these species, if present. In order to provide for the cost of the long-term maintenance and biological monitoring program for the preserve, a long-term management program shall be defined and funded. The criteria for trail development (e.g., fencing, signage) shall be included in the management program. The property owner/on-site environmental manager will initially propose a scope of work for the long-term management program. The scope of work shall then be subject to review by the City and Wildlife Agencies. Based upon the scope of work and associated costs agreed to by the developer or their successors and the City, a funding mechanism for the long-term maintenance can be a non-wasting endowment or other financial guarantee acceptable to the City. The long-term maintenance program shall be a separate agreement between the City and the property owner. D. Factual Support and Rationale. The HMP provides conservation goals for LFMP Zone 14 that include, "no net loss of wetlands and conserve through preservation, restoration, or enhancement, of 67 percent of Coastal Sage Scrub." As proposed the Master Plan will preserve more than 70 percent of the existing coastal sage scrub habitat on-site. In addition to 70 percent preservation of existing coastal sage scrub habitat on-site, an Upland Habitat Restoration Plan, to be prepared and implemented as approved by the Wildlife Agencies, is proposed that would involve the restoration of coastal sage scrub habitat within PA's 23C and 23D. The proposed restoration areas currently contain extensive agriculture and a palm tree nursery. Restoration would involve revegetation of 17.4 acres and hydroseeding of 18.9 acres. In addition, to avoid impacts to adjacent open space habitats during construction, all impact-open space interfaces will require construction fencing, which clearly delineates the edge of the approved limits of grading and clearing and environmentally sensitive areas beyond. This fencing will be maintained for the duration of construction activity. A Wildlife Agency-approved biological monitor with the authority to stop work will be present during grading and construction activities to ensure compliance with this measure. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the significant impact to coastal sage scrub and chamise chaparral to a level less than significant. A. Impact. The proposed project would impact the following wetland/riparian habitats: coastal valley freshwater marsh (0.22 acre) and southern willow scrub (0.61 acre). Based on Master Plan design, approximately 0.57 acre of wetlands and 0.29 acre of non-wetlands of ACOE jurisdiction will be impacted and approximately 1.05 acres of riparian vegetation and 0.27 acre of unvegetated streambed of CDFG will be impacted. These impacts are considered significant. These impacts would only be in the West Village. B. Finding. (1) With incorporation of the following mitigation measure, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. C. Mitigation Measure B-7. This measure requires that "no net loss" of wetlands will occur with development of the proposed project. The development configuration of the Master Tentative Map for the East Village shall include the proposed on-site restoration area, unless prior to this time some offsetting mitigation credit is given by the Wildlife Agencies for biological enhancement within the West Village. A Robertson Ranch Master Plan Rnal EIR 32 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations minimum of 0.22 acre of coastal and valley freshwater marsh and" 0.61 acre of southern willow scrub shall be provided. (Refer to EIR Table 5.5-7 provided in Appendix E of the MMRP). A 100-foot buffer from wetland vegetation shall be provided where feasible. Any proposed reductions in buffer widths for a specific site shall require sufficient information to determine that a buffer of lesser width will protect the identified resources. Such information shall include, but is not limited to, the size and type of the development and/or proposed mitigation (such as planting of vegetation or the construction of fencing) that will also achieve the purposes of the buffer. The California Department of Fish and Game, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff shall be consulted in such buffer determinations. Notwithstanding that all wetlands and riparian impacts (0.83 ac.) are a result of the West Village development; the mitigation site is located within the boundaries of the East Village (within the panhandle, adjacent to the existing Calavera Hills mitigation project), or within the on-site habitat corridor in a location approved by the Resource agencies. As proposed, the restoration areas on the project site (PA 23E) contains sufficient area so as to exceed normal mitigation requirements. Figure 5.5-7 [of the PEIR] depicts the location of future on-site wetlands/riparian restoration areas. Also, prior to approval of a grading permit for the West Village, the Planning Director shall confirm that a wetlands/riparian restoration plan has been prepared and approved by the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Further, enhancement or restoration within the Drainage A riparian corridor (between PA 1 and PA 2) can also constitute mitigation credit for wetlands impacts. D. Factual Support and Rationale. Proposed mitigation requires that "no net loss" of wetlands will occur with development of the proposed project and that a restoration plan is prepared and approved by the Wildlife Agencies. No wetland impacts are proposed in the East Village. Prior to approval of a grading permit for the West Village, a wetlands/riparian restoration plan will be prepared and approved by the Wildlife Agencies for proposed wetland impacts in the West Village. The impacts to wetlands in the West Village will be mitigated for in the East Village. The development configuration of the Master Tentative Map for the East Village will include the proposed on-site restoration area, unless prior to this time some offsetting mitigation credit is given by the Wildlife Agencies for biological enhancement within the West Village. Implementation of Mitigation Measure B-7 would reduce the impacts to wetlands to a level less than significant. A. Impact. There is the potential for a significant indirect impact to the gnatcatcher as' a result of noise generated during construction on the project site. In addition, loggerhead shrikes may also be indirectly impacted as a result of construction noise because they nest in coastal sage scrub, the habitat of the gnatcatcher. B. Finding. (1) With incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified indirect' significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 33 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations C. Mitigation Measures ,. B-8 This measure requires, per the HMP, no clearing of occupied gnatcatcher habitat or construction that would result in direct impacts to sage scrub or which occurs within 300 feet of occupied sage scrub shall take place between February 15 and August 31st unless authorized by the Wildlife Agencies after consultation. Since the project's focused gnatcatcher surveys were conducted in 2001, updated protocol-level surveys shall be performed no longer than one year before the initiation of project construction for the East Village, and subsequently, no longer than one year before the initiation of project construction for the West Village, to provide an accurate mapping of current occupied habitat. Surveys for loggerhead shrike shall also be conducted concurrently with gnatcatcher surveys. If clearing and construction cannot be restricted ta outside of the breeding season appropriate conservation measures shall be implemented, subject to the approval of the Wildlife Agencies, to ensure that no impact to this species occurs. Avoidance of noise-related impacts to occupied habitat can be assured through implementation of noise reduction methods (e.g., a noise barrier or wall) to reduce noise within occupied habitat to a level below 60 dBA and/or as allowed by the Wildlife Agencies. Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad Planning Department concurrent with construction. B-17 A monitoring biologist approved by the Service shall be on site during initial clearing and grubbing of habitat, which shall occur outside of the gnatcatcher breeding season, or as allowed pursuant to Mitigation Measure B-8. The monitoring biologist shall perform a minimum of three focused surveys, on separate days, to determine the presence of gnatcatchers in the project impact footprint outside the gnatcatcher breeding season. Surveys shall begin a maximum of seven days prior to performing vegetation clearing/grubbing and one survey shall be conducted the day immediately prior to the initiation of remaining work. If any gnatcatchers are found within the project impact footprint, the biologist shall direct construction personnel to begin vegetation clearing/grubbing in an area away from the gnatcatchers. In addition, the biologist shall walk ahead of clearing/grubbing equipment to flush birds towards areas of CSS to be avoided. It shall be the responsibility of the biologist to ensure that gnatcatchers shall not be injured or killed by vegetation clearing/grubbing. The biologist shall also record the number and location of gnatcatchers disturbed by vegetation clearing/grubbing. The applicant shall notify the Service at least seven days prior to vegetation clearing/grubbing to allow the Service to coordinate with the biologist on bird flushing activities. B-18 For subsequent construction work performed during the gnatcatcher breeding season, a monitoring biologist shall be on site during significant noise-generating project construction activities (e.g., including but not necessarily limited to grading, drilling, blasting, etc.) within 300 feet of preserved habitat to ensure compliance with all conservation measures. The biologist shall be knowledgeable of upland biology and ecology. The applicant shall submit the biologists name, address, telephone number, and Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 34 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations work schedule on the project to the Service at least 30 days prior tb initiating project impacts. The biologist shall perform the following duties: • The project biologist shall determine the presence of gnatcatchers, nest building activities, egg incubation activities, or brood rearing activities within 300 feet of the project impact limits within the gnatcatcher breeding season. The applicant shall notify the Service within 24 hours of locating any gnatcatchers. If a nest is found in or within 300 feet of initial vegetation clearing/grubbing or project construction, work shall be postponed within 500 feet of the nest. The applicant shall contact the Service to discuss: 1) the best approach to avoid/minimize impacts to nesting birds (e.g., sound walls), and 2) a nest monitoring program. The surveys shall begin a maximum of seven days, prior to vegetation clearing/grubbing or project construction and one survey shall be conducted the day immediately prior to the initiation of work; • Work may be initiated subject to implementation of the avoidance and/or minimization measures and nest monitoring program approved by the Service. Nest success or failure shall be established by regular and frequent trips to the site, as determined by the biologist and through a schedule approved by the Service. The biologist shall determine whether bird activity is being disrupted. If the biologist determines that bird activity is being disrupted, the applicant shall stop work and coordinate with the Service to review the avoidance/minimization approach. Coordination between the applicant and Service to review the avoidance/minimization approach shall occur within 48 hours. Upon agreement as to the necessary revisions to the avoidance/minimization approach, work may resume subject to the revisions and continued nest monitoring. Nest monitoring shall continue until fledglings have dispersed or the nest has been determined to be a failure, as approved by the Service; • Inspect the fencing and erosion control measures within or up-slope of all restoration and/or preservation areas a minimum of once per week and daily during all rain events to ensure that any breaks in the fence or erosion control measures are repaired immediately; • Train all contractors and construction personnel on the biological resources associated with this project and ensure that training is implemented by construction personnel. At a minimum, training shall include: 1) the purpose for resource protection; 2) a description of the gnatcatcher and its habitat; 3) the conservation measures given in the draft subsequent EIR that shall be implemented during project construction, including strictly limiting activities, vehicles, equipment, and construction materials to the fenced project footprint to avoid sensitive resource areas in the field (i.e., avoided areas delineated on maps or on the project site by fencing); 4) environmentally responsible construction practices as outlined in measure 8; 5) the protocol to resolve conflicts that may arise at any time during the construction process; and, 6) the general provisions of the Endangered Species Act, the need to adhere to the provisions of the Endangered Species Act, the penalties associated with violating the Endangered Species Act; Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 35 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 51 CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations • Halt work, if necessary and confer with the Service fo ensure the proper implementation of species and habitat protection measures. The biologist shall report any violation to the Service within 24 hours of its occurrence; • Submit weekly letter reports (including photographs of impact areas) to the Service during clearing of habitat and/or project construction within 300 feet of avoided habitat. The weekly reports shall document that authorized impacts were not exceeded, work did not occur within * the 300-foot setback except as approved by the Service, and general compliance with all conditions. The reports shall also outline the duration of gnatcatcher monitoring, the location of ' construction activities, the type of construction which occurred, and equipment used. These reports shall specify numbers, locations, and sex of gnatcatchers (if present), observed gnatcatcher behavior (especially in relation to construction activities), and remedial measures employed to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to gnatcatchers. Raw field notes shall be available upon request by the Service; and, • The biological monitor shall submit a final report to the Service within 60 days of project completion that includes: as-built construction drawings with an overlay of habitat that was impacted and avoided, photographs of habitat areas that were to be avoided, and other relevant summary information documenting that authorized impacts were not exceeded and that general compliance with all mitigation measures in the EIR was achieved. B-22 The project shall comply with all applicable conditions of coverage for Carlsbad HMP covered sensitive animal species observed on the project site, as identified in the MHCP Volume II, including: a) Cooper's hawk; b) Least Bell's vireo; c) Yellow-breasted chat. D. Factual Support and Rationale. The foregoing mitigation measures place restrictions on the clearing of occupied gnatcatcher habitat or construction that would result in direct impacts to sage scrub or which occurs within 300 feet of occupied sage scrub. If clearing of habitat and subsequent construction cannot be restricted, appropriate conservation measures such as noise reduction methods (i.e., a noise barrier or wall) will be identified and implemented, through agreement with the Wildlife Agencies to ensure that no direct or indirect impact to gnatcatchers will occur. In addition, focused California gnatcatcher surveys are required to be performed no longer than one year prior to the commencement of construction in the East and West Villages. After implementation of Mitigation Measures B-8, B-17, B-18, and B-22, the indirect impact to gnatcatchers would be reduced to a level less than significant. Loggerhead shrike is a species that would potentially nest in coastal sage scrub, which is the same habitat as the gnatcatcher. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure B-8 would reduce the indirect impact to loggerhead shrike to a level less than significant. Robertson Ranch Master Plan Rnal EIR 36 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations A. Impact. The proposed project has the potential to indjrectly impact the least Bell's vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher as a result of construction noise during construction activity. This potential indirect impact is considered significant. B. Finding. (1) With incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified indirect significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. C. Mitigation Measures. Implementation of Mitigation Measure B-22, as described above, and Mitigation Measure B-9 as follows: » B-9 This measure requires that if sensitive nesting birds (e.g., least Bell's vireo or southwestern willow flycatcher) are located outside of the project footprint,- but within 300 feet of the proposed work area, noise reduction measures (e.g., noise barrier/wall) shall be implemented to prevent noise impacts within occupied habitat during the breeding season (April 15 through July 31) subject to approval of the Wildlife Agencies. Focused surveys for the vireo and flycatcher were conducted in 2001. If work is proposed within 300 feet of suitable habitat during the breeding season, updated surveys are required to ensure that current occupied habitat is identified and appropriate noise reduction measures are implemented as necessary. Noise reduction measures will need to meet the minimum standard of reducing noise levels to below 60 dBA within occupied habitat, unless otherwise agreed upon by the Wildlife Agencies. If construction within 300 feet of riparian scrub or woodland habitat is not proposed during the breeding season, updated surveys are not required. Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad Planning Department. D. Factual Support and Rationale. Comparable to the focused gnatcatcher surveys, vireo and flycatcher surveys were conducted in 2001. Mitigation Measure B-9 requires that if sensitive nesting birds are located outside of the project grading and clearing footprint, but within 300 feet of the proposed work area, noise reduction measures (e.g., noise barrier/wall) will need to be implemented to prevent noise impacts within occupied breeding season habitat. In addition, work is proposed within 300 feet of suitable habitat during the breeding season, updated surveys are required to ensure that occupied habitat at the time of construction activity is identified and appropriate noise reduction measures are implemented as necessary. Mitigation Measure B-22 requires compliance with applicable conditions of coverage for the Carlsbad HMP covered sensitive animal species observed on the project site. Implementation of Mitigation Measures B-9 and B-22 would reduce the indirect impact associated with least Bell's .vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher to a level less than significant by avoiding the nesting birds to the greatest extent feasible. A. ' Impact. Although not detected during on-site surveys in Winter 2005, burrowing owls may utilize the project site for wintering or breeding as suitable habitat exists on-site. These owls burrow and nest in abandoned rodent holes, which have the potential to be impacted during grading activity on-site. The potential for grading activity to impact the burrowing owl is considered a significant impact. B. Finding. (1) With incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 37 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations C. Mitigation Measures. Implementation of Mitigation Measure B-22, as described above, and Mitigation Measure B-10 as follows: B-10 This measure requires, per the HMP, that protocol surveys for burrowing owl shall be conducted in all Standards Areas and any areas outside of the Focus Planning Areas that contain suitable habitat. Winter surveys were conducted in 2005 and pre-grading surveys shall be conducted prior to any construction. The surveys would serve to identify owl burrow locations for the purposes of avoidance (where practicable) or passive relocation. Specifically, if burrowing owls are identified on-site, the following HMP mitigation measure's would be implemented: • Development shall avoid direct impacts to the nest site to the maximum extent practicable. If impacts are unavoidable, any impacted individuals shall be relocated to a conserved area of suitable size and characteristics, using passive or active methodologies approved by the Wildlife Agencies. Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad Planning Department. D. Factual Support and Rationale. As required in Mitigation Measure B-10, protocol surveys for burrowing owls will be conducted, in the spring prior to construction, in all HMP Standards Areas (on the project site) and any areas outside of the Focus Planning Areas that contain suitable habitat. If burrowing owls are present on-site, the project would take the locations of the burrowing owls into consideration in order to avoid (where practicable) or passively relocate the species. Mitigation Measure B-22 requires compliance with applicable conditions of coverage for the Carlsbad HMP covered sensitive animal species observed on the project site. Implementation of Mitigation Measures B-10 and B-22 will reduce the potential impact associated with the burrowing owl to a level less than significant. A. Impact. Raptors may nest on-site in large eucalyptus trees or other suitable nesting areas. The impact to raptors would be considered significant if active nests are observed during construction. B. Finding. (1) With incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. C. Mitigation Measures. Implementation of Mitigation Measure B-22, as described above, and Mitigation Measure B-l 1 as follows: B-11 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the East Village, and subsequently the West Village, a biological survey shall be conducted of the project area (if grading is proposed during the breeding season). If active raptor and/or migratory bird nests are observed during the construction phase of both the East Village and subsequently the West Village, a buffer area of adequate width (typically 500 feet), as determined by the monitoring biologist, shall be established between the construction activities and the nest so that nesting activities are not interrupted. To avoid potential impacts, trees should be removed outside of the breeding season of local raptor species (trees should be removed between September through January). Noise attenuation and buffer (if required) shall remain in place until the construction Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 38 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations activities are completed or the nest is no longer active. Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad Planning Department. D. Factual Support and Rationale. As required in Mitigation Measure B-ll, if grading is proposed during the breeding season, a biological survey will be conducted in the project area prior to issuance of the East and West Village grading permits. If active nests are observed during the construction phase, a buffer will be required between the construction activities and the nest. The noise attenuation techniques and/or buffer would remain in plate until the construction activities are completed or the nest is no longer active. Mitigation Measure B-22 requires compliance with applicable conditions of coverage for the Carlsbad HMP covered sensitive dnimal species observed on the project site. Implementation of Mitigation Measures B-l 1 and B-22 will reduce the potential impact associated with raptors to a level less than significant. A. Impact. The northwesterly and northeasterly branches of Linkage B of the HMP are located within the project site. Linkage B is a wildlife corridor. Development of the project site has the potential to disrupt the corridor connection for Linkage B as envisioned in the HMP. The potential for this disruption is considered a significant impact. B. Finding. (1) With incorporation of the following mitigation measure, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. C. Mitigation Measure B-l2. This measure requires avoidance and/or mitigation of impacts associated with roadways (within Linkage B); additional measures (e.g., fencing, lighting restrictions) shall be required to encourage the continued use of the corridor and use of the two under crossings. It shall be noted that only the first of these criteria (i.e., the fencing) is a direct responsibility of the Robertson Ranch project relative to the College Boulevard undercrossing. The required measures are described below: • Where roads cross the corridor (Linkage B) a substantial fence shall be erected to funnel wildlife toward appropriate underpasses. These fences shall be buried at least one foot underground so animals cannot readily dig underneath. As stated previously, fencing is not proposed along El Camino Real, where it would occur on one side of the road only and could trap wildlife on the roadway. The ultimate design and specific location of the fencing will be decided in coordination with the Wildlife Agencies. Also, natural vegetative cover shall be established and maintained at either end of the wildlife underpasses. Concrete V-ditches should be eliminated to allow for natural stream flows, and any water drainage area in the base of each culvert should be as narrow as possible and placed to the side, rather than the center. • Installation of a 6 foot high (measured from the ground up) wing fencing on both sides of the culvert. The fencing should have mesh that is smaller than 10 centimeters by 15 centimeters. • Noise within the culverts should not exceed 60 dBA Leq. This could be accomplished by the use of sound walls. Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 39 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations No artificial light should stray within the culvert openings. Use of skylight openings within the underpass (on any new underpass) to allow for vegetation cover within the underpass. All undercrossings shall be surrounded by native vegetation. Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad Planning and Engineering Departments at the time specific plans for the proposed undercrossings are prepared and submitted to the City for review. The proposed wildlife corridor design shall be reviewed by a qualified biologist. D. Factual Support and Rationale. Mitigation Measure B-12 ensures that project site design standards maintain a corridor connection for-Linkage B as envisioned in the HMP. The mitigation measure requires avoidance and/or mitigation of impacts associated with roadways (within Linkage B) and additional measures (e.g., fencing, lighting restrictions) will be required to encourage the continued use of the corridor and use of the two roadway undercrossings. Implementation of Mitigation Measure B-12 will reduce the potential disruption of Linkage B by ensuring compliance with design standards that will maintain corridor connection for Linkage B on the project site. A. Impact. Direct impacts to native vegetation communities usually result in indirect impacts to the remaining, adjacent native vegetation and wildlife communities. The indirect effects of greatest concern for the proposed project are increased potential for invasion of native habitats by invasive exotic floral species (i.e., giant cane, pampas grass), potential for increased artificial lighting within adjacent, preserved habitats, and edge effects on sensitive species, including edge effects from trails. These potential indirect effects are considered significant impacts to the open space areas within and adjacent to the project site. B. Finding. (1) With incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified indirect significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. C. Mitigation Measures. Implementation of Mitigation Measures B-17, B-18, and B-22, as described above, and Mitigation Measures B-13, B-14, B-15, and B-19 as follows: B-13 This measure requires that prior to approval of future building permits, each development shall be inspected by the City's Parks and Planning Departments to determine that the lighting• restrictions established by the "Agreement" with the' Wildlife Agencies will avoid excess illumination of open space areas through repositioning, redirecting (shielding, down-casting), and/or the use of low sodium lighting. The sports park lighting, and any periphery lighting (including low-sodium lights) adjacent to the wildlife habitat corridor shall be designed so that there is no measurable (shall not exceed 3 footcandles) light spillover into the habitat corridor, and a small passive use area will be included in the park's design at the top of slope to buffer the wildlife corridor. In areas where spillover exceeding 3 footcandles cannot be avoided, trees shall be located near the light standards to filter the light spillover into the open space. The following measures shall be implemented: • Maximum light spillover shall not exceed 3 footcandles Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 40 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations • Use of full cut-off lighting fixtures • Limit hours of operation to 10:00 p.m. (park use) • Additional trees shall be planted between the open space and residential areas and the future sports field light standards. The Wildlife Agencies will provide further review of the lighting analysis prepared for the Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR and the proposed lighting plan to ensure that light spillover has been appropriately attenuated. ' B-14 To ensure continued use of Linkage B and dll areas of biological open space by a variety of HMP species, efforts to reduce detrimental edge effects shall be undertaken. Any linear vegetation feature has an increased amount of edge relative to a large vegetation patch. If this increased amount of edge is bordered by development or disturbed habitat the potential for detrimental edge effects is high. To combat these effects the following measures are required: • Residents whose lots back onto the Linkage lands, should be apprised through the developments CC&R's of the sensitivity of the adjacent lands via signage and informed of penalties for illegal intrusion (via uncontrolled access points or expansion of landscaping, etc.), and/or illegal dumping (materials into biological open space). • Fencing shall be installed to deter open access to the biological open space where the open space lies adjacent to residential development, ancillary facilities, or a roadway. Fencing should also preclude (to the extent feasible) access of the open space by domestic pets. Access points to the biological open space should be carefully controlled to reduce habitat degradation. B-15 Two noxious plant species: giant cane (arundo donax) and pampas grass (corfaderia jubata) shall be eliminated from all areas of the property to be retained in open space. If identified, additional significant noxious plant species currently growing within Linkage B, shall be flagged by a trained biologist and carefully removed (if such a removal can practically be achieved) so that seeds are not dispersed. In addition, the use of invasive exotic plants within landscaping areas adjacent to the proposed open space areas shall be prohibited through the application of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's). The list of invasives shall be those identified on List A and. List B of the California Exotic Plant Council's List of Exotic Plants of Greatest Ecological Concern in California, as of October, 1999, and updated if applicable. Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad Planning Department during review of proposed landscape plans. B-19 The applicant shall ensure that, the following conditions are implemented during project construction: • Employees shall strictly limit their activities, vehicles, equipment and construction materials to the fenced project footprint; Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 41 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations • To avoid attracting predators of the gnatcatcher, the project site shall be kept as clean of debris as possible. All food related trash items shall be enclosed in sealed containers and regularly removed from the site; • Pets of project personnel shall not be allowed on the project site; • Disposal or temporary placement of excess fill, brush or other debris shall not be allowed in waters of the United States or their banks; '• • All equipment maintenance, staging, and dispensing of fuel, oil, coolant, or any other such activities shall occur in designated areas outside of waters of the United States within the fenced project impact limits and in such a-manner as to prevent any runoff from entering waters of the United States, and shall be shown on the construction plans. Fueling of equipment shall take place within existing paved areas greater than 100 feet from waters of the United States. Contractor equipment shall be checked for leaks prior to operation and repaired as necessary. "No-fueling zones" shall be designated on construction plans; • Night lighting, if any, of construction staging areas shall be of the lowest illumination necessary for human safety, selectively placed, shielded, and directed away from natural habitats; • The project applicant shall temporarily fence (with silt barriers) the limits of project impacts (including construction staging areas and access routes) to prevent additional habitat impacts and prevent the spread of silt from the construction zone into adjacent habitats to be avoided. Fencing shall be installed in a manner that does not impact habitats to be avoided. The applicant shall submit to the Service for approval, at least seven days prior to initiating project impacts, the final plans and photographs for initial clearing and grubbing of habitat and project construction. These final plans shall include photographs that show the fenced limits of impact and all areas (including riparian/wetland or CSS) to be impacted or avoided. If work occurs beyond the fenced or demarcated limits of impact, all work shall cease until the problem has been remedied to the satisfaction of the Service. Any upland habitat impacts that occur beyond the approved fenced shall be mitigated at a minimum 5:1 ratio. Temporary construction fencing shall be removed upon project completion; • Landscaping shall not use plants that require intensive irrigation, fertilizers, or pesticides adjacent to preserve areas and water runoff from landscaped areas shall be directed away from the biological conservation easement area and contained and/or treated within the development footprint, where feasible. The applicant shall submit a draft list of species to be included in the landscaping to the Service for approval at least 30 days prior to initiating project impacts. The applicant shall- submit to the Service the final list of species to be included in the landscaping within 30 days of receiving approval of the draft species list. • The San Diego County Invasive Ornamental Plan Guide shall be used in developing the landscape plan for the proposed project. Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 42 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement ot Overriding Considerations Restrictions on the use of invasive plant species shall be included in the project CC&R's. • Coyote Roller devices shall be installed on fences that interface with the perimeter of proposed open space preserve areas, to the extent feasible. B-23 Proposed trails specifically allowed within the proposed Master Plan open space planning areas shall be managed by the City of Carlsbad or by a conservation management entity with familiarity with the specific Recreation and Public Access measures identified in MHCP Volume I. The Robertson Ranch Open Space management program shall be consistent with these measures? including provision of litter control, limiting use during the breeding season, discouraging trespass off of the trail, prohibiting equestrian uses on the trail, erosion control, provision of signage, lighting restrictions, limitations on biking, and establishment of patrols to monitor. D. Factual Support and Rationale. Mitigation Measure B-13 requires that prior to approval of future building permits, each development will be inspected by the City's Planning and Building Departments to ensure that the lighting restrictions established by the "Agreement" with the Wildlife Agencies have been implemented. The sports park lighting will be designed so there is no measurable light spillover into the habitat corridor, and a small passive use area will be included in the park's design at the top of slope to buffer the wildlife corridor. The Wildlife Agencies will provide further review of the lighting analysis prepared for the project's EIR to ensure that light spillover has been appropriately attenuated. These restrictions would avoid excess illumination of open space areas through repositioning, redirecting (shielding, down- casting), and/or the use of low sodium lighting. The Master Plan requires shielding or redirecting all light within 100 feet of open space away from the open space to avoid indirect impacts. Mitigation Measure B-14 ensures continued use of Linkage B and all areas of biological open space by a variety of HMP species through efforts to reduce detrimental edge effects. These efforts include appraisal of residents through the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) of the sensitivity of the adjacent lands and fencing to deter open access to biological open space where the open space lies adjacent to residential development, ancillary facilities, or a roadway. Mitigation Measure B-15 would ensure the proper removal of two noxious plant species: giant cane (arundo donaxj and pampas grass (cortaderia jubafa), from all areas of the property to be retained in open space. Mitigation Measure B-19 contains general conditions that need to be met during and after construction. Mitigation Measure B-22 requires compliance with applicable conditions of coverage for the Carlsbad HMP covered sensitive animal species observed on the project site. Mitigation Measure B-23 contains general conditions for management of proposed trails and open space within the proposed project site. Implementation of Mitigation Measures B-13, B-14, B-15, B-19 B-22, and B-23 would reduce the significant indirect impacts to adjacent native vegetation and wildlife communities to a level less than significant. Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 43 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations A. Impact. Vernal pools are located within PA23E, which is proposed for open space. From a hydrological standpoint, PA 23E is separated from the remainder of the project site. The existing hydrological conditions in PA 23E will not change as a result of the proposed project; however, there is the potential for the hydrology and watershed of the vernal pools to be degraded. B. Finding. (1) With incorporation of the following mitigation measure, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. ! C. Mitigation Measure B-20. The following vernal pool management actions shall be incorporated into the preserve management of PA 23E: • Fencing around the vernal pool areas shall be installed to prevent potential impacts from foot traffic and to prevent collection of any flowering plants or tadpoles, particularly in light of the pools' location immediately down slope from a residential, landscaped area. Pool hydrology is likely to be effected by summer runoff from the off-site, upslope development. Changes in drainage patterns and the possible addition of fertilizer or herbicide runoff from the upslope landscaping may transform pools into more permanent wetlands or transform the vegetative components of the pools by favoring invasive species. The preserve manager shall work closely with the adjacent Calavera Hills homeowners association and their landscape maintenance contractor to avoid application of excess drainage, herbicides and pesticides upslope from the existing vernal pools. • Exotic plant invasion shall be prevented through the use of selective weeding, appropriate herbicide application, or designed grazing. D. Factual Support and Rationale. The foregoing mitigation measure places ensures vernal pool management efforts will be undertaken by the preserve manager to ensure that the hydrology and watershed of the vernal pools remains properly protected within the context of the proposed open space. After implementation of Mitigation Measure B-20, the potential for a significant impact to the vernal pools will be reduced to a level less than significant. A. Impact. The thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia) is 'a federally threatened and state endangered species and is listed on the California Native Plant Society's List IB. The thread-leaved brodiaea was not observed on the project site during 2001 general biological surveys nor during the spring 2002 or 2003 focused thread-leaved brodiaea surveys; however, the potential remains for the thead- leaved brodiaea to exist after high amounts of precipitation. B. Finding. (1) With incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified indirect significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 44 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 100 CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations C. Mitigation Measure B-21. ,. East Village. Additional focused surveys for the Brodiaea fi/ifo/ia shall be conducted within the clay soil regions of the East Village (clay soils are located only in locations south of Cannon Road) prior to grading only if winter into spring 2005-2006 rainfall exceeds 10 inches. If rainfall exceeds 10 inches in the season prior to grading, and if a new Brodiaea filifolia survey is necessary, and if Brodiaea fi/ifo/ia is found, per HMP narrow endemic conservation standards (HMP, pages D-89 and D-90) it would be subject to required preservation of 80% of any newly discovered population. If precipitation is less than 10 inches, the results of the 2003 surveys shall be considered the best available assessment of this species presence/absence status on-site and no further action related to this species'is necessary. f West Village. If sufficient precipitation (greater than 10 inches) occurs prior to grading of the West Village, surveys shall be conducted to provide an opportunity to identify Brodiaea fWolia under peak emergence conditions. Surveys for the West Village should not necessarily be conducted immediately prior to ground disturbance. The survey timing shall be dictated by optimal emergence conditions. If precipitation of greater than 10 inches does not occur prior to grading for the West Village, then the results of the 2003 surveys shall be utilized to assess impacts to this species. D. Factual Support and Rationale. Mitigation Measure B-21 requires focused surveys for the thread- leaved brodiaea to be performed prior to grading only if seasonal precipitation exceeds 10 inches. Implementation of Mitigation Measure B-21 ensures that no impact to the thread-leaved brodiaea occurs. 2.5 Cultural Resources A. Impact. Five significant archaeological resources (SDI-10,609; SDI-10,610; SDI-10,611; SDI-16,135, and SDI-16,138) will be impacted by proposed grading on the project site. The project's impact to these archaeological resources is considered significant due to the potential of these sites to expand the understanding of the subsistence patterns of the late prehistoric Luiseno people in the Carlsbad area. B. Finding. (1) With incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. C. Mitigation Measures. Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the East and West Villages, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: CR-1 A phased data recovery system shall be completed for the significant archaeological sites impacted by the proposed project in compliance with the City of Carlsbad's Cultural Resource Guidelines Criteria and Methodology for completing a Data Recovery Program Phase III (City of Carlsbad, 1990). This phased data recovery approach shall be employed to ensure that the scope of proposed sampling is valid with respect to research questions that address data gaps of impact and interest. Data recovery provides Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 45 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for a sample of the site to be excavated, artifacts and ecofacts to be analyzed, special studies (i.e. radiocarbon dating, residue analysis, obsidian hydration and sourcing) and a report of findings which addresses the important research questions. A research design shall be prepared prior to data recovery, subject to peer review, prior to initiation of data recovery. In addition, monitoring of brushing, grading, and trenching shall be required during the construction of the project in order to identify any significant components of each archaeological site that were not observed during data recovery excavations. Monitoring will also focus on any potential to discover sites thtilt were not identified in the previous surveys due to the resources being buried or masked from view. In the event that any previously unrecorded sites are discovered during brushing, grading, or trenching, a significance evaluation shall be performed, and, if found to be important, mitigation applied before grading can resume at the location of the discovery. All archaeological resources, unless otherwise required by law and other than burial-related artifacts, that are excavated or removed from prehistoric or historic sites during testing, data recovery projects and all associated project data, including but not limited to field notes, photos, catalogues and final reports will be permanently curated at a qualified repository as defined by the "State of California Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological Collections." Owner (project developer) agrees additionally to execute a release of title form and to pay such fees as required for curation that are in effect at such qualified repository at the time of curation. All curation shall be accomplished within six (6) months from completion of project. The applicant shall provide verification that a qualified archaeologist and/or archaeological monitor has been retained to implement the archaeological construction monitoring and data recovery programs. Verification shall be documented by a letter from the applicant and the archaeologist/archaeological monitor to the City. Additionally, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented prior to and during grading activities: CR-2 As a means of mitigating cultural concerns of the Luiseno people, monitoring of grading in the archaeological site locations shall be performed by either knowledgeable Luisenos or archaeologists. The field monitors shall have the authority to temporarily halt grading and to examine prehistoric resources if they are encountered. Prior to the commencement of grading for the East and West Villages, respectively, the Construction Contractor shall meet with Archaeological Monitor to determine when grading and archaeological monitoring would take place in proximity to archaeological sites. CR-3 Prior to commencement of grading of the East and West Villages, the developer shall enter into a pre-excavation agreement with a representative of the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians. The purpose of the agreement will be to formalize procedures for the treatment of Native American human remains, burial, ceremonial or cultural sites that may be uncovered during any ground disturbance activity. In the event archaeological features are discovered, the archaeological monitor shall be empowered to suspend work in the immediate area of the discovery until such time as a data recovery plan can be developed and implemented. Work outside the area of the find shall proceed along with the continuation of archaeological monitoring. Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 46 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations D. Factual Support and Rationale. Mitigation Measure CR-1 requires that a data recovery program be conducted for each significant archaeological site impacted by the proposed project. After the data recovery program is conducted, the archaeological resources will no longer be significant. In addition, Mitigation Measures CR-2 and CR-3 ensure proper monitoring during grading of the archaeological sites and proper handling of archaeological features in the event that they are discovered. Thus, implementation of the above-mentioned mitigation measures will reduce the impact to a level less than significant. 2.6 Geology/Soils A. Impact. According to the geotechnical report, the project site has earth materials that are unsuitable for the support of settlement sensitive improvements and/or compacted fill. These materials include undocumented stockpile, existing undocumented fill, surficial slump deposits, colluvial soil, alluvium, and near-surface highly weathered formational earth materials (i.e. sedimentary and/or igneous bedrock). These soils are not considered suitable for foundation and/or fill support unless the materials are removed, moisture conditioned, and placed as properly compacted fill. In addition, some soils on the project site have the potential to be expansive and very erosive. These soil impacts are considered significant. B. Finding. (1) With incorporation of the following mitigation measure, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. C. Mitigation Measure GS-1. Prior to approval of final engineering and grading plans for individual planning areas within the East or West Villages, the City shall verify that all recommendations contained in the Updated Geotechnical Evaluation of the Robertson Ranch Property (GeoSoils, Inc., 2004) have been incorporated into all final engineering and grading plans. The City's soil engineer and engineering geologist shall review grading plans prior to finalization, to verify plan compliance with the recommendations of the report. All future grading and construction of the project site shall comply with the geotechnical recommendations contained in the geotechnical report. This report identifies specific measures for mitigating geotechnical conditions on the project site, and addresses soils earthwork, corrosion and expansion potential, subsurface waters, slope stability, liquefaction stability, and regional seismicity and faulting. D. Factual Support and Rationale. Mitigation Measure GS-1 requires that all future grading and construction of the project site comply with the geotechnical recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Evaluation of the Robertson Ranch Property (GeoSoils, Inc., 2004), which identifies the removal and moisture conditioning of these materials prior to use as compacted fill. This mitigation measure, as well as standard City Conditions of Approval, will ensure the project site soils are suitable for project development. Thus, the impact will be reduced to a level less than significant. Robertson Ranch Master Plan Rnal EIR 47 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations A. Impact. As is all of Southern California, the project area,is located in a seismically active region. Potential seismic related impacts related to the project site are liquefaction and dynamic settlement. Liquefaction potential has been identified in the alluvial areas of the project site as a result of a shallow groundwater table. Ground accelerations generated from a seismic event can produce settlement in sands above and below the groundwater table. The alluvial materials onsite are loose and could settle during a seismic event. The potential for liquefaction and dynamic settlement is a significant impact. B. Finding. (1) With incorporation of the following mitigation measure, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. C. Mitigation Measure GS-2. Prior to approval of final engineering and grading plans for individual planning areas within the East or West Villages, the City shall verify that all recommendations contained in the Updated Geofechnica/ Evaluation of the Robertson Ranch Property (GeoSoi/s, Inc., 2004) have been incorporated into all final engineering and grading plans. The City's soil engineer and engineering geologist shall review grading plans prior to finalization, to verify plan compliance with the recommendations of the report. A minimum 10 to 15 foot layer of non-liquefiable soil material (i.e., compacted fill plus alluvium above the groundwater table) shall be provided beneath any structure. If the groundwater table rises above its current level, then new design and construction measures will need to be included into the proposed project to reduce any potential liquefaction impacts. D. Factual Support and Rationale. The geotechnical analysis indicates that damaging deformations that result from liquefaction should not adversely affect proposed development provided that a minimum 10 to 15 foot layer of non-liquefiable material (i.e. compacted fill plus alluvium above the water table) is provided beneath any proposed structure. Thus, with the 10 to 15 foot layer of non-liquefiable material, the liquefaction impact will be reduced to a level less than significant. The 10 to 15 foot layer will also be sufficient to reduce the potential dynamic settlement impact to a level less than significant. 2.7 Paleontological Resources A. Impact. Implementation of the proposed project will require earthwork that will occur within quaternary (Pleistocene age) and tertiary age deposits, including the Santiago Formation. These formations have a high paleontological resource sensitivity. Because the proposed project will disturb geological formations that have a high sensitivity, the potential impact to paleontological resources is considered significant. B. Finding. (1) With incorporation of the following mitigation measure, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 48 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 1,4 CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations C. Mitigation Measure PR-1. Prior to site grading, a qualified .paleontologist shall be retained to carry out an appropriate mitigation program. (A qualified paleontologist is defined as an individual with an MS or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology who is familiar with paleontology procedures and techniques). • The qualified paleontologist shall be present at the pre-construction meeting to consult with grading and excavation contractors. • A paleontological monitor shall be on-site a minimum of half-time during the original cutting of previously undisturbed Santiago Formation to inspect cuts for contained fossils. In the event that fossils are discovered, it may be necessary to increase the per/day in field monitoring time. Conversely, if fossils are not being found then the monitoring should be reduced. (A paleontological monitor is defined as an individual who has experience in the collection and salvage of fossil materials. -The paleontological monitor shall work under the direction of a qualified paleontologist.) • When fossils are discovered the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall recover them. In most cases, this fossil salvage can be completed in a short period of time. However, some fossil specimens (such as a complete large mammal skeleton) may require an extended salvage period. In these instances the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall be allowed to temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely manner. Because of the potential for the recovery of small fossil remains, such as isolated mammal teeth, it may be necessary in certain instances, to set up a screen-washing operation on the site. • Fossil remains collected during the monitoring and salvage portion of the mitigation program shall be cleaned, repaired, sorted, and cataloged. Prepared fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos, and maps, shall either be deposited (as a donation) in a scientific institution with permanent paleontological collections such as the San Diego Natural History Museum or retained by the City and displayed to the public at an appropriate location such as City Hall. • A final summary report shall be completed and retained on file at the City that outlines the results of the mitigation program. This report shall include discussions of the methods used, stratigraphic section(s) exposed, fossils collected, and significance of recovered fossils. D. Factual Support and Rationale. The geologic nature of the site creates the potential for paleontological resources being uncovered during grading operations. The mitigation measure requires a monitoring program and approved qualified paleontological monitor be present during initial grading, and pregrading meetings, with authority to halt grading if resources are uncovered or evident during the grading process to look for well-preserved fossil remains. If identified, the City and the paleontologist will coordinate a salvage program before grading may resume in the fossil area. Through this process, and the cleaning, storage and contribution of any fossil remains to a museum or other depository, any paleontological resources would be protected. These procedures, combined with a final report from the monitor, have proven to be an effective program for preservation and recovery, where appropriate. Thus, Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 49 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations with implementation of Mitigation Measure PR-1, any paleontological impacts would be reduced to a level less than significant. 2.8 Hazardous Materials and Hazards A. Impact. Potential hazardous materials currently on the project site include above ground storage tanks, discarded and current storage drums and buckets, building materials containing asbestos and lead- based paint, and miscellaneous trash and debris. The presence, and in some cases the potential presence, of hazardous materials within the project site is considered a significant impact. B. Finding. (1) With incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. C. Mitigation Measures. HM-1 Prior to site grading, in any areas containing stained soil, the stained soil shall be removed and properly disposed of in accordance with federal, state and local requirements in order to eliminate this potential health hazard from the project site. A hazardous materials specialist shall verify that materials have been properly disposed of prior to site grading. Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad Planning and Building Departments. HM-2 Prior to demolition of the Connor Ranch House, located on the West Village, an asbestos investigation shall be conducted and mitigation report prepared. The mitigation report shall identify appropriate clean-up and disposal requirements -necessary to avoid releasing asbestos into the air. Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad Planning and Building Departments. D. Factual Support and Rationale. The above-mentioned mitigation measures would be implemented prior to and during construction of the project site to ensure proper disposal and remediation (if necessary) of hazardous materials on-site. Mitigation Measure HM-1 would reduce the potential impact associated with the potential contamination of soils with hazardous materials/waste by ensuring the removal of stained soils. Mitigation Measure HM-2 would ensure the proper clean-up-and disposal of asbestos prior to demolition of the Connor Ranch House. A combination of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact associated with the presence and the potential presence of hazardous materials on the project site to a level less than significant. A. Impact. Localized areas of trash/debris have been observed within the project site. Improper cleanup and disposal of this debris has the potential to harm the public and the environment, which would be considered a significant impact. B. Finding. (1) With incorporation of the following mitigation measure, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 50 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations C. Mitigation Measure HM-3. All trash and debris within the project site shall be disposed of off-site, in accordance with current, local, state, and federal disposal regulations. Any buried trash/debris encountered shall be evaluated by an experienced environmental consultant prior to removal. Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad Planning and Building Departments. D. Factual Support and Rationale. Mitigation Measure HM-3 would ensure the proper disposal and handling of trash/debris found within the project site. After removal of the trash/debris, the impact would be reduced to a level less than significant. A. Impact. No soils testing has been conducted for the West Village; however, due to this portion of the project site's history of agricultural usage, it is possible that soils contaminated with unacceptable levels of toxics as a result of the application of pesticides and herbicides exist. The potential for soils contaminated with toxics is considered a significant impact. B. Finding. (1) With incorporation of the following mitigation measure, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. C. Mitigation Measure HM-4. Prior to approval of the tentative map for the West Village, a detailed agricultural chemical residue survey will be required to fulfill the requirement of the City of Carlsbad's Standard Agricultural Area Mitigation Condition (for agricultural sites). As part of the mitigation condition, a report shall be presented to the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health Site Assessment (DEH) Voluntary Assistance Program and Regional Water Quality Control Board for review and comment prior to receipt of a grading permit. The residue survey shall include surficial soil sampling from depths of 1 /2 foot and 1 1 /2 feet within areas planned for grading, as well as within current storage and mixing areas. The County DEH will recommend a representative sampling of earth materials within the subject parcel, to consist of collection from two locations within each one-acre grid. Soil samples collected should be tested for Chlorinated Pesticides and PCB's (EPA test method 8081), Organophosphorous Pesticides (EPA test method 8141), and Chlorinated Herbicides (EPA test method 8151). Soils shall be remediated to a level deemed acceptable for residential uses according to federal, state, and local guidelines and standards. . Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad Planning and Building Departments and in consultation with the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health. D. Factual Support and Rationale. Mitigation Measure HM-4 requires soil testing, prior to the approval of the tentative map for the West Village, in order to identify contaminated soils with unacceptable levels of toxics. If contaminated soils are found, appropriate remediation measures would be taken to reduce the impacts associated with toxic soils to a level less than significant. Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 51 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Oyerriding Considerations 2.9 Grading and Aesthetics A. Impact. A retaining wall is proposed along the north side of El Camino Real within a portion of PA 23A, and south of PA 3. El Camino Real is identified as a "community theme corridor" in the City of Carlsbad Scenic Corridor Guidelines and is subject to development standards. The retaining wall has the potential to not be compatible with the scenic quality of the corridor. The potential aesthetic impact of the retaining wall is considered significant. B. Finding. (1) With incorporation of the following mitigation measure, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. C. Mitigation Measure GA-1. The proposed retaining wall adjacent to the north side of El Camino Real (within PA 23A) shall be constructed of a natural bluff face appearance so as to blend into the existing topography and minimize the visual impact along this corridor. Plans for the construction of the retaining wall shall be provided to the City concurrent with development applications for the West Village. Compliance with this measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad Planning and Engineering Departments. D. Factual Support and Rationale. The proposed retaining wall is required to incorporate features so as to soften the visual appearance of the wall and ensure that the appearance of the wall is compatible with the scenic quality of the corridor. Mitigation Measure GA-1 would ensure that the appearance of the retaining wall is compatible with the scenic quality of the El Camino Real Scenic Corridor. After implementation of Mitigation Measure GA-1, in addition to standard City Conditions of Approval, the potential visual compatibility impact associated with the retaining wall will be reduced to a level less than significant. A. Impact. The proposed project will introduce new light and potential sources of glare on the project site. Planning Area (PA) 12 (the proposed park) is located adjacent to PA 23C, a portion of the proposed HMP open space corridor. The Master Plan proposes special design criteria to address the potential for spillover light from the park onto this proposed HMP open space area. Specifically, the Master Plan states that, "Lighting for the fields and facilities adjacent to the Open Space areas (PA 23C) and/or adjacent to Cannon Road shall be selectively placed, shielded, and directed away from conserved habitat." The potential for spillover light from the project site into the HMP open space area is considered a significant impact. B. Finding. (1) With incorporation of the following mitigation measure, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. C. Mitigation Measure GA-2. This measure requires that prior to approval of future building permits, each development shall be inspected by the City's Parks and Planning Departments to determine that the lighting restrictions established by the "Agreement" with the Wildlife Agencies will avoid excess illumination of open space areas through repositioning, redirecting (shielding, down-casting), and/or the use of low sodium lighting. The sports park lighting, and any periphery lighting (including low-sodium lights) adjacent Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 52 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations to the wildlife corridor shall be designed so that there is no measurable (shall not exceed 3 footcandles) light spillover into the habitat corridor, and a small passive use area will be included in the park's design at the top of slope to buffer the wildlife corridor. In areas.where spillover exceeding 3 footcandles cannot be avoided, trees shall be located near the light standards to filter the light spillover into the open space. The following measures shall be implemented: • Maximum light spillover shall not exceed 3 footcandles • Use of full cut-off lighting fixtures • Limit hours of operation to 10:00 p.m. (park use) • Additional trees shall be planted between the open space and residential areas and the future sports field light standards. The Wildlife Agencies will provide further review of the lighting analysis prepared for the Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR and the proposed lighting plan to ensure that light spillover has been appropriately attenuated. D. Factual Support and Rationale. Mitigation Measure GA-2 requires that lighting restrictions established by the HMP Agreement with the Wildlife Agencies for this project be implemented. These restrictions require the lighting to be designed and placed so as to avoid excess illumination of open space areas within 100 feet of open space area. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GA-2, in addition to standard City Conditions of Approval, would ensure compliance with the lighting restrictions and reduce the potential lighting impacts to a level less than significant. 2.10 Hydrology/Water Quality A. Impact. Development of the East Village would alter the existing drainage patterns. With implementation of proposed flood control and drainage improvements, development of the East Village would not contribute stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of the existing or planned stormwater drainage system. Potential drainage and flood control issues are considered significant. B. Finding. (1) With incorporation of the following mitigation measure, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. C. Mitigation Measure H-1. This measure requires that consistent with the Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP), drainage facilities shall be provided concurrent with future development of the East Village. Prior to approval of grading permits for development within the East Village, the City Engineer must approve the necessary onsite and offsite storm drain facilities as required by the Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan, LFMP and Drainage Study. The required storm drain facilities include but are not limited to: • 84-inch RCP from BJB detention basin • Proposed onsite drainage plan (Figure 5.14-4 of the FPEIR) Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 53 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations D. Factual Support and Rationale. Mitigation Measure H-l requires that drainage facilities be provided concurrent with future development of the East Village. In addition, the necessary drainage facilities must be approved by the City Engineer prior to approval of grading permits for development within the West Village. The City Engineer would ensure that the drainage facilities are sufficient for the project site prior to any alteration of the existing drainage. Sufficient drainage facilities would accommodate all increases in stormwater runoff and thus, reduce the potential drainage and flood control impacts in the East Village to a level less than significant. A. ' Impact. Development of the West Village would alter the existing drainage pattern of the site, but would not alter offsite drainage patterns. With implementation of proposed flood control and drainage improvements, development of the West Village would not contribute stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of the existing or planned stormwater drainage system. Potential drainage and flood control issues are considered significant. B. Finding. (1) With incorporation of the following mitigation measure, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. C. Mitigation Measure H-2. This measure requires that consistent with the Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) and Drainage Study, drainage facilities shall be provided concurrent with future development of the West Village. Prior to approval of grading permits for development within the West Village, the City Engineer must approve the necessary onsite and offsite storm drain facilities as required by the Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan, LFMP and Drainage Study. The required storm drain facilities include but are not limited to: • Facility BFB • Facility BF1 • Detention basins in Planning Areas 1, 2, 7, and 11 • Facility BFA • Proposed onsite drainage plan (Figure 5.12-6 of the FPEIR) D. Factual Support and Rationale. Mitigation Measure H-2 requires that drainage facilities be provided concurrent with future development of the West Village. In addition, the necessary drainage facilities must be approved by the City Engineer prior to approval of grading permits for development within the West Village. The City Engineer would ensure that the drainage facilities are sufficient for the project site prior to any alteration of the existing drainage. Sufficient drainage facilities would accommodate all increases in stormwater runoff and thus, reduce the potential drainage and flood control impacts in the West Village to a level less than significant. A. Impact. Agua Hedionda Creek and Agua Hedionda Lagoon will receive stormwater runoff from the project site. As a result, grading activities have the potential to increase the level of Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 54 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations sedimentation/siltation that enters Agua Hedionda Lagoon on a short-term basis during construction, the impact is considered significant. B. Finding. (1) With incorporation of the following mitigation measure, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. C. Mitigation Measure WQ-1. This measure requires that erosion, siltation, and emission of construction related pollutants shall be controlled through compliance with the City of Carlsbad Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan, Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) required under the County of San Diego Watershed Protection, Stormwater Management, and Discharge Control Ordinance (WPO) (section 67.871), General Construction Stormwater Permit (Order No. 99-08, NPDES CAS000002) and the General Municipal Stormwater Permit (Order No. 2001-01, NPDES"CAS0108758). In compliance with the General Construction Stormwater Permit, a SWPPP shall be prepared and approved prior to issuance of any grading permits. . The owner/developer shall be responsible for monitoring and maintaining the BMPs identified below on a weekly basis. In addition, prior to approval of the grading permit for the respective village, the City Engineer must determine that project plans have incorporated temporary desilting basins of adequate number and size in the East Village and permanent detention basins of adequate number and size in the West Village. Some of the BMPs that shall be used during construction include, but are not limited to: • Silt fence, fiber rolls, or gravel bag berms • Check dams • Street Sweeping and vacuuming • Strom drain inlet protection • Stabilized construction entrance/exit • Vehicle and equipment maintenance, cleaning, and fueling • Hydroseed, soil binders, or straw mulch • Material delivery and storage • Stockpile management • Spill prevention and control • Waste management for solid, liquid, hazardous and sanitary waste, contaminated soil • Concrete waste management D. Factual Support and Rationale. The proposed project is required to comply with the City of Carlsbad Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP), General Construction Stormwater Permit (Order No. 2001-01, NPDES CAS000002), and the General Municipal Stormwater Permit (Order No. 2001-01, NPDES CAS0108758). In compliance with the General Construction Stormwater Permit, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared and approved prior to issuance of any grading permits. The SWMP and SWPPP have already been Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 55 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations incorporated into the project, as shown in Figure 5.12-7 of the- FPEIR. Compliance with the above- mentioned permits will ensure that water quality impacts associated with erosion, siltation, and emission of construction related pollutants is reduced to a level less than significant. A. Impact. Agua Hedionda Lagoon, which is located downstream of the project site will receive stormwater runoff from the project site and is identified on the Clean Water Act, Section 303(d) list of impaired water bodies for sedimentation/siltation. In the post-development condition, the project site has the potential to discharge sediment and other pollutants to Calavera Creek and Agua Hedionda Creek, which are tributaries to Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The potential to discharge sediment and other pollutants into tributaries to the A'gua Hedionda Lagoon is considered a significant impact. B. Finding. (1) With incorporation of the following mitigation measure, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. C. Mitigation Measure WQ-2. This measure requires that pollutants be controlled through compliance with the City of Carlsbad Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan, Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) required under the County of San Diego Watershed Protection, Stormwater Management, and Discharge Control Ordinance (WPO) (section 67.871), and the General Municipal Stormwater Permit (Order No. 2001-01, NPDES CAS0108758). Prior to approval of grading permits for development within the East Village, the City Engineer must determine that the proposed project has incorporated the post- development water quality pollution control measures identified below into project design to the maximum extent practicable. • Installation of the vegetated swale located south of Cannon Road Site Design BMPs Source Control BMPs • Structural Treatment Control BMPs Proposed BMPs include: • Street Sweeping Inlet Basin Labeling • Storm Drain Inlet Baskets with Hydrocarbon Absorption • Vortex Separator(s) • Vegetative Drainage Course • Existing Detention Basin BJB Dog Waste Bag Dispensers • HOA shall provide information to homeowners and residents regarding the requirements of pet waste disposal. Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 56 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations D. Factual Support and Rationale. The proposed project ,is required to comply with the City of Carlsbad Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP), and the General Municipal Stormwater Permit (Order No. 2001-01, NPDES CAS0108758). The SWMP and SWPPP have already been incorporated into the project, as shown in Figure 5.12-7 of the FPEIR. Compliance with the above-mentioned permits, in addition to standard City Conditions of Approval, will ensure that water quality impacts associated with erosion, siltation, and emission of post-development related pollutants would reduce the impacts to Agua Hedionda Lagoon to a level less than significant. Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 57 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 3.0 Findings Concerning Feasibility of Project Alternatives 3.1 Applicable Standards Under CEQA, whenever a public agency considers approving a project for which the EIR concludes that notwithstanding the incorporated mitigation measures, there will nonetheless remain significant impacts that are not avoided or lessened below a:level of significance, the public agency must consider and make findings regarding the feasibility of alternatives discussed in the EIR. As stated in CEQA (PRC §21002): j "[It] is the policy of the state that public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there • are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects.... The Legislature further finds and declares that in the event specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof." Here, the FPEIR concludes that after the incorporation of the specific mitigation measures outlined in Section 2 above, the Proposed Project will still have the following significant, unmitigable environmental effects: - Direct and Cumulative Impact to Traffic/Circulation. (See Findings, page 16) - Direct and Cumulative Impact to Air Quality. (See Findings, page 25) The determination of the infeasibility of alternatives is necessarily an evaluation of the many elements of specific economic, social or other considerations. (Guidelines § 15091). Elsewhere in the Guidelines § 15364, "feasible" is defined as "...capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors." At the same time, infeasibility is not equated with impossibility and case law recognizes that an alternative or mitigation measure may also be infeasible if it is undesirable or impractical from a policy standpoint. As an example, a conflict between project alternatives and a city's growth management policies and programs supported a finding of infeasibility in City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 CA3d 401. The Court went on to describe the alternatives analysis under CEQA necessarily involves the balancing of'economic, environmental, social and technological factors within the province of the decision makers. In undertaking the comparative analysis called for under CEQA in considering the. feasibility of project alternatives, it is also necessary to keep in mind the Project objectives as expressed in the FPEIR. The overall Project Objectives are set forth at Pages 3-21 and 3-22 of the FPEIR as follows: The purpose of the proposed Robertson Ranch Master Plan is to provide a long-range comprehensive planning approach to the development of the project site with consideration of the City's General Plan, Growth Management Plan, Zone 14 LFMP, Hillside Development Ordinance, Planned Development Ordinance, Livable Communities Policies (Council Policy Nos. 44 and 66), Ahwahnee Principles, and HMP. Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 58 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Implement the applicable portions of the City of Carlsbad General Plan and Zoning Code; Implement the Zone 14 Local Facilities Management Plan, as amended; • Furnish a plan for development that implements the policies and achieves the goals of the Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for this portion of the City, pursuant to agreements with the Resource Agencies; • Provide for compatible and complimentary adjacent land uses and facilities; ! • Implement a plan which is sensitive to the environment and aesthetically pleasing; f Establish a community that creates an urban design concept consistent with the Ahwahnee Principles by incorporating a variety of public spaces and recreation elements that will attract the presence of people, accommodate the housing needs of a wide range of economic levels and age groups, promote public transportation while providing consistency with the existing vehicular circulation network, provide a variety of employment opportunities within the Master Plan boundaries, promote a diversity of land uses within the project, and conserve open space areas for recreation and the preservation of sensitive environmental resources; • Establish a project-wide circulation system which is responsive to regional and local transportation needs, and which accommodates a variety of transportation modes; • Provide for the recreational and open space needs of project residents and the City at large, by incorporating recreational land uses including a City park site, community recreation facilities, pocket parks, school playgrounds, a pedestrian and bicycle circulation system and substantial areas of permanently preserved natural open space; • Develop a community identity for the project through control of project design elements such as architecture, clustering of development, landscaping, color treatment, paving, walls, fencing, signage, and entry treatments; • Encourage housing diversity by providing a variety of detached single-family residential lot sizes in traditional subdivision layouts and courtyard neighborhoods; • Encourage housing diversity by providing a variety of multi-family and affordable housing opportunities that are conveniently located adjacent to transportation, commercial, recreational and community facilities; and, • Provide flexibility in the Master Plan amendment process by allowing amendments to either the East or West Villages of the Master Plan to be processed without initiating review of the other Village. 3.2 Findings Project Alternatives The Final Program EIR evaluated a range of potential project alternatives. The project alternatives included: 1. No Project/Existing General Plan 2. Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 59 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 3. Reduced Scale Project Alternative \ - 4. PA 22 Senior Housing Alternative 5. PA 22 Fire Station Alternative 6. PA 1 Community Facilities Alternative CEQA requires consideration of the No Project/Existing General Plan alternative and the City selected the others on the basis they represent a reasonable range of alternative project proposals that appear to be potentially compatible with most of the overall Project Objectives. Applying the criteria discussed above for considering the feasibility of project alternatives and considering the totality of the information in the FPEIR, testimony and information received during the public hearings and the evidence in the administrative records as a whole, the City has determined that the identified project alternatives are not feasible in light of the Project Objectives, the City's programs and policies, general legal principles applicable to a landowner's right or privilege to make beneficial use of its property in accordance with all applicable laws, policies, standards and land use regulations uniformly applied and economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations specified below. The factual support, reasoning and analysis supporting this conclusion is set forth below with respect to each of the Project alternatives evaluated in the FPEIR. 3.2.1 No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative (FPEIR Section 6.1) The State CEQA Guidelines require analysis of the No Project Alternative (Public Resources Code Section 15126). According to Section I5126.6(e), " the specific alternative of 'no project' shall also be evaluated along with its impact. The 'no project' analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation is published ... at the time environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services." The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative assumes that the Robertson Ranch Master Plan, as proposed, would not be implemented. Under the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative, the Project Area would be developed pursuant to the specifics of the existing General Plan land use designations. Under this scenario, development of the project site would be primarily a series of single-family residential subdivisions (residential low-medium density) approximating three to four dwelling units per acre. Open space areas, similar to the HMP open space configuration proposed as part of the Master Plan, will be maintained. Single-family subdivisions would be developed on the west side of College Boulevard and both sides of Cannon Road. Multi-family housing at an average of six dwelling units per acre would be developed around the riparian habitat at the lower elevations of the south-east corner of El Camino Real and Tamarack Avenue (PA1 and PA2). The total number of residential units across the site would be 652 units, 580 of which would be single-family detached product. Under the Existing General Plan development scenario, an approximately 10.1 acre elementary school site is assumed to be developed within PA's 14 and 15. Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 60 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations A neighborhood (local) commercial center would be developed-in PA 12, near the intersection of two major arterials, Cannon Road and El Camino Real. The Existing General Plan project would not include a community park, nor would it be expected to include community facilities, community recreation features, or RV storage facilities. A functional habitat corridor would need to be provided pursuant to the HMP, with the Existing General Plan project. Onsite preservation of biological resources features would be expected to occur to the extent proposed in the proposed project. ' The low and medium density residential character of the project would discourage affordability of residential units, and thus not result in the provision of moderate-priced housing pursuant to the Regional Housing needs. However, the project would still be subject to the City's 15 percent Inclusionary Housing Requirement. The overall clustering of development could take place pursuant to HMP policies; therefore, grading is assumed to be similar in area and quantity as the proposed project. (a) This alternative would significantly reduce the impact to traffic/circulation by creating approximately 10,355 trips less (a decrease of 60 percent) than the proposed project (with the alternative residential uses instead of the school in PA's 13 and 14). Because the same circulation system is assumed under this alternative, roadway segments and intersections would likely operate at an improved level of service than would occur under the proposed project. (b) This alternative would significantly reduce the mobile-source emissions impact associated with the proposed project as a result of a decrease of 60 percent traffic generation. The mobile emission levels would still remain above the significance thresholds for all criteria pollutants and, although less than the proposed project, the air quality impact would remain significant and unavoidable. This alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed project and would comply with the HMP; however, this alternative would not meet the following project objectives: • Establish a community that creates an urban design concept consistent with the Ahwahnee Principles by incorporating a variety of public spaces and recreation elements that will attract the presence of people, accommodate the housing needs of a wide range of economic levels and age groups, promote public transportation while providing consistency with the existing vehicular circulation network, provide a variety of employment opportunities within the Master Plan boundaries, promote a diversity of land uses within the project, and conserve open space areas for recreation and the preservation of sensitive environmental resources. Under this alternative, the project site would be developed with mostly single-family subdivisions at approximately 3-4 dwelling units per acre. This alternative would not provide for public spaces as is proposed within PA 11 of the West Village. Further, a wide range of housing densities and types would not be provided; therefore, this alternative would not accommodate the housing needs of a Robertson Ranch Master Plan Rnal EIR 61 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations wide range of economic levels and age groups. This i alternative would not promote public transportation as the alternative would not provide suitable residential densities in proximity to public transit facilities. While this alternative would provide biological open space in conformance with HMP requirements, it would not provide community parkland. Establish a project-wide circulation system which is responsive to regional and local transportation needs, and which accommodates a variety of transportation modes. Because this alternative would not implement Ahwahnee principles, alternative modes of transportation, such as the use of pedestrian and bicycle linkages within the community would not be provided. ' Provide for the recreational and open space needs of project residents and the City at large, by incorporating recreational land uses including a City park site, community recreation facilities, pocket parks, school playgrounds, a pedestrian and bicycle circulation system and substantial areas of permanently preserved natural open space. This alternative would not provide the proposed community park or community recreation facilities. Encourage housing diversity by providing a variety of detached single-family residential lot sizes in traditional subdivision layouts and courtyard neighborhoods. This alternative would be primarily a series of single-family residential subdivisions approximating 3 to 4 dwelling units per acre; whereas, the proposed project provides a variety of housing types and densities. Encourage housing diversity by providing a variety of multi-family and affordable housing opportunities that are conveniently located adjacent to transportation, commercial, recreational and community facilities. This alternative would implement primarily single-family, residential low-medium density subdivisions. Multi-family will occur only within PA1, and this housing would not be provided in a location convenient to transportation, commercial, recreational and community facilities. The proposed project would provide multi-family uses in proximity to the Village Center (PA 11). Therefore, the City Council finds that the "No Project/Existing General Plan" Alternative fails to meet the project objectives, and rejects it. 3.2.2 Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative (FPEIR Section 6.2) The Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative assumes avoidance of all existing native habitat.on the project site. Areas of the project site that do not currently contain native habitats would be developed with the same land uses (with the exception of the community park) as identified for the proposed project. (a) This alternative would reduce the impact to traffic/circulation by creating approximately 2,018 average daily trips less than the proposed project. Because the same circulation Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 62 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations system is assumed under this alternative, roadway-segments and intersections would likely operate at an improved level of service than would occur under the proposed project. (b) This alternative would reduce the mobile-source emissions impact associated with the proposed project as a result of decreased traffic volumes; however, mobile emission levels would still remain above the significance thresholds for all criteria pollutants and, although less than the proposed project, the air quality impact would remain significant and unavoidable. 8 (c) This alternative would result in less of an impact to biological resources fen the project site. There would be no revegetation and restoration of PA 23C (shown as PA13D on the alternative Figure 6-2 of the FPEIR), "and PA 23E would include development of approximately 14 single-family dwelling units (shown as PA 11 on the alternative Figure 6-2 of the FPEIR). A total of 71.6 acres of coastal sage scrub and 9.4 acres of existing riparian areas would be retained on-site. Approximately 9.1 acres of approved Calavera Hills Restoration would be provided in PA 23E. This alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed project and would comply with the HMP; however, this alternative would not meet the following project objectives: • Implement the applicable portions of the City of Carlsbad General Plan and Zoning Code. This alternative proposes land uses for the project site that are currently not contemplated in the General Plan for the site. • Establish a community that creates an urban design concept consistent with the Ahwahnee Principles by incorporating a variety of public spaces and recreation elements that will attract the presence of people, accommodate the housing needs of a wide range of economic levels and age groups, promote public transportation while providing consistency with the existing vehicular circulation network, provide a variety of employment opportunities within the Master Plan boundaries, promote a diversity of land uses within the project, and conserve open space areas for recreation and the preservation of sensitive environmental resources. Under this alternative, the project site would be developed with single-family and multi-family uses; however, this alternative would not provide for public spaces as is proposed within PA 11 of the West Village. Further, a wide range of housing densities and types would not be provided; therefore, this alternative would not accommodate the housing needs of a wide range of economic levels and age groups. This alternative would not promote public transportation as the alternative would not provide suitable residential densities in proximity to public transit facilities and the proposed village center area of PA 11. While this alternative would provide biological open space in conformance with HMP requirements, it would not provide community parkland. Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 63 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations • Provide for the recreational and open space needs of project residents and the City at large, by incorporating recreational land uses including a City park site, community recreation facilities, pocket parks, school playgrounds, a pedestrian and bicycle circulation system and substantial areas of permanently preserved natural open space. This alternative would not provide for the proposed community park. • Encourage housing diversity by providing a variety of detached single-family residential lot sizes in traditional subdivision layouts and courtyard neighborhoods. '• This alternative would result in primarily traditional subdivisions and multi-family uses. • Encourage housing diversity by providing a variety of multi-family and affordable housing opportunities that are conveniently located adjacent to transportation, commercial, recreational and community facilities. This alternative would not provide for the synergy of land uses as would be obtained in the village center area of PA 11. Additionally, the community park use would not be provided. Therefore, the City Council finds that the "Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative fails to meet the project objectives, and rejects it. 3.2.3 Reduced Scale Project Alternative (FPEIR Section 6.3) This alternative assumes the Open Space (OS) configuration required by the Wildlife Agencies for implementation of the City's Habitat Management Plan (HMP); however, the only residential use identified is single family, which is proposed over a majority of the proposed site, and multi-family residential use at the corner of El Camino Real and Tamarack Avenue (consistent with the existing General Plan). The overall number of dwelling units (612) is reduced by approximately 50 percent from the proposed project. Also, the commercial use has been eliminated. The circulation system would be the same as the proposed project. (a) This alternative would reduce the impact to traffic/impact associated with the proposed project. A reduction in the proposed dwelling units and the elimination of the commercial use would reduce the overall trip generation of the proposed project by approximately 9,530 average daily trips. Because the same circulation system is proposed, roadway segments and intersections would likely operate at a better level of service that would occur under the proposed project. (b) This alternative would reduce the mobile-source emissions impact associated with the proposed project as a result of decreased traffic volumes; however, mobile emission levels would still remain above the significance thresholds for all criteria pollutants and, although less than the proposed project, the air quality impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 64 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Oyerriding Considerations (c) This alternative would result in less of a demand fior public services and facilities than the proposed project due to the decrease in housing and population. Certain public facilities improvements are identified for the proposed project that would also be implemented under this alternative. The same backbone infrastructure to serve the project would be provided, including water, sewer, and drainage facilities; however, the decrease in population would result in an incremental decrease in demand for various public services and facilities. 5 This alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed project and would comply with the HMP; however, this alternative would not meet the following project objectives: ' Implement the applicable portions of the City of Carlsbad General Plan and Zoning Code. This alternative would not provide commercial facilities as is contemplated in the City's General Plan for the site. • Establish a community that creates an urban design concept consistent with the Ahwahnee Principles by incorporating a variety of public spaces and recreation elements that will attract the presence of people, accommodate the housing needs of a wide range of economic levels and age groups, promote public transportation while providing consistency with the existing vehicular circulation network, provide a variety of employment opportunities within the Master Plan boundaries, promote a diversity of land uses within the project, and conserve open space areas for recreation and the preservation of sensitive environmental resources. The project site would be developed with mostly single-family subdivisions, with multi-family residential only occurring in PA1. This alternative would not provide for public spaces as is proposed within PA 11 of the West Village. Further, a wide range of housing densities and types would not be provided; therefore, this alternative would not accommodate the housing needs of a wide range of economic levels and age groups. This alternative would not promote public transportation as the alternative would not provide suitable residential densities in proximity to public transit facilities. • Establish a project-wide circulation system which is responsive to regional and local transportation needs, and which accommodates a variety of transportation modes. • Encourage housing diversity by providing a variety of detached single-family residential lot sizes in traditional subdivision layouts and courtyard neighborhoods. This alternative would be primarily a series of single-family residential subdivisions approximating 3 to 4 dwelling units per acre; whereas, the proposed project provides a variety of housing types and densities. • Encourage housing diversity by providing a variety of multi-family and affordable housing opportunities that are conveniently located adjacent to transportation, commercial, recreational and community facilities. Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 65 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations This alternative would implement primarily single-family, residential low-medium density subdivisions. Multi-family will occur only within PA1, and this housing would not be provided in a location convenient to transportation, commercial, recreational and community facilities. The proposed project would provide multi-family uses in proximity to a village center use, as is contemplated with the proposed project. Therefore, the City Council finds that the "Reduced Scale Project Alternative" fails to meet the project objectives, and rejects it. 3.2.4 PA 22 Sen/or Housing Alternative (FPEIR Section 6.4) This alternative assumes PA 22 would be developed with a total of 75 senior housing units instead of 20 multi-family courtyard homes as is proposed under the proposed project. Under this alternative, all impacts would be similar to those of the proposed project. This alternative is environmentally similar to the proposed project and would comply with the HMP. Implementation of this alternative would not avoid or reduce the impacts associated with the proposed project. In addition, this alternative would meet most of the basic objectives of the proposed project. 3.2.5 PA 22 Fire Station Alternative (FPEIR Section 6.5) This alternative assumes PA 22 would be developed with a fire station instead of 20 multi-family courtyard homes as is proposed under the proposed project. Under this alternative, all impacts would be similar to those of the proposed project. This alternative is environmentally similar to the proposed project and would comply with the HMP. Implementation of this alternative would not avoid or reduce the impacts associated with the proposed project. In addition, this alternative would meet most of the basic objectives of the proposed project. 3.2.6 PA / Community Facilities Alternative (FPEIR Section 6.6) This alternative assumes that PA 1 would be developed with a community facility use such as a church use. A church use would be allowed within PA 1 subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). PA 1 comprises approximately 9.3 gross acres, but only 4.6 net acres due to existing constraints. Total maximum building area would be approximately 45,000 - 50,000 square feet. As with the proposed project, site access would taken from Tamarack Avenue and the Kelly Drive/El Camino Real intersection. Under this alternative, all impacts would be similar to those of the proposed project. This alternative is environmentally similar to the proposed project and would comply with the HMP. Implementation of this alternative would not avoid or reduce the impacts associated with the proposed project. In addition, this alternative would meet most of the basic objectives of the proposed project. Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 66 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 4.0 Statement of Overriding Considerations (CEQA Guideline §15093) As discussed in Section 2.0 of these CEQA findings, the FPEIR concludes that the Proposed Project, even with incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures and consideration of alternatives, will nonetheless have significant direct and cumulative impacts to traffic/circulation and air quality (long-term mobile emissions). The cumulative impacts arise from the marginal contribution the Proposed Project will make, when combined with the impacts from existing and other future projects, to pre-existing conditions that fail to currently meet applicable traffic and air quality standards. The City has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these impacts, which may have substantially lessened the impacts, but have not been successful in reducing them below a level of significance. Under CEQA, before a project which is determined to have significant, unmitigated environmental effects can be approved, the public agency must consider and adopt a "statement of overriding considerations" pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15043 and 15093. As the primary purpose of CEQA is to fully inform the decision makers and the public as to the environmental effects of a Proposed Project and to include feasible mitigation measures and alternatives to reduce any such adverse effects below a level of significance, CEQA nonetheless recognizes and authorizes the approval of projects where not all adverse impacts can be fully lessened or avoided. However, the agency must explain and justify its conclusion to approve such a project through the statement of overriding considerations setting forth the Proposed Project's general social, economic, policy or other public benefits which support the agency's informed conclusion to approve the Proposed Project. The City finds that the Proposed Project has the following substantial social, economic, policy and other public benefits, any one of which would justify its approval and implementation, not withstanding not all environmental impacts were fully reduced below a level of significance. A. City General Plan and Policies. The Proposed Project is consistent with the City's General Plan and Policies in that it provides for residential and commercial development, community facilities, a community park, and natural open space, as well as critical infrastructure. B. Growth Management Program: Zoning. The Proposed Project is fully consistent with the City's adopted Growth Management Ordinance and City Policy #43, and all the applicable standards that will guide the entire buildout of the Proposed Project, including the Local Facilities Management Plan setting forth the phasing and timing of needed public infrastructure. These programs assure the Proposed Project will develop as a balanced whole and needed public infrastructure and facilities will be provided commensurate with need in order to meet the public facilities performance standards of the City's Growth Management Program. Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 67 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations C. Open Space. Approximately 157 acres of the Robertson Ranch Master Plan consists of Open Space. The open space consists of: a) open space for the preservation of natural resources; and, b) open space for public health and safety; recreation areas, trails; community park, neighborhood parks, and landscaped parkways. D. Housing. The proposed project will provide a range of housing opportunities for all identifiable economic segments, including households of lower and moderate income. A total of 1,383 units are proposed. E. Citywide Road Network Improvements. The Proposed Project will construct frontage improvements along College Boulevard, Cannon Road, and El Camino Real, all City Circulation Element roadways. These road improvements are important elements of the overall road network of the City supporting local as well as regional traffic. F. 84" Storm Drain. The Proposed Project will construct the proposed 84-inch storm drain, immediately north of Cannon Road. The construction of this improvement will reduce the potential for flooding impacts to the Rancho Carlsbad community. G. General Fund. The approval of this project would result in an increased generation of real property tax revenue for the City of Carlsbad. The City would receive real property tax increment revenues attributable to the increased value of improved real property associated with the dwelling units for the project. Based on the assessed value of the land with implementation of the proposed improvement and standard tax rates, the project would contribute substantial total property tax dollars. A portion of these property taxes would be paid to the City. It should be noted that the estimated real estate values and the tax rate used to calculate the property tax are subject to change. Additional revenue contributions would also be generated by increased sales tax, vehicle license in-lieu fees, real property transfer taxes, other state subventions, and business license taxes. H. Additional Public Infrastructure Capital Contributions. The City's Growth management Program and land use ordinances provide a series of public facilities fees and exactions that are charged to new development, which area generally payable at either time of final subdivision map or issuance of individual building permits. Based on the project as proposed, these public infrastructure and facilities on a citywide bases, including city administrative facilities, fire stations, libraries, roads,-and storm drainage systems as well as public water and sewer facilities. These capital contributions are in addition to the infrastructure being constructed on-site and represent the project's share of citywide infrastructure. The proposed project's Capital public facilities contributions consist of the following components: a) Growth management Local Facilities Fees. b) Citywide Community Facilities District. c) Traffic Impact Fee estimated per DU contributes to the funding of various road, signal, intersection, and similar transportation impacts throughout the City. d) Public Facilities Fees contribute to the financing of city administration and maintenance facilities, parks, libraries, fire station, police stations, and similar city infrastructure. Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 68 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations e) Drainage Fees estimated depending on location; this fund is used to construct master storm drain facilities in addition to those proposed by the project. f) Sewer Connection Fees per DU within the CMWD service area; these fees represent the facilities capacity and connection charges for sanitary sewers and treatment plants. g) Water Capacity charges per DU depending on the water district and additional meter connection fees per meter; charges and fees represent facilities capacity and connection charges for water facilities and distribution/storage systems. The foregoing fees may be subject to periodic adjustment and escalations in accordance with the underlying ordinance or laws applicable thereto. The total fees represents the public facilities capital contributions only and does not include any school fees or mitigation as the project's impacts on school facilities are addressed directly with the affected school districts and various city processing, application, and plan check charges for processing approvals. I. Consistent with Regional Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan and the City of Carlsbad HMP. The project will preserve and enhance approximately 144 acres of natural open space containing sensitive habitats, consistent with the regional habitat planning goals. Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 69 May 8,2006 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations EIR-B E O O)O o CD C "tO Q. 0) C D O) C C O C.o "5 D) 0) S jl | 8^ 5S_ C _-C <D gHliO o m Qi '> c£ 0 ECO £t 2 0 D) n P O C y 0 (N *Ca (UO)o zoU oU SectionIntroduction .c.c c Cs<_£ | z•I < II V(D t 5 aOi (_ 1c'£ a(.t 1 > h•c:L ^ •E <S" -^ IC VI oNO Q "D ^!=; C (j2 O -^S « IE 0 D £ — <1) QR o <Paleontologi<Hazardous Mnrnrtinn nnr)>. '•=O o0 ^_a> "5 r • - wHydrology/WXD)2 O | "5 .o J3U.1UI a> ICT <DCK .O O O) £ c<uaa & a>HaS '•= a. S>< Q. ca "5 U 5 Q ^LU .x C .x jh .x i x at .x•D "0 n TJ T5c c c c c0) (D (D OJ (Da a a a aa a a a a 0) Sso:ffl Map)y Confiden2 8-= o 5 5. L- C 3 .2 8 DD U 2 °c $; yO O rS £ D K 3 o » S U- ^ O 3 .>S LU .X. U"O "Oc c(D OJa aQ. O. 8CN I a012 ^ Q-LU.O) PS (DC c^ a oi II §1Q-: 2 §§ o Sa: 5 -v: I D)oa ou 0)5o Io Oi CL UJ O) o^a O O)5 i §s po -^ ooana. O Z £Oa.UJ06a < Oz O zg 5 ca a JC U o 0X)o06 •oo ou U g D) O) 1a<aty. 73 o 01 I 1 .g I PURPOSEv> B 0 0aE co Q_ Jiv» D2 JZo oO£ 0 VI 0jao 0£ 0 B 0 5 0 o t/i aTQ£22 eporting Program |Monitoring and Rf this MitigationThe purpose o_g D.s> "1 0 (/IOi£ ca Q- S 0-5 n Ranch A) for the RobertsoO£ UJ 6a0 Q£ t3oaE "n ogram Environmential "o m0 >~ J2 73 1cr 0 LOO .g B.O) 'p environmental i_c >* U 73Ont/» U B^* u 0r~ JD 1O 73 O 73 £B.O73O 0JO 1 "u0'g1 a 0 igation measures foi2 CL.CK2 'jz 2 _"c been integratedmeasures haveC£ UJ 0 .c 1 0U .g a. Eou c measure:ig the mitigationo chanism foiiMRP provides a me5 0 C£ UJ 0.C "6 C h the certificatioconjunction wito 0.a 730.a ov»073 S>program aion of the monitoringe and implementatit/i 0 .0 tn 0 "073 CD "g 0 0CD 73 0 t>< £. "o a o "c0Ec.o '> UJo | OU 0.C B l~x Sm .g "u 0in 73 O •O 1 (N g "u0to Uct: Q. 073O U (/I 0y Do(/I 0C£ y 3 Q_ JZ1 0O tten in accordan•;= v> a. C£ 22 v>!ci— o "^o o <aUJ U o "o 0 2"Dv> B JZ u0 "2a. JZuo0 Jj 5^.u 0 CD < 73 O0 0-C on 21081.6 requiresources Code SectiVI 0Qt. .y J5 D0- V) 0 .C "0 73 "D O <^OUJu >ru 0 0uo Q. 0 ^2_i_-"Do c v>0 O 73 .g that implementa0 ZJVI 0 o documentany environmentalleasures included inf the mitigation rrperformance ol73 o vt .g "uo "c 0 0y 0 "c0«v> oa0 CDc ^'co "5 "o 5 0'>0 _o •esponsiblee Lead Agency is iJZi — a! C£2 0 JZ 0 >-u 0CDO 73O0 730 is the designat'cg B.01inu 0 u 73 .0 1 73 C O VB73 O iccurate and upo t/> Q O "c 0 JO"^i information provido>- 0 I u 0CD <osition. The Leacas required.document disp'measure status073 0)o o 0 0 O)0 73 0 O)_c 1 JD v»Tlinimizing impac, 0jz 0CDo o v> "uoa E de avoiding certainoc "o0'cf o. 0.c 0 sures applicableFORMATMitigation mea:S>o v»0 3 measic.g B CD 1 "n\j0>oaao "c thin this docume5 i/> 2 "c ructural coring supplemental sicr 0 .5 7? o _g B nd its implemento .g t3o 0 B ou"CDoo 2 ^" 0v>'oc _,_^J2_ >•^=o cr 'o fvl Tic/circulation; (:o -i— 0 73D O VI 0*k_ QD)V BO "o02" D 0 i —subject category.referenced by :organized andv>y "0jr (/l 0o 73 O O) 73 O CD £§d hazardsous materials anc73 0Mo oo"•esources; (7) paleontological i: (6) geology/soils; (ultural resources;resources; (5) ccg B.g> 1 JZuo 0 o 73 .0 C 0 73 0 D t/>E_0 CD O ^0 I — 0 Uc0 J5 0 ay 0E measures has a nuity. Each of theselitoring partyf application0 00 * I 1 0 5 ^-»— (/I Wo c 0I n O) 00o az at o 73 JZ o" 0 " * ^~ VI 73 O C «o E §i< , — Of Master Plan Final EllRobertson Ranch c Monitoring and Reporting ProgramMitigation t\,g oc» i0f- "5JZ O) CO 0 ,0 ^D 'co OQ. 0 .— ba en o o 0JZ "~ TJ0 "c0 TJ .— ba O),g o 021 e 0 <D 1 1-s o Monitoring frequencyShown on plans/compleb/e Monitoring Partyi mitigation measure, the resp'5 (j 1?(U Oae u- O> *CI0 0 C 'O) UJ T!CO d)c TJ CQ di 'cco a. TJ O t/1 bU o U 0 0 TJ T3g CO.0 oa O)monitorina." 2 to £ b TJ 0 "a 0a 0 a Vo CO measure"c0 ^S>cLU 'o "E0 £ ba 0Q ~c o U 001.0 Q CoGO 0 TJ 0" O O TJ O .—u_ "o epartmeniQ _D _£ U 0y 0oo •21 TJ 5 TJC O •£E ID "c 0 DepartmHealth.Time of ApplicationRequired^Q 0 Q. OU u 0'o"a. o .g Q. T! o toTJ procee*-s developmeroi/>0 coDg b "o 730 implement0n 1 "o0'oa 0 ration measures required for th.g) 1 0 i — 0JZ-*—c 0,c TJ0 mplemer0n to Zl£ <s> 0 O Q>Z ig activities wc 0a 0 -OCocg g construeg DTJ TJ0 C0 0 a tigation measures must be im'£ 0£oin 0D)O > "5>0 TJ O 0O)O => COoLU 0JZ C 0!0n TJ lifferentiateT3 .g o_y aao 'o completed. In general, timingCO "u 0'o" Q.g FrequencyMonitorin0oc0tz>uuoc_o approval8.0 o co "0a o ruction, upont/i 0o 0JZ O) 1 cg D construe1*- g a •Q 0 ^0 ation measures will need to be.Q1 1 0 1 —tion measure.o.°? 1 JZuo0 £ >*u 0 CT i O) o 'co 0c~ CO.0 0TJ etary contribution). The MMRP io 0 Plan/Completion Dateo 05 co%__oO) ^E OJ -*— "5 CO.0 0 U 0 0 0 f C is the locatioTJ o "O cr0 CO Cg "5ra E 0 ^.y 1 c to (D§: b oUJ 0O)O "> .0JZ to .0 0 TJ C D Ou CO!c c:g )f compleu 5aTJ 0JZ TJ D (/>.g C.—he approver'sJZ 1 TJ0"5 0n I cx>0 ion measuiD.O) 1 0 !^~ O 0 has been completed. Complemeasurea.ee. i/i •x. UJc/>r>HOW TO 10 JZ•*~ H—o CD £oto impacts.0 0£ |>c 0 "coo 'c.9?uo 0U TJ0 O l/> 2OCO O 0E CQ "5.S> E c> 0 JQ Eoc D (O 0 "c0 TJ CD ca Q- _0 CO0 nucoCK 0COc.0j2oC£ 0jzi— 0n___ •";••£ in23 v>o0E .g oCJJi0 6 t occursc iy developmeo 0 ,0'0J2 TJjD 0 0a.£ 0a (X) i TJCa 0 't/i "o0'o1 a n measures apply to the entiremitigatioi. 0n_o Q_ QL 20JT .c T) 0.Q a0TJ V>O CO0 :h measure vaVJa 0 0 _0 TJ0 0(/I O "a implementi0 £ 3to0 O to<nted prior to project completiorimplemeio c 1C s o oco 0)JD OOi I a>.c a<Da:•D O 1 E Di — D) O ol D) C t:0 of Q_ -,-5 ^ ^-£ 0CO D D) "^C C"^^^ • ZI^-^*-» ^_ JZ 0 IS c c 0 0CO ' — 0 °_Q °>o £ 1110^5 £ (JJ C £ — — 2 O) ^ ^ e" 0 "o ^ £ ^ — -^ O |jj <q > ^ ii IM 'c cr <u "o- < £ ^^^1 ° ^"" •n u D O u f £ t • a = § *15- I =1 « "5 § ~ o »>^ ° ° = !f* I ;ii0=0 o <u £* S "• • "5 1 S B - s 11 £ ° 1 &O U uj Q 1 2 '^•i! l^^^l Q) -QH i ^ " a O) ^IB ~ ^B i ^ i II ••§ 8 •§ § :f So'1 111C T 1^^^ c 2!pj^ t c 2 "is&' °- 3 "5 ^ ®m y § § ^§ t ^ i filUIsfe - 'c "c •: ID .2 B" B >?d) O ^ (D B o 5 -5? B oQ Z > S Q Z - <D0} UJ O 5 a £ tl 0 ^ "D O 0) 1 E|OJ 0 < /•^ ^ o *o CL Q) | 0 | O — O o o >•III1 Ii•pooo 0 E sl§ "f u .£ 't: £ o 1 ••§ ia a> o "5 53 ~-"S "c c «_ — oC .!£ 0 8 f o : |[|| III1 TJ S T3 * « ? sco p o S 5 5 -*^ P ^ £ S Q. •-* j ^— Z ^ ^ -S ^ ^ 1^ S" a< UJ O i:o oeg o ooe. 9/ Eo Q_ CD Oa0)a: 73 o O) 1 .0 oo> c5 o 1? = 0 e n® E C 5 0 S~~ cV25 3c trO II)S it HI C "= ^"8 =2 a3 a «f K "5 « 0>J— • *cfwi O4) £ae Mitigation Measure0 8 o «> « ?|1 ill 1 I I till-? 'c 1 1o ^U ^ 0)= •£ >, .£ £ II3 .20) O- a 1 <u •£ ^ 'o ci || So_E^||f_ < .1 E .£ £ :> a £ £ i= £ 5 i ,_ 0) c (ii.c <5 c O C O)(D t CC O UJ U iS 0 S 0) •§ <D CD) w ^ O ° 'c " 'nHi!£•§12 ° 0 -5 5o ~o c ~<D m o ° <* .C = tlo r 2 5•i o c •=C 0 "- O O £ <D ° S. I ?The developer of the West Village shall re-stripe northbounimprovements have been installed along the West Villagethe West Village) to allow for a shared thru/right turn lane,shall be designed and secured as approved by the City Eof the first master final map for the West Village.CN CNt— '£ §1 ~ " o 5o *> d) •= t; X & £ S ^ "5 O O> S 0 Q Z IID 2>m Q. U £ 6 8 "o a3 ,_ o § S £ ^ £ E a. -*• o z. o f. •0 f e E •> <"t: o * — 5 g> .0 0 (U 0 - c 0 £ £ £ S £ 5 | oi IE fli1 1 1C O " '>. "ni o >^ O £ Q 0 £ a3 g1 £ "5 -till o ID .2 £ R "c "~ _ "5 "- n ^* O C O T3 B '•= n E] « £ 2 '=_ "O fe C Q. O D **~ r^ IT OJ ^ "ni ^ S S ^ 8 £ 'I -n 0 £ - iS The West Village developer shall add a third southbouniTamarack Avenue to Cannon Road. This improvement shof the West Village and may be subject to reimbursement idistrict or other public improvement funding mechanism,shall be designed and secured as approved by the Citythe first master final map for the West Village.S £2 "c -• (U •I o O ^ 1 f -g a o> ^ o Q z II^ jj ID" Q.o E 0 8 O <U §3-2= p a ^_o o yo -a t; c ^J <u tl n = 5 °>0 o (D 0 <D 5 £ 2 £ ^ £ i> i O) ^ mC 0) (~•c c •—(D t O)(D t CC O UJ>> -5> a >..ts e <1> •-O iS Q O <D C (U -g |q t!(U O £1 ° ° ID -Co O <U T3 5 « 2 ^ & § « 28^|^-2 ?• 0 g- a) "^ §• ••— "O Q) £ O P C U — Q* "D "Q -1 •— *~ -n c •—o O •= a> O> ^1j^ — •> "D 'w CD S § "D B ° 5 5 o a, E Q ^> < ^) J2 *.The developer of the West Village shall widen El Camino Rithru-lanes and a separate right-turn lane. This improvemerof a southbound shared thru/right-turn lane at Tamaracliaccomplished through re-striping. These improvements shalthe West Village. Implementation of this measure shallapproved by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the fVillage.? 2 Q£ LU "5 O O otY. O J2O a01o O)c oa(Ua: 73 o D) o .g ciili•C O*/> u it 110 cjj5 it 01 CE .2 "D Usi. Ha: 'o t. S _c So0"A) ^Mitigation Measure'c •• ajIs1 0 -oO > 0>1 « x J> EID ^ "c o a> s o Q z || (B "5.o £6 8 'o 53 ,_ § S &= E a -s o 8 « o o 2it 8> £ £ £ > i ,_ c 1 § S £ 5)<D ~ CC O UJ >» *?Ti Q- >«• D iS a D O Q) H 0 •— O<D "•§ I? <S ~ ^ 2 2 a -o § °- Q. = £ 0) '•= Jj 0 g) O -5 5 (U *• c O" c Co -§ <B £ S o>a> a £ !/i £ c^ a> „_ o •= m n C ^ i/> Q- >.¥ O QJ E ~•| 1 ^ S u£ 2 t: o .o .c o o <u m •n _ £ o ~the West Village shall widen northbound Eli at Tamarack Ave., and a third northbouniand re-stripe northbound El Camino Reaection to allow for a transition from three to 11 be funded by the developer of the West Villdesigned and secured as approved byfirst master final map for the West Village.\U VI — n.*~ C fi\ fT O Q' CD 1 I II 1 1 1_O o O (U 1> vi ^ ^ = o c > 5 -8 0 -c 'o~ o 9- w ui£ -i1 a U .i E £ in i— mt— 'c II O § > ^ O Q ~Z. II aj Q.o £8 8 15 S ,_ - CgO Bo?0 T3 "K c 0> 0r 5 = | 5 g).0 u a) g a> g ( O) 'E jjC D Q a> E '01(D t CC 0 UJ X 'ra O- >•.1= g' 0) S= U ii Q U 0) >- >•o >III 'S 0 Q. D 3 ?2f ^5^1 5 - 22 5vj t/» srC (D ^ (D o 5 aj £ "D "> "D £'^ -~ C n he West Village shall install a signal and pro'the intersection of El Camino Real andentation of this measure shall be designed arior to recordation of the first master final mafin *• E'o jj aj*_ flj Q_ flj o - ~. i1 <u c tu LU S 2 ^ i"13 j. 0 U Illl 'O 1— ,0 'c If •- ^ ^ 53 5j "g B o y=. ^aj a.u £C oO u "5 5 i_c 'S o •2 c aB ^ o ? ^11 el |_O u QJ O aj ^ 1 III >^ "™ Qa >,, U i£ Q U GJ >- a> .a on (/* .c •*- "n s "* *- c u jE o .| 1 ; i 1 iO Q_ """ (T) •— c | | E g1 (1) •*— "Q^ ^ C "*~ £ •"*"•5 o o, — b _ 2 V » a)a h ^ 01 _cc -2 >= o <-the West Village shall modify the traffic sigKelly Drive and construct a third northboundof a shared third southbound shared tl1 be funded by the developer of the West Vildesigned and secured as approved byfirst master final map for the West Village.•*- •— C Q Q) QJo g o jz jo jz | - y | o B | - 1 £ M» § 8 SJ § g"D -F o ^ ^»E TI !=; O OID a c ?• <" u£ u o I E S. 1-1 ts. a:m "5 a. ju vtI uco o O)oit D) I(DC£ T3 O O) •cO o oD) c Q ^ »_ (A 0 (b 5 § ^ "5O ^ g ™ 5 0 01 >• £ o> "c CP0 01 01 CII•o u 2>a g-S0) —ae O £ o>A c•s — >. C O -fr 0=0a. £ a.M O * 5at •* 0)5in IcosO01 -G 1 o 1 1 1 tzillf? 1 C 4)O D) BiCJ > 4)f - x £ Eo "5 o o> iu 0 Q Z IID JJ0) Q.o E 0 8 o>'o <5 o> c s ° -•2 | a 5 0-8 ~ I s,_ o ^ — "•*.2 O <D O 4)£ S £ si £ 4) t C •- a m U £ a u •tr > QJ "U Q.0 S i: c o S c "^ ° £ •§ B -° ^ ^ ill!*oi ? 2 "° oc lS 4) E O ^" -^ ^ r u 1 "o = S J2 « « |E = </. 4> r J> >• 'c D O1 1| M UJ (D ^r •— Q O) '~ ^ MO C „_ QJ "c Q> O *~ O C QJ OC wi r: *- •fc ••= 4) 0 t4) 4) jE "•= .22 £ | a 2 a 5" | « ^ i§ * 1 .1o c -a a g1 •5 .2> c E £ ^ (^ U ^Ol U «.* -"t: 0 E w 0)O ~ D ^t O* QJ on — -^ 0 D O > >•m ^ 'TJ "s4> •— m O "5J3 ^ Si UJ 4)in c s 4> s ° 2 ° .1 £ a g1 |1 £ ° ? ?•5 « .2 ID 0 g > C 7; a -Q UJD O <u £ 0) j) 0) § <5 > u f i= u I 5 S 5 CO e 1 C 4)O D) o Su 5 f - * -s4> O C O> Uj O Q U3 _4) m Q. 0 E 0 8 4)"5 4) J O) § |-2|s £ a > .2 O 01 £ 4)£ £ £ = £ i ,_ 53 £ '5>4> t: c.£ ° U iS Q D •3 -K >• O ID 0) QJ ^ £ 2 ci 1 o || o> 52 „, >c n O -5Q U ^ "D ^ lit j£ S 5 joC T3 o £ C ^ v» O11 "O 'a o ^ o 5 9- T3 "0 —.i a> ® o 1) "c O) =O) § 'S jra •= 4) ^•^: rti "D wic u) Q O J2 4) c*^ — ^ ^- a) o = 'J^ -C O *~1 i 1 1 D ^ D C•S > ^ .2 4) 2 ^ D 5 II o^ •- »_ u-* 0) o P-t- VI >- 0 « § 0uj j± .y *- a> Bo £--d c '§.°i!s "5 a •- m ^ l5 > 4> • >-« g1 &a D 0 = 41iE u > £ J t 4) 0 £ I O iJC o Q_ 1.co oHi o Ioan Io O) 73 O CDC 1cg oO) c §V1* | Jo. B 5 0 O) Xi « "5 CT0 « J coco•D 0 *3Z$ V —ae O £ 01X) c!•§£g/12M Ov sat * £ 30)5 | 15 1 2" a t P 5 a —I z =.&.= << C 0)O O) 0 ic > 1 8 > UJ II 0) Q.u £ o 8 <D _ _ r~ fll O •*- ^ £» 1/1 U C 13 ~ JE O P •*~ o D 2?o U U 4_ '= M- U *"a! O 0 £ 1 'c j.- 0) .2 o o 5 "5 o <5 ^Q Z > S !n ••g ) - 0S £o oQ Z o 55 £ "a>>— X O "C C ° ^ '§, a tSO e <1> ~U U ii Q O O £ * 5 O *" •— "D> '^• — c"D o O g aj O a -2 O -2£ O DcO (1)*• a£ a. D < O) nO _i T32 o "• a;S >- o S (D U O) a)— £ o oO "c0) O £ D••i S 15 u <D •2 O (D fO .—a•o TI 3 r o ^- Q."8 •—o >- 0) g" 2 o o o (DO 0)0 £ o 2 ^ 55 2ID '° ^ (Dr-— I — C* log J2 1 '"S Sc a c o Q) = a; •£ O "E 1 8 t/i 3 'c S— o CO O £ "oI 1 ? 1a . aU C f- *w? O r (D (D d>.C "^ ^ O c ,-(D .5 . | 1= ^ III o D ill aQ_ ucoHi co Oen Io Q. O) O O) I c §^•2 c 2 * £1 §0.0 1=1° •" U §» 2 I« 3C CTO 01S£ 01 CC 0~ '•=K- Q•o o £t 3 0. S"fX. 0 .2 oi 11*o ~ o°- 5 °-M Ooi 5oe ^ 015 1 | o.0) 5 ^ C Q. 5 5 Q. P ^ E S Q.~» C IDO Ol P 1 8 > LU U3 0 O Q.o E 8 8 <D »*-. §S!8D O O C O t: Q. 'y *~ <5 D 2 .2 ° ° -s i 1 .£ <l) o|§B>. — -a Q..•t o 91 ou u £ Q O (DD .Cc *- > o ^ l*~ fl) "^!*i *^ 5 §^ 0)T3 U 0 0 (U O '_c 'c C V ! -O 2^ CD y ^ (D "5 o o5 ^ B oQ Z > S Q Z - 5<u 1UJ ^ O a 2QJ 01 u .SO *"OcO (D— aE £ o ^O> nO __ a ^5 >- D B m U O) & V o o c0 -B<u 3JC .Q C C (D C TJ CJ 5 2 *" "*?0) .t J2 2 T3 D D 0)O "C J >v. 2 .£ 0 T3 •- O >- O o ~ O C "5 S 1s i SIu .2 rti OUJ M— £ a> ~ 1 — C •1 1•p Q. (D OC i^ 3 V 0 (1) "• 2 § Q. 0 'o J= £ I.£ <J E "Q. 'o sQ. ^ £ "5 ° ^ c- 1! till 1.1 Ills t ^ ^1 ^c- 0) O p? B 5 ^1 - a£!S S || 0) Q. U C 5 8 'o 53 w C <" O 5 •— §""0~ B ^ o "«0 -Q ^ c « (1)t: o == — * S1 o u o ° a> —t 2 £ =i £ > sil ^ g ii ; ^s *F^ Q- >+.•= S a> ~U i] Q O U) 2 o(DScg B •Si "o 1oc (U "5. E O CN 1 — a. O r:oc DOf. I ga>o£ a> 73 O Co .o Bro c!>!. > o ^ 5 5"5 f c« s 0 °" ^ u^ 01 C P "5"o .y 3 a So (I) li*.sita. 5 a.M O Mitigation Measureo | o * « | 'c IIo ^ s t; x .£ E53 -S? "c B o> s o Q ~z. II3 O m "5.o £6 8 "6 a3 ,_c "S oa> o D *-.c = E Q. —*• o ~ o g • o u 0 "5 m -2 £££:££> | O1 C 0 <5 E '5>(U k_ CC O LU U £ a u U) H- Co *? v>£D D0) 9 *rOgi 1 "o c B"c E IUaE n i — H D ^O lit II ^ ^<D '= 8 8 O fl)c ^ o S i a^oS ! 1 1t: o s - 5 O (J Q) O 0 it ^ £ t§ £ |15> c Q) "tH .£ ° O iS Q u_ _ ^ j, ^ (— O .Si *"= o ^ -^ •= D> E 1 S U D D O «_2 U i- ?J o f~ — _ Q -p- '_c 0)BQ i1" *_ 5 u 0 0 ige shall make their fair share contributiona separate right-turn lane from northboundis improvement shall be installed by the Cityugh the TIP program, when determined bythis measure shall be verified by the Cito recordation of the first master final ma|= "- ^ 2> c -c 'o III!! J^ £j Q vE C "~ O C -Q j£ 0 Q. (DE M IliiH13 _ O -K • -C> E -Q aj "o uj<D O t! T5 <D7 & s 2 E 1 &|J| 0) H- (U C).£ 0) £ 5 1 1B 50) U *^ 1 lit II3 j) 8 i1 o 8 O <D c s 0 5 i a- ° ^ O mr I^s o u tu Q o cC 2 £ != £ i ,_ 11153 .E o> U iS Q U <u -5; • a> -o o 5 £ ~ o £ <D 2 ° IS 1 1 § 1 f •Q «- Qj 'Si T3 Village shall construct a second southboun1 to eastbound Cannon Road at the timeimprovements and third northbound lane aivement can be accomplished through reImplementation of this measure shall be•5; O (U O 111:! 1r"~ r~ ..*— f— t/>C _ i: ^ (J O B ^ S _ QC JZ ^ 'c Bo (DOl s ao "5.c o a y Engineer prior to recordation of the first m.•tz U (D "D > <b 0 I Q. UJ O *- J. 0 01 0 -n C -D 9 S 0$ c 's ^ s o- 55 2 o o 01 o >T> .§ u .0- '= g s ~ ^ ^j C O< 2 ^ ° "p 3 5 1 ~ £ (D fl)5 jc <D O10 >4— 1 — K LU 'o Coa! o ^:ocoa: O 5no D b)ool O) ba0) cD O) O 'c .O OD) c 0^5 o 5- fa «" o at xC 0ISs se o1 0 0)Si 0) CC O1= 3 •o u 11 £ 3 3 ^ o 5 ? &o°-« 5a: *Mitigation Measure* si sillQ. C Q. ^ 5 QP ^ E 2 i -™* 5 «>•5 R1 8 § S g > Uj C co oa c <D '=O "£ 6 8 '5 JD ,_ C ^ O O OO TO tS c t 0 = ^.2 u O o O- v!_ •*— ^^ O) C M^ £ a= ? OJ (J iS Q 11115 o n ^ -2 .i Q- o C **O ^ 'g.2 73 a 5 n ^ ^ O.-y o c~ £ o -5 P. o a" a>0 (1) C 3 •^ *~ s <"•-—>. llfl East and West Villages shall maketbound right-turn only lane and re-me, one thru lane, one shared thrntersection of El Camino Real and<U f 0 —^ CD — (D o a .2 ^v> «_ ^L O 5 .2 <o 2 » 2 .£ 5•o -K •" 2<u c o £? O «- ni= 0 0 •= 'c 1 1"5 ^(D o -*• £ E s "5a o a) .£Q Z > ^ viT3 ® >.£ O> oj III« S 8-£ 5 £ m -a T3n o c o 1 ° ~ /j UJ ^ »_ w0) ^ £ -^ D a III § >• r5 -Q = I||ty of Carlsbad or their designee wltation of this measure shall be \snt prior to recordation of the firstvely.D S I 'f2 £ b 8.S CD o. ^>. Q. 0) 2 -D — 01 «fli C O)• 'C OO "O <D =•£ <U CD >C TJ .£ Z- (U Q) (Ci QJ (U C! •".. 13 C UJ 5 !s i . 0)(D c+— CSoz u-> D \r Co51 .cu oOLco (U.ao Io O).c a0)i^ T3 O O) CO .1B cs-*.c M Q) JJ 1=1° O) >•c u 5 gas 3c o-O 0) "~ 01 C.E ° P O H3 a ^•o |o,lit 8- § °- at * (AQ 1c o :•= o * ti o « ^O •? o 2 5 g & 3 5 1 a —i ZC.B..S £3 1 10 §£ I"C « | 0> LU C Co g §" 3oof •= o 8 *o o .•t 1 81 B i? <D U£ E 1 t;o o <u -JlQ Z > ^ ' 'c i . 0)o c B DQ Z c "^ o ^ ^J >•• ~ E °- ® 2 > £ "2 !S E •I ill O) 'cC QJ C O -^* 21 Q)O iS Q "O <D ~O ^ 0 § § c "-"ego° s 1 1 5 E LU -4— Q) CD S &£ 5 ® o 0 a S >• 11 !|I!I!o S ° 2 g y-C O D O) ~ 5i"> J3 Q- 0 1 8 o £ | J 1 « ^ fll *~ o H •i 5 £ <G T3 ^^ D g .c o "Do 9- <u a) .Q c c "» .£ o =5 o m £ S ® £ Ssl ° «_O D 0) § *> £ Q O "Su fi•5 | u -2. f\\ Q. t; -a T- n £ 2" c "c >- ^ c £— 3 •*—o 'x *r ^ u. I lii o C I) "2" « 8•2 £ •= a > £ O 3 T3 .a£ £ § £ *— Q -O (X iC 'n -C D8. ° g § (U ••- JQ .S 1! (D O IliiM® 5 x a) .^ o £ 8 o 2 £ £ -o Q. < o O) ba0)oz n o01c co .o BO) c o •—|!|i *" o f gp 5 it 4) C c «9i= •§•o .a— S1 3 Q. « ^ •s en.0 c•«.— >.§lfa = a.IA O ac ^Mitigation MeasureTJ***&1 a. E a. > ^ §liills? •mi••H C <D•°s•9 c 5 • ll • cH ? u 1 "c 1 oi H <D .2 81 O '-^HJ UE 1 "t;O 0) ^z > s 'c ', . j)o o • allllC oi £ D 11 8cim § 1 '-2 'i •- HI -2 °" IS. "o CLm O) c I UIS <u "Gc o• = 'i1 &U i£ Q i1Biiii 1 i'§ ^L Prior to the issuance of grading permils. a construction dust abatement managementprogram shall be prepared and submitted to the Citv of Carlsbad for approval.Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the City ol Carlsbad EngineeringDepartment on establishment of the program, and periodto inspection dutog grading.O u O)Off-Road Mobile Source PMio Emission Reduction• At a minimum, water active sites twice daily.• Sweep streets at the end of the day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent publicpaved roads (recommended water sweepers with reclaimed water).fine Particulate Matter (PMw) Emission Reduction• In disturbed areas, replace ground cover as quickly as possible.• Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders according tomanufactures' specification to exposed piles (i.e., gravel, sand, and dirt) with fivepercent silt content.• During construction, use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas of vehiclemovement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this shallinclude wetting down such areas in the late morning and after work is completed for theday. Increased watering frequency shall be required whenever the winds exceed 15mph. Reclaimed water shall be used, as feasible.• Suspend all excavating and grading operations when wind speeds exceed 25 mph.• Builders and/or contractors shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dustcontrol program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport ofdust offsite. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to theAir Pollution Control District prior to land use clearance for map recordation and land useclearance for finish grading for the structure.Paved Roads• At a minimum, sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried ontoadjacent streets.• All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or shallmaintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., minimum vertical distance between top ofthe load and the top of the trailer) in accordance with the requirements of California |O a< Io CL O) oaID o O) o 'c co c§^5c g 5 £ 0 - £°5"<3 O> Xc o1 1 "C DPO J> 0) C IITJ 0 * ^II4) «.a: O £ 01~ £ || t 0)5 1c 0 3O) 1 !il!!l 'c <Da _ ~ t/i "ca vtsuoo o o T3 — ^D C (U 'o — . S ^ ^ 1/1 Z o a)(0 .fc (DIM C i:Vehicle Code (CVC) SectionGravel pads (construction etracking of mud onto public sO) o T3co D).C oa </> 0o T>ID oacD "5 o 'o fn E ID2 ^paved RoadsApply water a minimum of tlareas.c w u o a u"> ^~ _O •a<Do >e redu±2 O V) OQ Traffic speeds on all unpaveda c a! JD O OCo I oan 101 g oa! O) 1a0) o O)c co o Boi S o O — B l^lo |||0 *J O) >• Is ? ^ i£ 01 CII •o o £a"3 a 5 13 7; »ja c. e *S -^ 0=o "Mitigation MeasureUJJJT3 oj.| lllill? C Qj0 O) |i^ •£ £ 0 ^ li| 6 o o * m BQ d y • • a) C- 7-Ti 1 S<D UE *§ "5o 5 Hz > s 'c oQ i . 13Eo -§ 'D o o> £B>-g 8.-g £ (U <2 3O a .£ TJ a>u o2 0).£ .£o "S .-!= .0 en 5; <£ 'o a ro "c.£ u35 E0) t.c o 5 iS Q coo -! Prior to the issuance of grading permits, an off-road and on-road mobile source emissionreduction program shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Carlsbad for approval.Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad EngineeringDepartment on establishment of the program, and periodic inspection during constructionof the project.Off-Road Mobile Source NO, Emission Reduction• Heavy-duty diesel-powered construction equipment manufactured after 1996 (withfederally mandated "clean" diesel engines) shall be utilized wherever feasible.• The engine size of construction equipment shall be the minimum practical size.• The number of construction equipment operating simultaneously shall be minimizedthrough efficient management practices to ensure that the smallest practical numbersare operating at any one time.• Construction equipment shall be maintained in tune per the manufacturer'sspecifications.• Construction equipment operating onsite shall be equipped with two to four degreeengine timing retard or precombustion chamber engines.• Catalytic converters shall be installed on gasoline-powered equipment, if feasible.c^l6 • Diesel catalytic converters shall be installed, if available.• Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel or gasoline powergenerators.On-Road Mobile Source Emission Reduction• Trip reduction plan to achieve a 1.5 average vehicle ratio (AVR) for constructionemployees. By encouraging an AVR of 1.5, the criteria pollutant emissions identifiedwould effectively be reduced by roughly 33 percent.• Construction worker trips shall be minimized by requiring carpooling and by providing forlunch onsite. io gaio D)c a>Oi T3 O D) O O c §^:8g jg fl) jg £ 2 CO£ c£ Ov> £j o> >*c o- cO 0) o ofS£ HI C.J o 3•a o *l5f£ "5 & _•Q c§itQ. c a. (A Oo> 2 Mitigation Measureo!u?a=io c 9 •? 5 it C 3 p ° ^ &i Z =. Q..E ^"3 c .0B.0 > coa <D~oc O o 5 a! c 'c Oa._>.5 <0£ 'o "5 "5 £5 D "5 ^> U 0£ <a. ^ 0a 0) ao 0)>0)•o S.'i/» "o ~5 oaa.o o .0 £ n 6 CNa &5 •^ ^ >s 1 0 - Q.o o o "oJ> J*o Q* f*la «O 'i/i OJ 2 = "5 ao -ia 2Q. a> O T5 "c b0.<oQ O <D perational mitigation measures identified below are identified and included as part of treject development plans, as applicable. These measures shall be implemented by to a *fi D — 'a "~ "c Q.<U >_ C i*- a. 0 ct •DC 'c (D § ^ Q)O c reject applicant of each individual project when development plans are proposed, alall be verified by the City of Carlsbad Planning Department.The City shall recommended that the proposed surrounding commercial facilities whiincorporate gas stations utilize pumps dispensing oxygenated gasoline (especially duria -K • o a*- £. Q)£o > ai: c winter months, typically taken as November through February inclusive) in an effortreduce overall CO emissions within the air basin due to traffic traveling to and from tproject site. In addition, the City shall recommend that workers at surround!Q commercial facilities participate in ride-share programs and or seek alternate formstransportation to the site../,Future onsite commercial land uses shall implement shuttle services for their employe•and patrons, as applicable.(U Future project specific developments shall implement design measures that promote tuse of alternative modes of transportation, such as:• ^c — Mixed-use development (combine residential, retail, employment, acommercial).\ - •a y,— Sidewalks; safe street and parking lot crossings; showers and locker rooms; sheltertransit stops; theft-proof well-lighted bicycle storage facilities with convenient accito building entrance; carpools and vanpools.<D — Ohsite services to reduce need for offsite travel such as: child care; telecomrmcenter; retail stores; postal machines; and automatic teller machines.a>•>— Commercial and retail businesses shall schedule operations during off-peak tra'times; adjust business hours; and allow alternative work schedules, telecommuting.— Provide preferential parking for carpool/ vanpool vehicles.— Construct transit facilities such as bus turnouts/bus bulbs, benches, shelters, etc.T3C — Provide direct, safe, attractive pedestrian access from project to transit stops aadjacent development.• Increase walls and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements.T30) Da o cg 1 (D "5oa 0 (D O TJO O Ul aa c 30) 0) TJo.c 'c2 o IQ_ O) 1 o £ c §o • — sc » « J»$ o o-o1 = 1° *» 0 Dl X.£ »W. CO « ? o-II U1=0Tl Clat3 Q.I? if,c o •£ 0=0ago.vt OD Sae * £3</>O0) Siof illlllfltlll, O) 5 (U .c '5.a T3cD di_c £ O) | _£n, <D'y 'ai >.D) ai 0) T3 o c/>o ^^ D C <JO c 0 P . 1 1 H 0) Co = •= 2 0) ^(b w 4r > 13 (U• eX £.gi a>0) •K "DC O B ai | 5Q ndows.jw sodium'> —> ^_ "0 S<D .5JC 0a £Q. Q) i x 5 21 3 o5 « S (U (D 5 => • • araoa: O) a (D Of TJ a O) 'co .o B01 c § .J2 c £ — -2 * — C"Q 5 "" * ° 01 o1 1 | O 0) 01 C1 =i= 0Itp2 o S c"5» ™ >» a"g a.vt OID 5K Q) (Aa1co _gi 1 "• "o -S Illlli? !E s cd) c Q, -o en o g1 B =2 -q-unor^co — cNo-5 „ 0" ^5- 5, ^ <<<<<<< —*- <u g <<<<<<<<< > a Q 1 onannnn >l a z nnnaannDn c ,- ,- a | 1 .£ c o _ -1 Q) O 2 "» "c Co Q- .y '5 •'g x: « '£<->£ Q.-QEu3gjg Oo'oo£Q.oj£"5.o O O)c c § Svi D O >. ^ 5 I 1£ O Q. O) ^O) c "c~c 'c QJT3 C C•5 2 -cca Q- o ^- T3 Q. D a Q Is« £E * ^ '3 iX0) IT ~ | E | u Z Q.'£•-01o . ctt S S£ g |oo S -Qz a 'o £ *~ O £ > o u -c K tl i1/1 ^ om .— -^-° § b 8 o 5- "O C Q) D V SO "° mi '•" ^ ^ JJ * •- O C = Q) Ooj "5 "5- O O" D)O 0) C Q- ^ '"6 If 1 >- 0 C c -S ° 0 ^ C E £ "3 aj a> o o" "6 O 2 -S 6 CN O a< a. D) (Dct: •O O D) co c.g 5^.1 Jill5 a IsO 0).t: 3C ffO 4» 41 C£•2= o Q) *A 3 Q.cr< 2« •9 cM *C >, o ••= ^ago. S ^ « D 30)S Cj2 Ba>S I •- Tl •- O £ a "o 5 5lltiil? 'E '£ C <D C ft .20) .2 o y 5 0) .0 ^ <u 11 s 1 Us! - o § ^ 1 8, 'O^m1'7'-— ~'^ <<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<< 6a.l -80008 DDanana ananDnnnan §!§, I '"^ U ST\ ® C U0 g V g D 0 _OJ . ililSIII O) ^.C c c QJII si T3(I)io S. 0).C C 1 0)c Boo "5 5oOJ 2o b "o 0 T3 Mh= D ' "o CO 1 |O £ u oo «»^ >Q) C T3.2 c.3 2 E ^ o "S; 6 CO O a< gaioo_ro oaa>Qi•o o D) I 1co 0 OI Xc u o a>S it a•o o 5 c igation Mea£ o 5II to ^ oo •— <N— — — CN CM an a a a nan ^ &= o,Q <U § ,* £o> s y *. (Do £•5i a a I - SB 5 2£ T3 a O 5 £ o 8a> o oi D-mi7 II 8 I & g § TJ ^1 § §o 2 > &T3 < 5 V 8 £ co !| s* ID 2 2« 5 _ .-a 1= c N-£ - o _-?, P r.- T3 n ®C £ jQO „, = g> C E.E 0) -aT3 p cS £ Q a = 'B.y CT oi ~= 0) SU *- cC r. Ca- § o <B O -^ H '? O •^5 "n <D .^ C) 0) .X T3 "a TJ . - £2 n§§11 §§ § 1 -8 ! 1 s a>- •2 53 'o o E «<t a 5. u o -K "5Sc o § •§.< Eg o>ool O) a(UC£ T3 O O) O 1 oO) chfi o E £ o ° II 0 "" <s> c i=fTJ 0 £13 a a _ae O S> o>.a c c li •e'0 =S oa. c a.M O* S 0) 3 Q i S B s C <D.2 o>B s.y >t£- | 0> LU 'c l!o •?® .y B a 5 .§!Q Z > S •|j "' (U O OQ Z _ >. 0 g 0 IB "a B<•> E d O u 'o "6 42 Prior to theissuance ofbuilding permifor residentialO) "*O) C "£ -— C C)"O c cisf >. 73 Q..ted)U 0 Q — TJ <U C— a> > o-< I ! iflj O ^ — .2 uS =5 B £ •^ -a B -S-.2 " 2 o 2 o S oa> '«' -c .y c ^ § 3o 'o ° oc c ^3 u o 55 D" .c cvi "^ (D H— CN •— •- >.-D a> « -Q C "pr •*— •^ O Q -g <D — T > _C ~^ «• I i1 "-~ 0 •_>. C *"" o3 ^- 1O IV CO — (N ^ <<<<< <<.S Q.Q^Q.Q.0. Q-Q-2 anana an r<.9 — CN (D T3 £ 10 ^ D C ? ~- "= A .2 -l/l "TJ ^ O *~ *~ ^™ B OJ _• _- g § -•".0) "n vi CN -« ~n <C0 u V - g '^ Q- •*-X^<00^(1i/-CNQ.^0.— O £.£(N a £ 1 §v. oc a.2 EB p.4= ^ '& "2 2 = •^ .1 ^ "D y 2 "U ° Q.ceo 0 .2 « f = = O UJ -C ^ "53 cU > nv <o . S C) Co .2 ab o ao _ a> - < i2 Q_a - -. 1 ^ 5 ! § I^ g <5 2 "a n 2- c E '=^ „ Q) -D< £ B a) DL 3 "K -11 •- ? < o£ « •= > O C 1 b 1 §s a jj i ^ TD — ffi i2 a o r; z 0) C 3C O) u 73 'v. C) ^ "O 'P-Q £ "§ID 'D b 0 C c 5 o -S UJ i= <U 1 1 ! Z '§.< 1Oit a> oaa>CXL •D o O) o c.o BO) c §>!a > o 9" 5 ^5 |« O HIS 3 O atS £ 0) CE .2 •o u 21.3 Q. 1-8 Jo .g _c CO *C >. o .-2 ^S- § °- et * 0)5COo U> 5c 8OO) 1 till Si- z =.&.£•« 3 § 0) O ^ 1= 's | 8> Uj o 1 1 o "o" °- ° 2 it E « n o (D O '•- 1 0 -I 9- "5 °* 2 .•g ISa -5 1 I 11 '| a>a 2 b ^•c oo "O Q- D O CO ?j O) i/i E ? "2 oi c -5 •'g "c \ - 0)C) C O DQ Z llull^Olll 0) H_c c C 1)1 1 Q- O>- a.1= /O0 Q JT B 2 E-C <_ O •D — 0 J= ISfgn> u 3 ="a u = g g j: t; 4) O) -»— L^-O D D 0(I) O J2 < £ o 3 C -0 m M.2 c o .£Q D *- O .y i> o - '^ Q Q. z ij •— ^ a ? '5 Sa £ cc o . - "O- o b g ^ "D fr O -^ O JZI ~Z. i O i a 5 * 0 a, ~ U D .C *C D CO s <D "^ -C 1 'c 0) 5ocoo T3 IE <L>a .i 01 &. — C ) TJ M 1/1 3 ^ O ^ rt<v r 5^ 9- 2 * ^ 1 « su a 2 o 2 IIIt> <u 2 <jj COO® w LL D.22 t— *~. o a -a•^ c< o S^llsl(0 = »_ to c 2 ° _4) -5 -JJ C j u a i z £ £ .5 CO Z CNZ — u a- PL S £= o(D ^6 ^ 2 '•§ a O D)O O-01 1Q.0) "O O D) Ico!COa> c o — Pr Is "5 aO V 01 C £ = "D USo.3 o. oe O 1 ?B ~ >.c o •£o ~ a8-g^» SQC i3 1c <o S 111! iffitiif? c <uO O)p <5 S> LU .2 § o a o ~ 8 b£c u *-0 2 £ .0 "o•^ 1 1 •§ £ 'fl 2o 'o~ c S 5. o o ? c 'C 0IIa. o>- a5 8 c g1i I _» 2 U ^0 ^s JZ 0) IT£ ° !c c 1J ° I 1o *- Q. 0 i j; 0) .2 o B 54) _O ^ o o ai ^Q z > 5: a E £ o £.._ = cB « b£ U ^0 < <" 5 >-U ^ -C 'o E '<->C 0 73 illu a u£ 53 £-Q a Q c D)0 s: c if, P 'c 'c i (U<D C l tl-iso c 2 .. ., -— •D -55 0. 0 jc c!D (j = -p. T_ 0) 8 o E 1 o E a H £ " o o oD •*— qj t^ Q. -° < E o c a Q 1 § ^ > ° o ?- ••£ i S> 2 o •! 0 | = o S .SI! 5 0 u ~ •« 03 ^-— fcrt CJ § Z Q It 1i b oo £ ~ 2l P z " .2> £ c "*" O) (D c~ t/> QJ """it ^ C ^ § s|l 53 u c s;> <u — tt ^ 5T t: £ •;= cr LL.i •- < sv? r b 'o ~ <D P ZE a § a)S 2 "5 ^a a a. i2. r CN•z. D O).c Ba 0)Ql T3 o O) o I .Q c §^5c s * £ ^ ° f' n O Q^ £ Q"5 O(J c O 5 £±= 3 §cr < 25 & 1* CE .0 ^ "B•o o £a "3 Q. Q) «-at O — O)JO c S S£11!i/> O0) 5ec. ^Mitigation MeasureIliiiL c <D "i • - R1 o• a .= SHii U > CN i^^^J •—^^Sl ^ +-. ^ • = « 11 c 8iilSi H ° a aCO _.0 £ o • s^ s §.Q 0 0) .Q 3 •I • • a. ^ *. a .a 0)1c c Sc aj .c .2^ £ o w o °- b 'c Tj 3>. Q. C X c.•= ID 0 .£ o U Q a! Q U^H IH i islllii I1 11s 1* ESs1 B-1 The primary mitigation for impacts to HMP Species under the HMP is the conservation andmanagement of habitat for the species in the preserve system. The HMP also states, "Inaddition, in compliance with the Endangered Species Act requirements that the impacts ofincidental take be minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent practicable, measuresto avoid and reduce impacts will apply citywide on a project level basis."f|l '£ <o 8 _. '£ <5 ,_ »Ja a) E =§ u §2 •£ oa> ^ o (X(U .32c- a> o*= ~ c.C T3 <D III1 = 0)•B 0 -,B § Ua> o > «*>E ar -*- CN— 1/1 2 !!£ ^i . uBD This measure requires that the development configuration depicted on the MasterTentative Map for the East and West Villages include a minimum of 70% total of the on-sitecoastal sage scrub for preservation. A conservation easement shall be established for theproposed open space conservation areas.As a condition of project approval, the applicant must comply with the requirements of allregulatory agencies having jurisdiction over the project and any mitigation requirements ofthe environmental documents for the project. Pursuant to Government Code Section65871 and Carlsbad Municipal Code Title 20, Chapter 20.04, Section 20.04.140, theapplicant shall grant a conservation easement for the conservation, protection, andmanagement of fish, wildlife, native plants and the habitat necessary for biologicallysustainable populations of certain species thereof, in accordance with the City's adoptedHabitat Management Plan.^ D) «3 •S ° <rO § c-5CD .y <N p ft "^ (0 1 !i£As such, prior to recordation of the final map or prior to issuance of a grading permit,whichever occurs first, the project applicant shall take the following actions to thesatisfaction of the City of Carlsbad Planning Director in relation to the open space lot(s).The Wildlife Agencies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish andGame) shall review and approve the conservation entity, Property Analysis Record, andconservation easement:'c. tuQ> c B oQ Z c c 0)0 .Q °> *- '~n "O 0 &V> ° £•? .32 fc <J ai 1$ z s & §Sn 8 §a u a. Select a conservation entity, subject to approval by the City, that possesses thenecessary qualifications to hold title to the open space lot(s) and manage it forconservation purposes.b. Prepare a Property Analysis Record (PAR) or other method acceptable to the City forestimating the costs of management and monitoring of the open space lot(s) ino8 Ogu. aa. O U Oct: O 1Oan g a>oit O) a: "O O O) O cO BO) cC O0 -»« .c tn & 01 »ll^ "" O a> >•c yi ic tr i£ 0) C £ :s •o ii 3 a 41 —ac O if*IP Mitigation Measurew j< fit!!!; 'cID &. £ < K o-' ?b o5 « § i 1s^ -8 >VJ *- ,— *- rt^g l IESiIn c 3a. c.0 B <]c < 1 t - c ^ O) J O ° c 3) "•£= TJ '"^ -*- "X C -4. <D C2i~o bi o c - .2 (i) o ^ ^5 inifaS Jnali lain I " C <D B == I* "5<D n> iu 'o § 2 | £ £ 1 o cu(-perpetuity.Based on the results of the PAR, provide a non-wasting endowment or otlu •o0) OJ 1 G)-C mechanism acceptable to the Planning Director and Wildlife Agencies, too.c "o en "do 'c •o o ia)D)ocoE ^'c0)|o "5 'c o o co .c _>. CD .O B 5tocoo •a O)•E ,-^ C open space lot(s) in perpetuity.The PAR analysis for the open space preserve shall account for all of the meO)_c f= 0 C m management items identified for all Carlsbad covered species, including thstrategy identified in MHCP Volume III (see EIR Appendix A.3).a> 1-i_ jCooCD O.D "ai 1 <D £'b .g B•go £ b &a O) '•5ob)o B (D UC O S o .3it 6 0 "wT B fl}u provide evidence of transfer of fee title or easement over the open spa<each respective Phase) to the selected conservation entity.ing of Open Space Dedication:£ <1) -ZJD O - "5 (U : ^ -^ - C O0) —t Villaae - PA 23D and 23E. An ooen soace and/or conservation easemorded over PA 23D and PA 23E with the first final map (master final map)n 02 S! Eo b)o 01 bo.(DCt •a o01c o cg C 0 °_ "5" & <u o | I a "» 0 01 >•c u o aa 3C O"o & < u. 0) CE .2 TJ 0 11cr<a,« o 41 i-i >. tK *on Measure:•= Mil uT <*3 $cs «<n£ b 0- 0 the final maprior toissuance ofd and/or beneficiary of the easement shall beother management body acceptable to the Citylue to hold maintenance responsibility for restored5 Msis; si time, titleconservaticdeveloperVillage. At thattransferred to theof Carlsbad. The'c <D 8 E grading perfor the EastVillage.ling areas until the success criteria for the restoredd maintenance responsibility has been transferred,age scrub restoration located within the habitate responsibility of the East Village developer) shallC C 3=3 °. "o .i S" 1 R ovt fc O •=0) c U -5 c E ° «Z o a-5 o 2 5> .c o >ft/i,-0 o S ts<u p o a>or revegetated aor revegetated arAn easement forcorridor on the WP o £ 10 o Prior tomaster final map) for the East Village,and/or conservation easement shall be recordeda 8 £ 8.c i/l "a cs a•£ o * ' 5to < '> A CN also be provided \West Villaae - PAQ, B1-,5^ « 2 1 £ _ b° a. o recordationthe final maprior toissuance ofthe West Village. The timing of this dedication isle coastal sage scrub restoration program that willthe Parkway Nursery lease, within PA 23C. At thatary of the easement shall be transferred to theo - o .y a ° § 1a <u •« m 1 3-2 * !T ^ <u c.£ > £ o o S o |over PA 23C withrequired with thebe implementedtime, title to the'c 0) oa E grading perfor the EastVillage.snt body acceptable to the City of Carlsbad. Theenance responsibility for restored or revegetatedhe success criteria for the restored or revegetatedesponsibility has been transferred.E -i -s «OJ 0 "£ ya) E D £ 111° '55 -2 ai c fill° 1 1 2>• 0 „ <B conservation entideveloper shall careas within theseareas has been mo oH) u E 1 1 £ 2 £>en space and/or conservation easement shall beo c to •a 0 m a. I 9)0 U W)at S 0) "^ O) 06o ^.= <•5 ^•* <N IS ^ b 0 D. O recordationthe final maprior toissuance ofthe first final map (master final map) for the Westd and/or beneficiary of the easement shall beother management body acceptable to the Cityuie to hold maintenance responsibility for restored•P M-sis<"> £ S —<N <B o < ° S -Sn. .2 ill & ° - S T,< 0) £ $ S3 E o $<N w= o -a recorded over PAVillage. At thattransferred to theof Carlsbad. The'c a i grading perfor the WestVillage.ling areas until the success criteria for the restored1 maintenance responsibility has been transferred.2 £2 o 0) |j <G t .c c IB S 1 or revegetated aor revegetated arm o a< aa. I .cucosx. I 1Oa: E Db)o CL O)c H)tY. T3 O Dl O cC 00^3:c {2 fl* J! "" 0 f g M 3c a-O 01 01 CE .2 P O•o _u 3 a a: 3 t otC™ >«c 2 ^ ft *C PSo01 £ 0)5<rta icos:aO) I Spillfillil? <c c (b•S g1-,O = u?o 5 ^ 1 s 8> Uj CS y^ ID Q) Q.o £c oo 8 (/> -0 *tr >* 2 § | 1 i 1 1 c .2 a. Si i 8. x" "> S ^=3 <l> — _i .£ D) ^_c cc mc Po -iQ- a >. Q.IS Q)0 Q 1 1 I i= 0 0 .0 °- <D ui0 ^ u & liMfl> C~ S" a °5 en o c "5 g =iu | £-000 £- C**) -C UJ 0 £ "(D ° f S1 §0-^£ ^ O =5 O V> f- > "*~° i -D "°OJ 0 « ® ^ « | E= ^ c ==a 2. cj .ic•5 ^r a c•« 8 •- •- 1 3 1 1 § 5 1 o•B -g =5 E° E o -T-> ^ g <»a) "5. _ -2 §^ I rr Q- -D ^ « -D -2 Z 0> .CD D 'c O S 0) •^ "5 _i 1 1 ~c. c o S -ouS in m Do>u_ C O c 0 o o •D 00 "£'c o i S § -Sa a E §am shall berate restoratiIIIs O <jj ' I =S D •- T3JD <D 2 0o aD -D _i o> _ :; 2£ =a & - t §) a | o | § § 2 'E Illii !!^5 = ^ .y « gb > E 15 Q. 73 n tS<U 0 U <U C U SQ X U "O O < &. to 'c c ra '• =-2 a _ -2o 5 (J o(D n ^ ^ <D U E ! « S ^ E 1o <u JJ 5 o o a>Z > ^ Si. Q Z > ID c a (D . O) (b rn'O (D =•CO n c: _c~ ^ t~ o t/t "o 2 '> "o D --.!. O O ^~ H_2 -S roS'^ ^ID 2 D^Pr-^-OlOn ^ o|l§)c"5c-§lo 7'~x2o-5;:s:.c<u -§ d aaJ>«2o = o §,= .§. g C--OEO>^§ b S||-S°1|£ 2 o $ I fi c o -i | ^1 ll°^8l.||tE*3 5a>c=E°-§) i"g2~ I^l»8a3§£85>'S.ca)0-5^u^ -QOOO^g-gQJC — 'o -llot-*E|l? o£o^|s|§£u|(D(l>^_c<rC; — >u.c^-QU O ^= ^ *" — • •*"p^-^^i §E"2 s — i I r J-$ i 1 i | s 1! "c (D 3" O °^ >• CO (1) f- <N m cU s • 1 CO a< m i^c al ^3 IO I oa: O CT1 O) 1(Ua; O D) O c^o "oO) c §-=„~ Vt Q) Q) J o "a-o ""(5 f 5- £ 01 "5 oro at 5 uu 01 CE.2 i=010 ~ 0) —as O ® _ 2 C l|fO. C a.tii O5 s <U a01 coso •2" t Q, C Q. 5» ~ n P ^ E S tt — «, ]c 'c CO, C §.'O O) O >? B i a §u "C o) o -^sic £ s -ft c(D n O D 0) -S; O> uj Q Z > 5 Q y y ^ 0 ^ 0) cjp. a> Q-u £ u £ 68 68 (U *~ ^ Q- c cbBoS £2-c iltlil • illll C -Q £ "p C 0 Q •£: 1 1 1 1 . 11Q_ Q J Cu ,-i Q. O D Q 8 '1 2 U Q 1 .i1 3 I -Q„ , o y o ^c o o c Si•° u 1 '-5 a= t | S 2 i" S c' 1 'II 2 .2 c 5 73 "o 5 a a -j= 5 c ".c m "S ^ "5- ~o Q '» o Is? X -Q o (D D O^ = Q£ Q- -Q Q)c '5 c S" S n&? s ^51 ? S 1 11! i?? HiQJ *" Q Jt, Li <~~~ o **— o c* "o m -Q < " o £ f ^ D J2 £ ^- . Dl *~ O ^4-< <5 o .g £ o ' f S °" "5 "'So^ 0) to a n "^< > o 2 a 2 "o "§ 0) ^ ° S" "=i c <u .g 'Q § (u .2 •° Z '^ § 2 o feo o c c a a« >• o 2 ? = ora — fl> '-R ^ >-» 3 ? ?> o -2 « 5 1 i > §> -2 §w ° 2 £ o 'c z lib I 8 5 I (U o ,0 •a Co J>a T3cD T3 2ba0)a £"5.cto o o i >. .£ T > O =,— ' ^ ^ u o Q 01 3 O) ~ ° 1>a o •£ £o .» a> >r •§ E -a « £ sSs $ >3 „ -£ P idor currently sT program shala requiremershall be appi55£ | ~ § * &o S - o c!?i S.2 E » D> §1 1 :. i E s ^B a> _ oc n ^ "S£ S S S~ — te *- * ^ri -S1 1 £ § -d VI =^ f- Si< u CN Q_West Villaae - Itj z o.«, >• "a 55 a J o CD b (i ^f— n ** JJ? "*~ (D O U the portions ofactivity and thyear maintemapproved sue D)C tOa 0) •a o c o 1 cg BOi c 0 ° i 5 ^ o «" o O) >•f 0 a« 3 C ffO ID S it! 0) CE 5 '•= 0•o o 213 a. fK 'S flf3 ctf» ™ >, c £ *• O_ *C i?« 0 oc Mitigation Measure>E 2 t S ^ *-Agencies prior to the commencement of any clearing or grading associated withimplementation of the proposed West. The restoration program shall include sitepreparation guidelines, implementation monitoring, performance standards, long-termmaintenance and monitoring methodology, and contingency measures with acommitment to funding. However, this component of the restoration plan will be less ]extensive than that identified above (restored slopes and 10-acre restoration area).| consisting primarily of hydroseeding, and with limited plantings, with the goal to re- j1 introduce native vegetation into these areas. This program will be implemented upon theexpiration of the Parkway Lease (which expires in August 2006 and which will not be1 renewed).1 1Upon the expiration of the Parkway Nursery lease, the entire habitat corridor along theSDG&E easement will be subject to a conservation easement and managed as openspace, except for those specific activities SDG&E undertakes within its utility easementconsistent with SDG&E's operation and maintenance requirements. Management of the.corridor is anticipated to be performed by an independent private or public conservationentity experienced in management of biological resource areas. The amount of fundsrequired to manage and ensure long-term biological integrity of the habitat corridor will bedetermined by a property analysis record (PAR) based on the specific requirements andpotential for urban stress on the corridor. Standard protocol for funding of such corridorsdictates that a non-wasting account (endowment) be set up by the owner of each portionI of the property (East Village; West Village) for their respective portion of corridor to bemanaged.10 <5 coaD <DOco o w E 01c"cco Q_ ^U j The re-introduction of coastal sage scrub vegetation to Area C (in Table A, as provided in'c (D I5 P BS Q .1 SaE Q O 0) — Q. C"£r O O Ills a'S - §O S 2 az c0>£•cOa a Appendix D to this MMRP) will commence upon completion of grading within the corridor.g a O (Dz > cg D a>uc O o Q Ccoa. ^D LU CO ^B & o (UOlo 2 enoou 'o o o 1 [c i c.0 B "5o S S o D J3 I £ 3u_ sz1 — a< "5 Co o jzucoC£ Co Eo01o OaCD O O co BO) cc £ o E E ° "> 0 0»- 0 §.t: 3C 0-O 0) 41 C i= "5•a o So.3 acr< So II, o=5 at O °"41 5fl£itigation Measure5 fill if tltllt* 'jc CDO)2 - (U ID a£ a z .g a ou O „;•,_ •_ o>O v> O) 1 I 5 Si 1O iT 5 CCDE baCDa cCDCD 15 15CD 1/1 CDTS ne that grading for the future resi'e is completed.•-C O) £ > fcm .»—o S il ±=s C -C °to ^"T aC) ^a: c n °u UU a. if CDO D)"•= D0 .=.y 5 1 s> UJ c c I'l. 120 '= C B O u BOO Prior to therecordationa final mapissuance of?c'C CD §1E b>- CL= CDu a VI f— to •— Su ^ oU _ CM 0 c CD -2 0> -S z ® c c•F o .2.y 0 2 * r g».- >- CD~ W Q, r- rrv ™nap or issuance of a grading pei5 an in-lieu Mitigation Fee {Catecanagement Plan and City Counc-^5"5 3 = I 2o^2 0 ° X .1 1 ">-a " b ^ ^ CD8 8 £ £ a B S f- O —-*— "-' n_ QJ ^ hi— *- "^ O iC O •«— U co"w i2 <D o.Q- ^= 00 CN CO "*§ -^ , 1 grading perwhicheveroccurs first.CD 0 22O Us S> 20 00 O ° ~ °1 1? > = CD*- > D)a Fee: East Village = 0.76 acre; We:Fee: East Village = 0.52 acre; West: East Village = 0.00 acre; West VillcO C CD '•*— O CDO 3= u- O) O cS _ai o C ^ Q,0 T3 -cI § 1 CD "D -QO) O r-0 0 § Q> t/> n> D 2'-+= -^ DD "*~~Z. ^ 3i O U§ ^ bZ LLJ < • • • .•g •_• 0) ~ I81 o ^CD .O > CO O CD | "5 O Z > S Q Z - CD UD O uoCO II CDO)5 > CD OJo0oto 00II OUJ 'CDCDu_ C.0 S)i T1 ^iB "5 -*— D(j a) ' — o B1 oa(Da: T3 D O) o cg O3> c§^5c w> di d> 2 Z c w» Uw Ol >•ll c o-0 1, < u- 0) C « n• wt3 O& —.i Q-5 a. oe "5 .2 01J3 C'S — xC O -fc 0 ±E 0 5*0*" £5 Mitigation Measure||||l| C 01O 01 0 §.y s Q) n> .a c .i o 5 o ""5 0 O) J •g ol-i SS. c € 8 1 TJa c c tii .o .c oi •'•= 5 c 01= a> -Q •— •i "H "2 1 "c 0) DQ aic -^• *u "* S |S §uj O u- a.o 5 n a c g,.2 §B q?0) o > E fe "S D Q) -5?Z > S c .2 -2 n .2 U trt ^= 7j _. 3 •«— $ o ^ c "5> j^ c/5 5 x! 5 oa ^ a. .£ "O u '_c i JD Q Ol.£ ~-. t/> QJ f£ C ^ D) nj 5^ D u- Q-o 5 a a - 0)Eoz o igSfea =) S 2 01 ai "D c a ° E*- .y s o<J o> .-2 5:.^. o c >. it 5 2 U > avoid impacts to adjacent open space habitats during construction all impacted open>ace interfaces will require construction fencing, which clearly delineates the edge of thepproved limits of grading and clearing and environmentally sensitive areas beyond. Thisincina shall be maintained for the duration of construction activity. Implementation of thisH- bi O ^ m "c Eba0)Q leasure shall be verified by the project Biological Monitor and reported to the City ofarlsbad Planning Department concurrent with construction.E 0 impacts (including construction staging areas and access routes) to prevent additionalhabitat impacts and prevent the spread of silt from the construction zone into adjacenthabitats to be avoided. Fencing shall be installed in a manner that does not impacthabitats to be avoided. The applicant shall submit to the Service for approval, at leaslseven days prior to initiating project impacts, the final plans and photographs for initialclearing and grubbing of habitat and project construction. These final plans shall includephotographs that show the fenced limits of impact and all areas (includingor demarcated limits of impact, all work shall cease until the problem has beenremedied to the satisfaction of the Service. Any upland habitat impacts that occurbeyond the approved fenced shall be mitigated at a minimum 5:1 ratio. Temporaryconstruction fencing shall be removed upon project completion.— a O)o ct D) Ia>o; 73 D O) I cc o0 ^Sc £ — — -c ^ o«" (J Ol >•f gO 01 "c ffO 4) «5 it 41 C Is B13 0 || I! £ 0)S .c o =| o9" o "•41 Soe *•Mitigation Measureo "5 o 2 s § lit III, C CDo 01 1 .i.y 5 | 8> UJ '.c § •Re o cu O n O ^c c - 0 1 |z > s CD 'c BQ ) c O c o -2 .£ i- — ° us oi c» y CD 1 o a73 o o) .5 c d s .y o, "; ^ .2 92 .£ b "° c -j= > — cB ° 1 s -8 § o "O ^CD .2 & 8 o £ 73 Sob o 8 s d) d) c X & E U O> Ol c ~c llQ- O>. Q.X= CDU Q °> ® 1 > — "~ O CD ° "» '^ SCD 0 73 £ O 2 73 O..- o o „, £ CD <U 0'c ° •§ 5 E 1 8" ^ Q £ d) "c o ^ S "o o "^22 .0 s= o o -2 1 2rj O ^ Q. -Q Q Q Z 1 ~ O 0 0 -2 Q o 'a E ®— F I | >- Q 0 0)S c CD 'c § a i/> °"-C ° n *~ O 73" 2: o *u _- o O 'c "S 0) O ti •1 S o o 2 5o > *• a 5 u -o U ^ » oij f— t/> C ^^0 .C £ S <D £• 'o> ./> R S E bO CD u «" CD 1 11 1 § 1 » ° > § £^c 2 § - 1 I S 1 Illilll ^ C n C <? 73 ° °< c E £ ~ CD ° .£ _ £ D .C *!°spEi2 .c -g) o J 3, = > 73 O U O O y> O O <P £ CD § < o> !Q Q. o E u U) m — C1 1( ] i -4 J ( -t-1 C1 CD I f Xc( ((t (!1 C M; i ! i• c> i i 1L ij j i ' fi ••*• ! : «*C nhi £1 1 £ "£!(5 t ( ! j Ucc 0 "c 7 j £ C (J £ 'i 7 ( I I 1C J'i c 1 c1 1 !c(. a ; c• { 1 j '. \ t cJ C S) (: I c l• c) ( £, t— •* ({ . J ^ C ( ! icj V'• ( V* ^L (. {; C ; 'i1; i '. (| i • 1. j i! l ( J i 'i • J ; h : i : : ! -i i i 1 ' i ji_" c » •*;§ ' !j ; 1 7(^!1 I( : (, ^ c- £' C ) 1 ? i ! T !1 c.. *. c 1 ; ! 1 ! ) "; i ! Ji i! i C^ C i" : — ' 1 1 1 •" ((( J 7 ( ! ^!( 7(^; ~ < ; TJ : ii ! 7> ( S,. 1 S i- <; ii <, i : i i 7; 3 £" t ^ I j j i |i j i i) :) , ) i) .1 | -i ; ( C ( f( 1 ! i 1 I 7( i c " c : £c( • 7' E, ( 1 (r £ ; <,c : i i i '• ': 7( 1 c: < c S. : ^ i ( r v 1 ! ; ci) .j l - ( ! 1•*<*• !C i 7([ 'i4c'c . ; ; c: s c£ > = .!'it n -£ ; iCl> '1 I : ( i i 7 j J ( ! ( ., J l ( ! j i > c \ } li > i 1 C i ^ M 7 J ! 7 r : '1 i ! | ! 7i ^ 1 £ . !! j i cI .j : 1 ) C: •* : 7 "cjC ) C .5"((,c t (( ( (Jh ( c( V t( > ( > 1Ji( ( j Cc - t; £ (j , ii Tc . ( " 1 i : i 1 J 1: i 1 J • 7 • J D >: t i i j i> c: c t • "l i li n : i 7 i ! L 7 > £: j : * ; < ! . uI C, c1 £! tS J ! <i +. c: t i j < : 1: s C!: i > j i . tc i < : ( ( . !! C ( 7 ; i ! ii .; J 71 ( 1 t i i.i i i j | 1 \ (1 ^1 * )LI j :i i > t 1 j ^ | ( : ! ^ <' _: ( C L £ i C I ' (> u '- i. cL I, c' Q 1 £ i 1 (> a: iY.1 1 : 7 !i .j ! 1 : C > <; f ^ S' c : c c ^ i . ~4 E " ( t 1 L * 1 [ ! ! i - C i 1• £: ci ! j i; ! : '1 > : '( ! '^ M : c dio > <i7!£ : > '•f :na C)J j : - \\ 'li 1 Tlc: c > • o o ci !F 01 '- (1 2 li: () : cT 7 1: £ :I! | 'ii Mi i c6 t 1 8 o8CN Q. aa>o Q- O) aoa?. T3 O D)C 1 .0 "a01 cnilO ft" g Q 5 0 || c a- 3£ 01 CSo1- •=1= O•o o•S3£Sa> —C£ O .2 o>.a c wSoQ) ^ 4)5(A CosoO)s Iliiik C D .S D> S 5 1st > LU 0 || aJ "5.U F5 8 Q.„_ Oo 5t; 1 ?! S £ 2 £ B 5 Ilili o> J. C cC <UC P Q) ^o •£ c o Q- O "C 7j>. a c £ .t (1) O .£U Q E D 0 -^ <U — .cf£ 1 1 i0 « "" S £ ~ £ ® 0 irc ._ E c ^ « £ -4= O o "c 0) B D <D O) i -g 4)TJ'1ai^ § 1 1 1 1 s | 2 o D £ | CD > *- p™ >• Oi -g S= O 0) (D l- ;: D •= 0 = Q,£ c a .Q § ! ? if ?5 <u c o §siiu1 « o £ o5 - c 0) U « 0 .2 < 0 I § S 1 2••r s: O T3 u | 2 "S S 0 «*- O) QJ CN . "c := £ ° K 0 T t" •?; ° i 0 £ g ! till £ | | ~ '| 9 C.) "D s » - o §B-7 This measure requirproposed project. TVillage shall includeoffsetting mitigationwithin the West Villc0 Q) Q) •ri(D T3 ! 5o ^ £! UVI _ HTE <*and 0.61 acre of soiin Appendix E of thisc m •2 21 o i Z > uj 8S a. a.D a ,tj O -4^. "X a S 2 <O T3 O- Q_ 0) J.C c C 0) C E CD w2 -c .c o Q- O C 7j>. a c 2.t (D O .£U Q 5! Q T3 0> = T3 "c ' IIo 5i> .y ^ 0 0 '§ |Q Z > £ <? ^a. a.n a ~s O <D '£ tu^ Eo oQ Z 0 C O S J2 £ o E « S ° £ allies ^ O a> -2 S c 5 B jz ° 0 | 3 5 B «-c E *~ ° S— * o o c -D ao c cc o c O (- t 12 c "" E - •£ -so •- ^ a o ;; oj S C <" ° C 0 Z.-C (D y <D O -= <D * ^ 0 « U | S o 3 § "° 2 | ^? .i -5 1§ a = a CT ;§ "o ° Q c E I | & £ I ? a S ~ * o £ 3= 1 f 1 1 s i ••=- Q U O S ^— (N•jr (j o 'K O <2- ±; tl^= ^ T3 TJ0 .c ^ <D1! si A 1 00-foot buffer froreductions in bufferthat a buffer of lesiinclude, but is notu Q) <D "53 £ -° ||1 D) nj "S .9 .c (D "^ "*~ U 0 0 i 0 || ill — Q) "Oc £ c :•= t3 «EDO 2 g Ol0 g and Reporting Picb 'co2 ^.g Bg>i Isljs o z E ° 5 0 O) >•c u™ c0 a II <u c 1=0•o uST-5. <!o 1 «".0 c ^_s|K *tion Measurea •i1 5 L_ X l\\\\\_ - Z=-Q--S*«< - (U 1 81 | 5 '£ 5 -g > £ 0 c O na -Q aJ "au E8 8 ° ao 5 $ 0 1 . > *2 2 5 '•§ « 1 1 ! I I 01 J..c c c Q^c E o) •_O t- C O 5! o c t3>^ Q. C m.-fc w o .£O Q 5! Q suit of the Westthe East Villageoject), or withinagencies. Asnt area so as toItll£'=••= o 3 5. | 8> I s 'c 0)Ba diO)o on of future on-F of this MMRP).ig Director shallpproved by the'•= V •- O8 '-s i -a* i* s Illl „ o•z. S ^^ 2 o » ^c c •D> | UJ Jo |_ 9- b ^sl^g«|^l8lSo<Bg'Ty§-«DQ.|'o .sf B^srsl^ gi.s«Bi^^^is^^og a '5 | § £ £ - ^ g = % E £-Doa<u5£p-c^<-o1 l!Is!iti!I S f 1 =g f - § 1 .! g I !- o „. o a «i ^-sEQo 1 1 1 8 S S o 5 o c 1 o c c 2 D .S> P. ~ 0HIP ! ! 5 M E § c B o Pfi'llmil i c 5 ° •& ± .2 S •2 S o | lill "*~cO— </»Pno^g 1 -i ^ £-=.0-^:5 •^ogE<ug<°D ^Da -CE-nO^-II 1 1 i * To i i §£ § all J|IIIIiMls 2 2:1 § 1 «E 3> 3 California Departienhancement or i2) can also constita< o inco5: o £LO Oex cO Eo b)o en.c Ba0}C£ T3 o O)c co oO) c§-£.i sllJltS•^ o"» (J ?£s S C O" 111 CIIIt5 o.cr<0) —a: o ^ 0)JO C M ™ X ||I<n O £ S Mitigation MeasureII III 1 _ ZC.O..E « § * O ^5u 5li 'c V"5Q .»! s! i"D U O) .£ J= o 1 | 1 2 § S 1Q- .£ "O O) O C O Prior to the firsigrading permiand duringconstruction.O) 7*^c c *c Q) 5 t ffl '0a. a s c 'c I!o :§4) O > 1 11 BZ > £ Q 10 o O "viC <D 01 C Hi §mjiol O O Q) *• ~ (U tS E. 2 | S ~ '§• §r> a 5 o S a o >- a ID <i>±r (U ™ O">U Q S < i- — i/, -nO O ^"i y u, _ _ _D n it ~o .c (U .^requires, per the HMP, no clearing of occupied gnatcatcher habitathat will result in direct impacts to sage scrub or which occurs within 300 feetge scrub shall take place between February 15 and August 31 unley the Wildlife Agencies after consultation. Since the project's focusisurveys were conducted in 2001, updated protocol-level surveys shall 1i longer than one year before the initiation of project construction for the E<subsequently, no longer than one year before the initiation of projefor the West Village, to provide an accurate mapping of current occupiiveys for loggerhead shrike shall also be conducted concurrently w;urveys.(D *~ O .QIs; C VIS .2 -n "a S o « S £ £ ^ _§ •j= o o : 00 •<*• CO *- T •C 73 §0 0) o £ <u-be CDS -J ^_ o "" JH i B o•£ ±= .y O O C c <D'I -0 0) o ==o u ^. £ 1 -O <u nZ > iu 1. ^1 o 'o.Q D 2 £ .!2 O 'c 1 1 "c I!a •?(U U >c ic: -^ <u o ai .$ BZ > S Q 0 o .< o O>O>Q-_QU_ o v> 0) 'u= Ci 8.5 < C (B J.0 -C ^i) o ja £.nd construction cannot be restricted to outside of the breeding seas:onservation measures shall be implemented, subject to the approval of tcies, to ensure that no impact to this species occurs. Avoidance of noi:cts to occupied habitat can be assured through implementation of nothods (e.g., a noise barrier or wall) to reduce noise within occupied habitat1 60 dBA and/or as allowed by the Wildlife Agencies. Implementation of t1 be verified by the City of Carlsbad Planning Department concurrent w5 S •i •§_ "*• JD 2 = ~ 11 o <u Z E £ "§- o £ 0) 0 ^ £ 2 o ^7, 0 D U 3 "^ E 8 a Eob>oat gtOa m O D)c O |5co™oO) I c o ~ |||I "> o ?£ 5£ 1&0 41 41 CP o~ '•=•- oTJ .0 "§ Q. 4) —a: O 4) » C |i S. |l d> VIa41 5•co x •JJ S — 'S ^ TJ c ^ E 2 ft- •">_ r c.a£ «Verification:Easf Village0 5 '_C ffl .0 '_c •• 0)If0 f0) o •*• E 1 y £D (I) ^ OZ > S Q i . 0) a S 1 1 1 1 Q- .£ "D D) O i S '1 3 1 o 5 — " m 4)v/ e o) jy^ O C) -Q | &g | O) "^ *c QJC ^ 032 t a> 'u i g-51 o> "5 § § II 11 a. o & c^ a T3 <U••= 0) = O)O D $ < •5 d — ^(D O 75 C) 5 - -C 2II -^ - § i ^° "^ D"o •= .w .£ '> j 9 "0 il si * c' if 0 'o -0) if" " "C It; r C S 2 2 c _ (U <B •£ f 1 E f S "o c -^ .1 S | £ r 1 1 g "*~ D >aJ ^ 2 2•— ^ o c n* *^" o 2 -c § - ^ ^ fl~ O -i_! s ^| I cies. Focused>sed within 300Dired to ensuremeasures arec Q. °" oo Q CD .y < a aj ° Q) -— O "D != X. ij. 0) H!i fill!'•§ = §a a> c cQ- o o o 11 || •*~ fi-t .— Q (J QJ (]} "-^ ^ i fli C- *" c~ CD J 1 1| m ^- "*"" T"D ° .2 a 2 o JQ c£ 22 D - -0^1= 7= f~ Q o "*~ O "c ^i- •! ^ U .SQ=OQ-O^'o^ fE $ Q..E 9i S>^£ 0- ca 10CO P JS C « T3 1 § | 1 1 lifii£ o * ° ° « ^ o 3 8ID T3 S ...E .2 <"> c .£ ° 3 'F S "->• - 8| S^ $ ° C 0)^c .c .0 c •=if in 5 s R ^ ^ | ° j c 2 1 III 1 o a 01 ® ^ 1 | | a o o 1 i | | O O) ^ n — ^ -— Q. -C Q- *: C ^ "^ "O O^ ^ -^ c • £ a - 2 "§ 1 oj2 **_ Q) O "5 CLO Q O n~ Q^ | | S I | | "5. § ^ 2 o §.s t^ B y o si o D)O Q_ O) UJex.•o o O) o oO) cC O0 -.= .g. I/I Q} w S o S- ° "» (J O) >• •^ co u£ 3 C O"O 0) "" V CJ.2 •o oI) •| a a: 'o fl) IPS-o°-<o 5a: * a5</» Oat5co 0_OI i li |ol |_= Z5.Q..S < < ••= C 0)o ra l*« 1111 1 C ,-:O Qa -2 CD "au g o 8 O) c <D -S .Q •^ "O o t)O QJ w D •*--!— O) ^ 51 "5- r S 3 O -C wj) o a o o,_ 1 1£i>. a « o **• ^ c 0 c d) r -^ ^ ^ -^- 3 ^i_ -^ OJ 0 c o i- ' a) -2 I •§ | O) 'c O) ? •- ° n ^ fc 1 || | 8 f 1 | 1 !iiill all m" *~ c ^ •— O """ B Q.i * i 1 1 2 | -| o>r 1 y | a « c^.§ Oa^c^nj*- (DO oS§^|^" £a.S!_ s ^ *". ! c ° -| | *-^a3ocD -i^^-Tj0^-5 '-^ u "5 u°o' II ||ll f||. iijiSf jisl '|^5"Smfcl ° 1 "5 '^Qj=={liT5-C^^ vi. £ (D i~lli|||J|l v>cc"n-^Qj >p.cQ. Ic O O ^ o Q- :ss ^cOQ.h-uui/>.2(x>£ Qaua o tO m "c cf JJ ' ' 2 21Q 5 ^o > oS "ft ® £5 aj o 0 > ^ Q Z 0) 1 D 5 I . .c i 5 CD12 "a^U-l CJ o 0 cg _a> o p" ""i Q OcO gb)oit01 oa.(U O OT O 1 OO) s.J— v> oi <U *lf I | °- o at >•£1o a J"~ V01 14! 41 CEO_ •«"- O•a u 21.3 a 01 —ae O — OIj9 cM °w V» O=5ago.M Oat 5otf 25Ma01 c£ B.2" o i u | i l tlilll? 0 0) B §.y 5 !£ t; 22 c |lJ <1) Q) Q. c 1o 8 <D Prior to issuancof gradingpermits for Easand Westco1!c aO 0 al Q •5 T3 73 00 (U <D5 & s 1^ o E i— a o > ^" .^ o "S O ? ^ ^T -— LrtJE s 5 -2 51 ^ =5> :=* .^ c T3 O -° ? C 0) >. a 0 o 0 ® "> "o 2 •§ O 'Q* •— j-j ^ O C^ °- •- D o 1 $ 81^ »- C 00 O O = o Ti Q- o— 3 o "J ~ T3 w 0)E C (D -C ISIl T3 0 °g jz — aj 01 x 0 0 ° > ? Q0 D S C fl) ^ O> ^u o c oc .y T3 2 S .2 <u c•- -R 5 8rt) _Q _ -^ a ® ° S> 01 oQ) {— r— 1 i 5 1a. > T3 T3 CQ rxCO S 0 § sa> fo|| lollC "^ £r Q) O +- £ J3 .jj C _Q fl> -C (D ^ o >, — -^ £ CD i- -Q 1 I ^ 1<5 = o ""% o | i ^ C '- 4=0 .2 o „ -i o c .2•S 3 0 U^111882010 0 § ai- -c o o 5 S ° ^a 0 . %>- j -a -2— Si 0 ». £ S a °s ^ i §5 « «> 3 a> ! -E 8o -g "o 01D 2 C .C ^" ^? (D '"D o « ^ 2 'o — '•= ° •- •*•0 "> 0 — 5 « a 0 53 g».S S D .2 S 3 ^ Q C O II o ^ o 55^? oz > s: Q 0 — <S"5 T3 J3 ^:^ 0 £ £ £• 1 1 a 1 1 c 1 -S '5 "u c£ 0 0 0 »- Q_>- 0 = 0) 73oca- - -a T? i 01 a ° o" •£ o 2 c >• =• <D U^0 £ 0 D O "^ "n ^""D iu -0 D .2 "° C ^* ££! u= O 0O u > C 0 00 fe -Q-S- Oill III111,- c „_f 8 o 2 0 o ~ *~ "'o -^ 0 "•*- "c m E § II 0 0 0 n"*~ U — <~* in ~5. S: Q i - 0 O I "ot^ a Q- u oa:co Oa: o O)oit O) T3 O O) Co I DO) g^l "• <J O.X •i co <u:E 3c or0 0)S £ o> c E-5v=BTJ Osi5 Q.<T<0) —oc O II*o =s 5Q. C Q. tfl O ae * £5vt 01115 S Bo> o 1 u 1 « 1 P i tl 5 1-_ Z C.5..S << C Q)O O) 8 1 § ga £3 a. <u Q.o £c oO o ca> 2 [- 'O .C Q i 11 1 C O) C'c .g o .2 S ta. c O£ ? ? &U a is a ^ -Q 'in 'S~ ^ ^ C •Q O C U O '"u *" '^ 1 tj QJ ^y >J d) Q. *" g 1 § 1 S •;= i— i '? O »£ fl) f O £ •*" _C , T m CQ) -*i 0) . "C a, ? 1 £ ^ " I H!I 11 ! « & 'o "^^- •*" -^ O > QJ > -•— _O 0 C* ^ O I C "O ^ Q. O ^ xl (U m '~ " C fl) O Q ^ O) ~n o> o = cc -; o o 'K al D> £ B o E 1 r 1 1 £ i £ c "D 5 "- •" -^ ^z S i to nan ..b= u"-^^1-caj> -0^ •ft | § B || 1 § I * | 8 .c xj- 1— =j o)£ o 0-5 ^'ao-g |'^^(D'^C>^"CC- iiiii!r-r^O^-^1^ — mfllfe ~(J*'^C.i |, 1 | as |||^««<||S c c1 "O "ci .p o n ^ rri O n'ance and/or mit1 measures (e.g.,1 use of the corrkif these criteria (i1 1 I 1° =5 1 a; | ™ I o IlII CM aa 00CQ <D fl) -C — O ;?^2c"°'o'o5i»dj ^O^C O^ QO-tf|C;--^c^ptn uo s'7siR'S®*Es1 c 1 8 us | 8 1 1 1 ^S O "^Ot*~^r=^^"SQ"S ° i ^sSE^Eo0!-^D> •— -Sa3S — = £T3a33 = Eo^iEo::)*"<1)o^ oo i! t 2 1 -- & .2 I 1 o ^.2. -S |2SSgio|l^S Q. Q) $ i/iO-'r1^ n^_^ CD '£5 O '"f: CL) 0 i Qi C 1) ' "t y (D ' O£ D O « 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ri 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 § i obioit a> (DIK r> o O) co Io.01 cc oo ^s f. Vt 01 <tf |||0 " 0 _o a) "c trO 0) a> e i= 0•o o21.3 aS"_ae O £ 0)A c•5 — >.C O -fc0 » 0ago.wt O £ i/io1co3=Ogi »- -n -S Q. C Q. S 5 o P ^ E ^ Q.— • o - £ £S >• "o >"O -Q (1) o ^ SC "S ^ =£ ^ "Q. R ® E 2._ E o 0 = ° ">o c o isis 2 & 0 o 5 « •S c 2 §01 a 5 — • o £ c ^O. = i= >- g "D E d" ° "oS *" " <^ c "Sg .S2 -1 O) o O) D1O co ^ 1/1 > P "* -T-, tl <U O E 9^ ^ ci >«**~ ^ o ^ • -Q S = ^ "c c -n S -fe- "S O •'S '> 3 S |f S 1 »| £II 111 111 1 1 1 1 £ l i 1 1O^C *®S1SD-C|= Ui 03 g O-J g = 0 I O) O) C .£ S .2> c X Q^ Q »— "D t of Carlsbad PI>roposed undercwildlife corridor!= 35 O QJ in5 r a >• Q- 1 ^ (1) ^ Qj /i\ Q) (DA O *""" 7; (U "~ O Qj"•*• t~ O £ ••= T3 j= « r 2 O) D 1 '§ "8t <u )=<D c ° t; *= "o 1 '>O GJ »o8CN a gu>oa.cn ba(Ua; TJ Oa> 1 .0 i1i c 0 -c~£ « * o| |o O) >••§ =5 Q) •!£0 01 "" Z S .1 ="- 0•a .0 P2 0 II 0 •« 0a c it» o Q£Mitigation Measurell«l*1Q. C Q. ^ ^ oc ^ E ® ft._ z =.a.E «(•< c.0 B_y 1 cOQ- 0)o 0 o b£ 'cc £ •»— U "ca> a measure requires that prior to approval of future building permits, each develo.££ rt flO o. CO 0)U)D 1 Q ^"aE u approval of•g ^c0 1 B il be inspected by the City's Parks and Planning Departments to determine th0 •S CM <a_a «a .c J2 1I0)Q •g developmentplans.§ 3 B 2 c .co ~o ? i £ 'c BQ 0 o b Q) __J2 C °?o c .2 •%t; -D y o10 <" 5 b)E c •§ j?- o o |• Q. O > 'o O)corridoradjacent topark site.• Additionaltrees to beplanted onpark site in<D O "n CO Q> (D > o -C — — "- ?" ^-0 -8 •& 1 s -s? =§ «ting restrictions established by the "Agreement" with the Wildlife Agencies will.c 51 ess illumination of open space areas through repositioning, redirecting (shielding,ling), and/or the use of low sodium lighting. The sports park lighting, and any pei(j n 0$ 0 ting (including low-sodium lights) adjacent to the wildlife habitat corridor si-gned so that there is no measurable (shall not exceed 3 footcandles) light spillovhabitat corridor, and a small passive use area will be included in the park's detop of slope to buffer the wildlife corridor. In areas where spillover excee>candles cannot be avoided, trees shall be located near the light standards to fil•*- fl? ®.g> -g £o oz o t spillover into the open space. The following measures shall be implemented:si :=laximum light spillover shall not exceed 3 footcandlesse of full cut-off lighting fixtures•£ Z> • • T3 mit hours of operation to 10:00 p.m. (park use)dditional trees shall be planted between the open space and residential areas a-3 < • •iture sports field light standards._; 1 .conjunctionwith park11 O (D Wildlife Agencies will provide further review of the lighting analysis prepared 1iertson Ranch Master ^Plan Program EIR and the proposed lighting plan to ensui(D -° £ 0£ ^ "° <- H | "S .£c|o'5EB 5§ O) ^_.c c a | :x a .•!= (UU Q t spillover has been appropriately attenuated..c.O) Eg01o 01 baa; o O)c .g c o — c"gl £jifs "» 0 Olg.f c *• 3 0 °" 0) C E 1= 0•O .0 »lcr<0) —a: o 5 0)f x ^ *• Q. *C (2M Ooi <s Mitigation Measure"o S o «J « 1 ° c 2 3 5 5lltlll. C 0)o en 53 18> UJ ?-'c <uc Eo -£Q. O >- 0-.t: 0 O Q - ^ • <D tw Q) U "£ "Si := "5 *•*c ^ Q- 2 lipo t 3 a <u <u t;•2 -o a> =5 S § -2 ba <u o °0 J2 0 C "c a> § coQ.D 0)uco o b (X 0) 0) T .— £ S5 ^ c — O) t£ £ 0) -2 o o 85 E 1 "fto S -Jz > s § « § §•S at a 5 <D 2 D 1>a u o)Q-£ U o E 80 Ou 'o *o o•= s: Q. 9 "i 00o of. 2 "2 £Id i s i 0 O a. ,_ = - tt> • >. £ o -° o "^ -n "^•— c3 n nI il|| !o! 1 t i a §. g 1 5v Q. .g> c o a 'o ~-O i/> '^ — (^ n i^. w nR° *-O » %'> £ - * : ~- .« o >- ^in O) o £; K!fi o ™ 5 o> 8 1 5 £ B ° S S o s o ^o w> ^ a.O ,„ n O n -55 i^ .y Q O^ o &B-14 To ensure continued use of Linkage B and all areas of biolHMP species, efforts to reduce detrimental edge effect:vegetation feature has an increased amount of edge redIf this increased amount of edge is bordered by develpotential for detrimental edge effects is high. To cormeasures are required:• Residents whose lots back onto the Linkage landsdevelopments CC&R's of the sensitivity of the adjacerof penalties for illegal intrusion (via uncontrolledlandscaping, etc.), and/or illegal dumping (materials int• Fencing shall be installed to deter open access to theopen space lies adjacent to residential development.Fencing shall also preclude (to the extent feasible]= Q T3_0) ^co 0I- "S Qu<a.Q "o 0)ooa domestic pets. Access points to the biological open sto reduce habitat degradation.i . 0) o o-oa "a £UJ "o § Q- O oa; § (Uao 9 D O) Ia> a 01 I o c o O) c2^f o> 1 § 0.0n 01 X O Q) O Q)S £ 0) CE ° '•= 0TJ O *I I1*(K *O ^ 0>n*0 S 0a £ a.vi O 0)5wts CO=ogi •| Mil = C 0)o o) 11s z: sII s 1 §S 1 g> § _ 0) « 1 g- c > §a .i o £ a (D »- 0 C § 1 i » 1 •§O -j: -Q 3 O> <X i > 1'° i 1 s£ .9 -S u $ 2 a u '5).5i o 0^ 0a. ba O — ^ c (U tX 1 Stl s|^ Q. C ^ ^ > R !^ ~" c <u P\\J ^- f— C. r \ Cl — « -p OJ D .-IM° f°ca> •= „, £ ^ oIIII §1O ^ Dl Q> Q. fill II§ o g E y - ~ >• u •- cO) 111!! IIlltlf 111=SS| 11 s 1 1 1 5 a ?o o -x 5 "a o -Qo = o o <u x _~ o c ^ $ <" o •Mill 11jp ~o ~ Q o ^9^ .S? ™ -^ . ™ CJ §_ i 'K o ^ o g- 1 g B- » s a g a> .2 -o -g D " 1 1 |- I I §" | X fli flj D ••"• Q)"n" :r~ _Q O "O *" 'c u 0) •I oo -5tt) O -*p S "co ^o '5 .5; oZ > S Q £ -i o g- -2 olisiisisi Ort°^n-— rt^*^v? s- S ^ "G"5> 0 f>— Q. aj -B 1 u _ fl) .£ OJ i 11o- O £ &U Q < 0 0 0 ! 1 1 10 0 0 | ? .2 o> '§o> o a "a B 2^ E ^aj O ~ (u § "° 5 -i£ 42 o oo c o an O *o tu= s: a Q O (j O O) "" o ~ 'Fi5S §"> O O Q- ^- 'u c b f § °- " tv n Q *U — uj »_ TI c n O ^ ^O •:= v» ~ ^ .y o - > "a •K =§ ~ c » liili c OQ ~ 3 -a.Q ^ £ o o i . o 0) c .£ O (DT3 O. »- O. ^ 'er (D ^ b> uin E 0 .32 73 CIs. 5 1 o! aj 2 S om a. 5 Q O) ^_c c I!Q~ Q^. a D Q oO^^U Q Q. i- -»-» ' <- ^ Q. ^, _Q QJ O O O CD o c o •- 2 CD a< o incos: D JZO o I Oit: 130 a &o Q_ O) (DOf. T3 D D) I 1 .0 B D) c c "g 5 5J n Q. O o 3C Eo"> 0 O) X i i C O" S£ 0* CE -2 «= 0•o o 2 a.'5 a. Sf~a: °O .2 0>A clitQ. 5 a.«f O 2 V)O «S co•£o Ol;.£ - S ~ ? a. ••§o S u «> « ?o -g o? 5 gQ. t Q. > 5 Q. tllllt* C 0) "J".0 oi =a u 5 ^!f— CN 1 1 £ C ,-: || o) "o.u P o 8 £ b n= £ Q. £ ii B 2 CD ££&!§> "i 01 «.-r- TZ u, '£ COiu c E0) 'o -2 tS c a- Op CD £. o_ § < u S i|f IS T -C R ^o) the Carlsbad 1ted open space sjnter for Naturalspace in the Scdeveloped andD / \ C CD ft jfi £ f -s 1 s 1 1 c D) EC (p C (U Q) QJ E ^ n "D D O 2 c "D o O5 ° c o -Q 3 E ~ ^— . 0 ~ w f|) 2 o c c S - 5 -i -g S S | | | § i^ § c £ J O ^ -^ 7: O•o- | o | | •a a ••= a> § u i QJ QJ ^ O) O ^ §111 ^" 9. rri "^ j-- Q) a) 8 5 cr C iC "K~ OJo 5^5z > s 9=. S c |l a? "Q.u F 6 8 2 .ctl *- a £ ° E ci||i| 5 1 I -g "S D O Q) j-I 'c ^ 3«§I^?c| i 11= 111 II 5 U !!ll*!l! If3 o> "S £ S 3 S- o "°SQ O) -n rt. -Q y? C*- Q ^ X? C QJ Q] D jE 2 • 111 j|i| O) o O Q--5 15 ^ 2 y ^ ? <u c* O ^ ,— l*~ ^ flj -^ o >- £ ^.c J3 «j m•- O) U0 ^- D C Q_ O <J U) Q "Q ill! if fill If 'c 1 - o Q _ S o E Ranch MastPlan, orissuance ofgrading per;|l! — ~ s o lall be includedital manager will. The scope of wed upon the scope"^ 55 E di III! 6 I | 1 u-9 co EE'^ODO 'O 1 .2 S ^B,5SS2QJ ^ ft O Q) oO- G) / j ~ C C £ ^ c "g 2 2 ^ £ yJ u t~ c o "5 2^ "- S"D nj o S ° T<D .!= m ,_ <- D) 1 * "g 8 B §,&s^l «°'a » « S £ 0- c t > rri ^ P <j> ° § "c t ™ CD Q O (J £ o a> CDa .c -co CD — r; <D £ o £" CD . -^ J 'c 1150 5 < C ^— "*"~ oo tt) Z > ^ 9i Q C j; || ID" "o.u £ o 8 — 2 o *-.i .. r a § ». f^ • °O O ^^\ *r > n O) l>8 $ E o c b> £ 5 J| | vJ C 2 <B | a £ o <uno•o c cC (!) O ° g> §i2 •— "^ ^ O 'K ~ <Ds g o cCD 5 E 5" c c 0y o E >•- o ^ i S ^ "~ -a "5 o U >- S S « U "^ "r- £ O flj 'n O -^ £ E *" "c^~ CD fl)>• E S <"-0 s s ^o *r Q. u>*" O) CD £!T3 C U *-s -^ 1o! 1 1 CDg O E i^^lU^Ob"^C 'TJn'^'OO^.^D-Sl^•S^^^-^Pa •5a-^xo)-T!ccno|S-°§§Bo>E o^o^g-tioa-s -8p23|.|0(U SL£c8.EBu-R?-JiC^CO-Q-— n XOO(/>_Q-— nixdJ^<t^CD*^riC-u nO-r-r'—'^CJlilC^ 5 £ 0) (D W ^ 0 -"5 *• c! c £ * 5 E .i -= fi S- s a ^ fli £ E a£ o t o o o 5 o -5 S a< oc os: o -C(J oCK O 1 O Da>oa. O) T) O o a 1 cc oO "^ SSc S .2 £ C f\o 57 c£ O"* 0 01 >-c u~ c£ a S£Required Timeof Applicationfl* n» 1 J£ g-§£ V 5oc Mitigation Measure"o * o "8 « ^o "c ° 2 5 §fit!!!? C 0)O D)•j= nD .=y S <U n> iS TJ 'c oQ * • Q)c pn.2 o O <5(D (J 1 1 |Z > £ '_£ ^BQ ! - 0) oz °>1 1?•g & •£ 3 5 1 3 i _ 0 .-s c S o ^ | § o ? B§* 5. a- a. ^ ° 01 O> *_ .-.c c -§ ,a> 0 | 3 I Q. O 3 S- >- Q. T3 13••= <1) C CU Q 0 O c^ O 0 0 .c c 1st approved by the Service shall be on site during initial cleawhich should occur outside of the gnatcatcher breeding seasMitigation Measure B-8.Ol *-" noa-2 .9 3 cJD O O 01 *- 2-i o 5 o o> a 111<C o> o CD a>.0 d5to CJ (U 0 >- ^ ™ w. *ng -i2 O §• ° ^ 1 0 C >• 0)coo .£ .£ = ® "5 e^T CB -^ ^ Qj •"5 Q> - D u "R o -2 b 8 jgist shall perform a minimum of three focused surveys, on ;the presence of gnatcatchers in the project impact footprinseding season. Surveys shall begin a maximum of seven dayion clearing/grubbing and one survey shall be conductedthe initiation of remaining work. If any gnatcatchers are fouifootprint, the biologist shall direct construction personnel/grubbing in an area away from the gnatcatchers. In addiihead of clearing/grubbing equipment to flush birds towardsIt shall be the responsibility of the biologist to ensure that gnatr killed by vegetation clearing/grubbing..m ^~ *r.O 0} £l ^ 01 1 1 § •§ ^ H > .2 -n D °•p J^ c; O "~ O> ^ .O "^ n •— — *^ "^•= 1 8 I s | — "u = > !s" ) ^ "Q C 5 ° <U ±z (D .Q ^ (U 13 n O O 'c •— n" "^ ~u> -*-1 "^i ;- s, I E 1 1 1 2 ° Illlll f 181 vegetationclearing/grubbing andone survey the>• >. -ao 'oT3 "D 0 O t- O-S S S ilso record the number and location of gnatcatchers distu/grubbing. The applicant shall notify the Service at least se\:learing/grubbing to allow the Service to coordinate with theities.u 01 w >= c c —n '^ o ^ £ JD B a '01 c g1 S-2 -2 > ^ HI!day before theinitiation ofremaining work.s CD a< orting Programa0)Of. T3 o CDc1 'co2c .Q O 1 c — "w? di <1» || ao | *• I ° f« 11 O 4)S£ tt c£ -2^ B * =2 a. < lo £ 01.Q c"5 ~ X offQ. c a. U fat *•Mitigation Measure«•JJ * -Jj ^j ^ B o p ^ 2 5 £Iiilll? C CDO O) O ^5.y 5 1 8 > UJ - o ^ •5 f| S O) Q C 0£ 8 & s.0"D j) S c •5 o ^ 0S— E *.n £ c — .2 S (D< a 8 £ C "c -5 <D C » C SC P . "O ° t: "^ 5a. O = >X CL "D "D82 § § "I |l S O > 2 Jl S -— -^- O) CI flj CU "^ C ill l Q Q) O) — 'c £"5 d CQ | ^8 CD.y I 1 II i II !! 1 ill§|*(uent construction work performed during the gi1 biologist shall be on site during significant noise-te.g., including but not necessarily limited to gradi>f preserved habitat to ensure compliance withhall be knowledgeable of upland biology ancbiologists name, address, telephone number, an'ice at least 30 days prior to initiating project impinq duties:<J O) • — • c O ^C (/! ^ O r^ ^ 0" J2 'E 3 co c y cu_ b o n a " *° CO CO o CD C '>_^_ ^ Q) >,!^ "*~ to C o £ 5 -^ O -Q CD S 2 S £ c * •2 2 D ^ E |^ O (D ^z > s .i1 1 f § 5 § | 1 ° 1 1 1 1 i 1 Hi 111! 1 1 ! ! 1 1 'c 0)§ j r S r'|| ;| | i D "5= P n ) O C n i . m i i § 1 1 1 1 e i -5 1 2 ||1 HllllilllS 111 k_ U C y *Q ';> Q ^ Q (J) *£ D O ^ •^ 3 QI *" "*~ CD $ *n *" "^ O) cn "" ^i ffi "n\ -^ 0 f- ^ C X fl) CD ^ ^ " " *C "5 CD ™" ^i^ O ^ ^rr|||il!|ll » 1 | C'=--fiQ.';=C-i,^C"r^''"</'5u29-(Uc<U "i^'is8"S^MS>£-° c^-^^-E?^"5!5 ££2CD^CDU^-— 42-QOD O^S*~cOO*- ^Q-1^ &^^lgl8B^llll^||ogg^° §80ii|Sis&*8ji|ii-i"|il| ^§8. b^si^riB i £^II&MM^ i°slilllip^ttlUtiliiil, Hf5?«S»t!o»*£&84|!5Soc8j.j2 §1-iilli|iilliliHiiiiiiiiii 'rfi"^-i2^'(DOOrnc"Z!'^^cn*"(Dc£|^Di^-r! Or^S13?1No)^oc-=cTa-K®D.>£l>D^ = ^ ^o^•^C.5c<DcO~O-S ••=<U-Sor:~<?-:Wc> 'u'-^0 •2 •- ~ Z > ~ ri ° "> 'Sc — ^U-naJcjCpDo cO^fS8iiill»li?|IU8lSls&fiSi«. !- 1 .8 i s s ! I ^ t ° s § -s || o || | ° | | £ O CD '.«_ *> M— ^ ,£ o '^ O fli O O> CD co Q- *OJ '-g 'o1 CD "ai S * £ o a £ £ a =, ^ ni O OJs *— 3 ' 0} "O S l-'^'^CD'D^fl) n c^ O •*— ^3 Q '?TJ f— « M C O n\ ^Or~v> 1C _ X **~ ^ •— c v/ 2_ o 'ii 77 L^?s|»is|^5g&12|&Eo~?T>u 5E-5jDjJ2£<^^J-S2 c0o * • o 1 JCo o I Io 133 g01 £o> I0£•a o co IB.S> c ilfi|EoQ 0) >-c u11 0) C «= 1•a o2 a3 a. cu «.ac O •S o> H^0 ~ 0 J) 3MaatS 1_g> i ' i ^ "n -S CL £ O. S ^ Q_ 1 - - "D _: I |lel on the biological resourodemented by construction pec cO .£ fc ~ §| II 8 £ o i> (/> "Oo §Tl >.!•§• 1 " I.Hi 1 1 for resource protection; 2) aI/ioo. a CD£ I 1 y 1 minimum.! c jnservation measures given\ju CD ?T B •^ 1 Qj •§ cO) CDx: =" I iring project construction, inc"O HI TiplementiE 1-»— E | subsequero Q ^>nstruction materials to the fe\jtj c cu a ? 1 i/^i D) I | 1 ne field (i.e., avoided areas c.£ n £O CDO £ 1 .~i n | footprint ti"o 8 environmentally responsible^ 75c 'uc2. I 1 (D £ t/>ao 1 |tocol to resolve conflicts thatji Q <D to" 00 s i ~ °| practices iB 1 SCD (U O) CD.C -o" T3 D WlCDO a cg 1 I /— | >-co (DD) 1 11 B o'.— oa. CD.c o CD ±= j^ ° T3CDCD •*~ 1 X flj Endanger*u ating the Endangered Species\j c-ciated witl0 1 f.Species AcjntationVi/ 10a. CD^: CD Di>^ CD 5 CDO CO ^nfer with t| I M c "5 o "§ne biologist shall report any vi</i £ oCD C B •| j; •a of speciescurrence;2 1 ^ CN Service wit| ! oCD O UOa B £. oc~ Q.[including"S O 0) _ o J2 OO • Q 0 truction within 300 feet of avccoo /or projeclo 1 o i O) T3 1 OQj orized impacts were not exci—oa B ^ CD 3 0 •£; Q ! 0) CD .Ch- c 1 ^ "OCD>Oaao D ^Q.D B B » c '£ $ 3 B •ai3 o CD CDC O OJ2O "5 u\ fil condition;| CD ^O 1 "g CD CDOl tructiono truction activities, the type olc Q O B .0 B 1 | 'coE gnatcatcrB f- D C ^2- 'o CDat^ "5.cv> i^ 5o CD <Gr^I— 13CD3 C f T3Ca _;• § ! •- QJ Q)ved gnatcatcher behavior Ic_ t/i•9 "cCD CD —tcatchel^™ T3 O ]c 1 ial measures employed to avy •3; E T3 D 'I .0 "o i: c | relation toa |ield notes shall be available^>3 catchers. 11 o ^ ;=• pj £ 8 E CDv £C >-o .a 'oa B ^o c£ 1 CDU '> J-2-2_— _C D | i 1 c 8 "o 12 CD^:h—• B 2 i drawings with an overlay o_o*— ^ ou .•^ 3 include;4_ I | completiovoided,o § B£ O2a B ^ C/T O photograi"S o T! O E .1 1 OJ n imenting that authorized imp*<j Q TJ iformationi_ ^ D "c0>ffl B •D o « I th all mitigation measures irj Cl compliam2 B 1 exceedecj achieved.a< o lu a Q_ o o as O 1CK g O)o 0- ba CY-•D o O) co co c o —ills* ou O) >c o 5 §s: 3c o-o a 01 C "u o II§•<a! .-O£ O If, § 1 aQ. 5 *•wi O "* JU5M O 1 C 0 1 i ^ C Q. > -5 op 3 g O •< Q,.- > O O) D ==U S.:£. '^ 5 o > UJ c3 .2ti> o tj•§ iMO) o c6 £ 8 >. ^_ -° ° AC is, <0.25^ y O c 'o ^ O r~ ^•— > E So a) o S;z -a u E O) J2 O) C cc c § 1 3 1 O i£ o Q T> c t 1 f 1 plicant shall ensure that the following conditions are implemented durction:loyees shall strictly limit their activities, vehicles, equipment and aa 2 a - o 1 ^£. Ofc o • o» a o- ^ (D § C g "tnCoo O 0}V _C o § o_/old attracting predators of the gnatcatcher, the project site shall be kesbris as possible. All food related trash items shall be enclosed in sealedregularly removed from the site;) -•" -V — E £ "o o • Ql .2 81 B 5<D U -^E s t;o 5> ^z > s "S 1 I o c1 f B § c o cv £ % <U O C) n ~ ^J i^ •= L of project personnel shall not be allowed on the project site;jsal or temporary placement of excess fill, brush or other debris shall notiters of the United States or their banks;quipment maintenance, staging, and dispensing of fuel, oil, coolant, 01activities shall occur in designated areas outside of waters of the Urn the fenced project impact limits and in such a manner as to prevent42 O_ ^ ^ fj -p i £ 3 c 5 3 f J. . . $ (U § _ i « o § ! ^ a ° j n 71 O)ig of equipment shall take place within existing paved areas greater thiwaters of the United States. Contractor equipment shall be checked foiaeration and repaired as necessary. "No-fueling zones" shall be desi: =5 E o s i 1 2 o { 1 - a£o jj t lighting, if any, of construction staging areas shall be of the lowest:ssary for human safety, selectively placed, shielded, and directedral habitats,project applicant shall temporarily fence (with silt barriers) the limitsicts (including construction staging areas and access routes) to preven!tat impacts and prevent the spread of silt from the construction zone inttats to be avoided. Fencing shall be installed in a manner that doestats to be avoided. The applicant shall submit to the Service for appro\n days prior to initiating project impacts, the final plans and photograp-ing and grubbing of habitat and project construction. These final plans siographs that show the fenced limits of impact and all areasan/wetland or CSS) to be impacted or avoided. If work occurs beyondemarcated limits of impact, all work shall cease until the problem;died to the satisfaction of the Service. Any upland habitat impactsj|>cciEEEE5i-DD.-&o2 • • a< o in oa. O .cucoct: I 1 o&oa! O).c ba •o oa c c c"gl £ V> y o» >• ^ §= 3C ffO J) 0) C •o o£!.•5 a. 0) —a: O * 0) =§•§>. i|t S O °"5at *Mitigation Measureliiiii; n beyond the approved fenced shall be mitigated at a minimum 5:1 ratio. Temperconstruction fencing shall be removed upon project completion.£ ^• Landscaping shall not use plants, that require intensive irrigation, fertilizers, or pestickadjacent to preserve areas and water runoff from landscaped areas shall be direc•o o away from the biological conservation easement area and contained and/or treatwithin the development footprint, where feasible. The applicant shall submit a draft lisSL o species to be included in the landscaping to the Service for approval at least 30 dprior to initiating project impacts. The applicant shall submit to the Service the final liso species to be included in the landscaping within 30 days of receiving approval ofdraft species list.(D • The San Diego County Invasive Ornamental Plant Guide shall be used in developinglandscape plan for the proposed project.• Restrictions on the use of invasive plant species shall be included in the project CC&R's'o • Coyote Roller devices shall be installed on fences that interface with the perimeterproposed open space preserve areas, to the extent feasible.1 O O)O ba O O)C co co "aO) cc o0 ~^»_ V> Q) Q) Jill 1/1 3 li£ 3c o-0 4) "" 41 CC 0£ ••=*- o•o o11 oc *O ® _ 5 £ "* "rt J^1 o ••= oQ. c a.5> o«j Sae *•Mitigation Measureg 1 S 1 * '= C d).O O) o ==.y :> > Uj U4} Q-o E O 8 a) ^u ^c o c•- 0- OJ0) crt 0)T3 c O .^ <D C cU O- O o£ 0 S £ O) ^_C cc a> §1 t 8. S« 0 ^o 'c BQ • • fll_ yj o 2> B |a> o > o 'Si;-z. > S B-20 The following vernal pool management actions shall be incorporated into the pmanagement of PA 23E:• Fencing around the vernal pool areas shall be installed to prevent potentialimpacts from foot traffic and to prevent collection of any flowering plants ortadpoles, particularly in light of the pools' location immediately down slope froman offsite residential, landscaped area.• Pool hydrology is likely to be effected by summer runoff from the off-site, upslopedevelopment. Changes in drainage patterns and the possible addition of fertilizeror herbicide runoff from the upslope landscaping may transform pools into morepermanent wetlands or transform the vegetative components of the pools byfavoring invasive species. The preserve manager shall work closely with theadjacent Calavera Hills homeowners association and their landscapemaintenance contractor to avoid application of excess drainage, herbicides andpesticides upslope from the existing vernal pools.'c 0)oQ a> _B a • Exotic plant invasion shall be prevented through the use of selective weeding, appiherbicide application, or designed grazing.i (U o-z. o CO g b)oal O> Oa.(U o O) I 'co .g BD) c So -^ =c^ S>£ ms vt P.(J O) >>C 0 0 U "c oro m5 .£ 0) C i= 1•o o2=5.3 acr< -S Q •s w.•9 .c S-o0-D 5 Mitigation Measure-3~|fcf a E §."5 ^ a. I it 1 = ^5 C Q).S 0)p '1 8> Uj C ,-:O Sa -2 a> "au E O 8 c .Q s (D § to .2 oo s~(D UE — "S O 01 Pz > z. \ - (DG) cB oQ -Z. .QcaB £ s d) tplo_ D = w - oi 2 o 01 ,_c cc <uc £ ft 0 Q 5 o 2 g •t: .C «» O -HI(1) "" M <S |^2 o « 1| |g S> ~ § •a o £ o g 2 S•8 p = £ ! «= §y C (U TJ .£ O O T3 "O D "~ .C H>a a ~ o >~ "~ £vi w n .C <D *East Village. Additional focused surveys for the Brodiaea filifolia shall be conducithe clay soil regions of the East Village (clay soils are located only in locationsCannon Road) prior to grading only if winter into spring 2005-2006 rainfall exinches. If rainfall exceeds 10 inches in the season prior to grading, and if a newfilifolia survey is necessary, and if Brodiaea filifolia is found, per HMP narrowconservation standards (HMP, pages D-89 and D-90) it would be subject topreservation of 80% of any newly discovered population. If precipitation is lesinches, the results of the 2003 surveys shall be considered the best available assethis species presence/absence status on-site and no further action related to thisnecessary.West Village. If sufficient precipitation (greater than 10 inches) occurs prior to gthe West Village, surveys should be conducted to provide an opportunity t<Brodiaea filifolia under peak emergence conditions. Surveys for the West Village snecessarily be conducted immediately prior to ground disturbance. The surv<should be dictated by optimal emergence conditions. If precipitation of greateinches does not occur prior to grading for the West Village, then the results ofsurveys shall be utilized to assess impacts to this species.CO CO ifo B ii 01 § c —0 O % 0 <D" o .o Q. c= a 3.O o a u £c o E— a CD "5 c o .— * S cu a o D£ O 2 s: cen ~ c *? dj .— lii S E B S .SS B 1 I Sx a c s: <»•ts <D O ~ O1O Q o 5 < CL Q- O (UQ ^'. The project shall comply with all applicable conditions of coverage for Carlslcovered sensitive animal species observed on the project site, as identified in tiVolume II, including:a) Cooper's hawkb) Least Bell's vireoc) Yellow-breasted chats^ OQ IO ^~CO CO ca oo co SO a< o u! 2a. O Ot^ cO Io IX O) oa T3 O O) o Io c§^5c >» 4. 5s" o O) >•c u •w CO «l '£ uo aS £ 41 CE ~^ o If3 S« 1-8 If IffiM O0) «rj tt < 0) oVS oISoO)1 fitiif? C 4)•2 g1 o .= =H 5 1 1 §o = 1<o Q •U Q. C O o "a ID ^ u ^•— Q. CD<D "> O)T3 C O-2 «> S cU Q- O o c f c § £iiiio- o 2 > >- Q. C J3±: ID O ~U Q 0 J O> >- a. "^11 1 1 ^- m ® E ?, °jiiiQ- O c =1/1 C (U Oc o "O -cQJ X </>tlsi 'c j_- a» .Q 8* Q) U .2 £ := "S3 o 5 .JPQ Z > % s'oca) c o o 1 1 ® — (U O g£ S 5 o "g S 3 en ••g !- IDID C B O Q Z a •s n en 3 _ cE § OJ 2 ra a 3t_ !r r Q<D 9i i; *.C " -Q•^ "*r: "K c 8 c 'c (D oO 0 U o .E D u 5 O U c a 52 UHlilO t. 'n c O ~ ?Q. S 3 O U 5 .E Q. Q -Q -j (11 O C (] .C -c ° D•*" O C Q-£ U .Q ""f~ ,t •»— ^ 5 ^ ^ Q o 5 | 2 i <D y (J 1 f. o 1 -^ "^ O C u Q} fli " i*^ O) c" V 111! ?si Q) ^* f-o .a ••£ j£ •!= — D •00 = -a> -c E o o « 5 £a o r- D22=0a. O ? > CO CM CD — Ll ^•— Q. o«- - +=o o .yc ~ -to m S jfl £ •- 2 o | O> 3 .O) i o <u"^ a en c 2 c vl O) t/> Q^ C * — § | 0 1 E R '> °^*> 2 c S ^ ^ 2 £ g "5 -12 -C "^ "P ~ /n O O> y, u CL CO gb)o 0- O) Ba O D) O OO) cC 0 O — cIlfl•^ o*" 0 at >•f c___ 41 O 41 E J12 o ^f 41 —at O | 0. 5- o °- ae 2 Mitigation Measureo S u | « '1o c ° a 5 5tit!!!? myiiiii •US c Q)•itBroii <^H ® 3 'c V "6a O —m— — CO>o >o — HI S. c •.§ 22 2 2" • 8 3 a 1 ^ • £ o 21 1 8O S o a uj ~ 1••i a> .2 o E o 5 |JU§ o 8 g> • iii§lH| X D Q. .8 D) HSiil •• l 1HI c pIB ° -iBH °~ ° • lf|iill| I I I g IspIP* g Is-— fo >- a.-e 0)U Q Q 2 Q Q<s> <r in ina to n 'c eg. !- •2 D D i?ID O > E S "5 <Do a> § oZ > £ Q ™ S,2 °— Q) «o -oo 5 o o "T *5 "i" -— • *"i"Q T- Q 2 5<" S •" < ""D £ n tn ~A phased data recovery system shall be completed for the significant archaeological sitesimpacted by the proposed project in compliance with the City of Carlsbad's CulturalResource Guidelines Criteria and Methodology for completing a Data Recovery ProgramPhase III (City of Carlsbad, 1990). (Note: Appendix G (City confidential map) of this MMRPprovides cultural resource site locations). This phased data recovery approach shall beemployed to ensure that the scope of proposed sampling is valid with respect to researchquestions that address data gaps of impact and interest. Data recovery provides for asample of the site to be excavated, artifacts and ecofacts to be analyzed, special studies(i.e. radiocarbon dating, residue analysis, obsidian hydration and sourcing) and a report offindings which addresses the important research questions. A research design shall beprepared prior to data recovery, subject to peer review, prior to initiation of data recovery.atO U1.? E oz '§.§:§. g E D) £ y.^o>E po^Sc^aj cj=So_OSoo. O£o>o _•-• »— O b ~ 'o g_ en 3 g c^oog §l)c'-= 1 1 .5 1 1 111!0£a.Sbi 2£oio In addition, monitoring of brushing, grading, and trenching shall be required during theconstruction of the project in order to identify any significant components of eacharchaeological site that were not observed during data recovery excavations. Monitoringwill also focus on any potential to discover sites that were not identified in the previoussurveys due to the resources being buried or masked from view. In the event that anypreviously unrecorded sites are discovered during brushing, grading, or trenching, asignificance evaluation shall be performed, and, if found to be important, mitigationDCu_ a Q- o .coco0£ Co OJJ2Oct: 140 g O) O) a o O) I c c °>1 « f n Q« vO ~* P Qs"5 D) XfoC«s: aC ffO 0) 9) C 1 =1- o•a om =j= Q-3 Q.cr ^ a: 'S 3 O1e•H •= xc o -eo — aa = £M O Mitigation Measurenull coaD CDu 6 o 'Q.co *- •~ 1£oo co Q.3•«—ba 2? my 73O 0) B B c.0 CD"5. OO - -I .— 8 a>^c ^g O) wi 0) '^— £Bo "5u'01ooCDo.co | applied before grading can resume at the location of the discovery. All ai<B D "5 tiO | resources, unless otherwise required by law and other than burial-related artilicoveryUJ *— 0 o73 d> S O) 73 O O 2 b y b a> a o 73<s> oE£ o 73to"5>oo•x.a) VI "o a (/?£ C 73 0) O 73_£ 1 "o jQ 0) 73 "oC o" B73 B (D'oa 730)B'o8o "5 73 o VIB0)'o a 8 ou£• 'o> 0 ^'t?, O O <Da o <D ^•- o catalogues and final reports will be permanently curated at a qualifieddefined by the "State of California Guidelines for the Curation of ArB cto "33 | Collections." Owner (project developer) agrees additionally to execute a rualifiedmonthsrr .2 D '^form and to pay such fees as required for curation that are in effect at srepository at the time of curation. All curation shall be accomplished withinfrom completion of project.o cO l_ '§)oo0)o.co o 73CD B a o o cg oo 5 (U 73 Oa B Bo_o B.a0 (D.c1 —Auctionv>C0o | archaeological monitor has been retained to implement the archaeologicater fromO o-^monitoring and data recovery programs. Verification shall be documented bthe applicant and the archaeoloqist/archaeological monitor to the City.o co o JCo o C£co oct: IO CD T) O O Co Ba> cc o c«f! £i I g- oo ^ £ o « 0 O) >•1 =o « =5 &O ti) Q) CC O 13 "a "3 i!S a5 Q.<r< t en C*S i"o s o&§»• 2* Dtrta01 o 3 1 O "9 a 2 5 Sa E a 5 f Q.p => E 2 * S-.£ z e. 5.S <c < C CDO O) o 5o 5 1 s> UJ 1 S g> w o c -S ° § £ i 1 U 5 D) 0 C 0 Initialcoordinatioprior toissuance ofo> «_C cC 03 o i CL 5>~ a5S •£ o "g o g1 S ° c •5 S .? | 2 ~ T3 03O) 3 o u 'o 03 O) S ? °1 1*C Q) -t- ^i -g> ^ 8 §^00 E ? o £. o a 0« 5 E - ^- >- -2 o 03 i: o <£Q. .t *• O 7— ~0 HI!^ m ^ "c E ° 3 £ o | S 'O S ^ 13 „, CL > g J: ^ £ a is i^ • • (ll i -c .2 o "5 503 U -*• 03 S E 1 y 5 EO D QJ ^ O O Q -Z > £ Q Z ~ *. | iS 0> ~ -5; •- ° S) u is S ^ •- 5 o> g<u2 o.£"2"cE<B =b)£> UJb)oo)£> c S. c ^ •O) 'S .c 01 Sc S en c = '•5 c 2 "5 '>§> lie, 8 « 0) ll e" O -Q o o2 '5) 1«U g 1 HU D2 -o1 §ou g 0) T3£ o rri "55 C vi> (D tn••^= -c .-sCJ > w>m ^ —a 03 g o5 -S '5 HHM1S g S S 5 o u2 S 'c u5005 u o E SO) — T! 03 •S S 1 00 "3! "- •=O) — 03 C •| .y ^ I 0 0 ^ C O 03 O O ilf— 0 0 a -- Q- s § ^ ilii|S* ° (D U ° 0 £ =< £ o 2 N oc 0 5 J $ O eo O)oa. O) Oaa>an •o o O) o 'co .o o0) c 0 - I § 'S.'o "» (J 11 o Sf5 £ 0) C E-2"- o"D t) 0) —at O % 0)£ S*M ™ >» o *; oQ. c a.in O 1* 5 Mitigation Measureo 1 o | 1 1 tlt!lt« C 1].O O) B s£ *| 8> UJ c ,-•ll <D "5. § I c Pre-excavatiolagreementprior tocommence-'c <D 0 It0- O>- a±= (D 0 Q •- C *- 0)— .2 £ -Q £ t/1 C — - 5 ^ D""5 ^f £ p •SOo *"" °O^ 2 "n a. o ^j £O CO £ Hi!13 •" y —o '5 2 D -C -J D fe*• c t; 2«« a n) "5 0 <X U Mm*> <- a> _^ ° ^ o ng of the East and We:t with a representativeement will be to formajins, burial, ceremoni"§ S §, E «i C O ® fll| S ° o E^ r- 3E o « ^<u '*= o ^H S & S(U D 3 U£ u Q. •= E S^ § 8 2 ^ <_ Q. iX - r ° .1 i £ .1 £ z okU 'c IIo •:?(U U -*d) P S t; B o 5 ^Q Z > £ *!o °>c s c =6 2 §><D O ^2 ^ E ai ai > "o 0 <DU O J5 "•5 T3C 0 O)^a O) •^ T! T3 2<D O = 'c . '_c C 0)" C O O) O"*= CJ -^0.== 0<D O > <D .U B o a> 8 B o SQ Z > fi Q Z > ^_ T3 § o § oiIlllU 5 0) & o) 3CO >XX .c a> o2 o> c =- "c 2 T3 .>o 2 g -5 2 £ oi o ID D O -Q c* -c= o ~ 200-So 5=2.•t -C 0C U0 D ® ot%2U D .— 'C '5 > r 5o a o '5o > oS 0 -^ £0 0 0 _ y ^ .y O (D _j O)j; T3 o .c >*— •*" O 5 0 | | S O "Q_ O o ® E "5bi 0 '-n c=6 '-5 c .S • E ° S a 1 » i 2 « & §3. £ D o S .£ 5 5 .*•— _^ T3 -•— 1 1 E 1 O) —. C O c ^ co o u _g o bi S o "5 ^ "a "S^~ O fli •t T3 ?> 0S 2 o a> a o = <U J <D O (U O -^ C ffi Tl ; — ^0) ~ B1 5•£ Q) C Poo S Q Z f „ U a< o in o Q_ o <t>UoCK Eo raoit O) Ba0)0£ T3 o 01 o oen * o a o 1=1° 0 O 01? &O ID5 £ •= °>it p = E 2* a-I zi.5.= << (D o •§U -^ oQ 0)u c 3 0) ) § 02 0) C £ Oa o £ u !! ^ "O U O c0> Ia (DQ 0 .y •- o 1 8. o £ £ !5o o 0) !=a.=g (D ~ O5 a >• £g- - §^o It o 2. •a a ^aj o (D (J 'O O 0) ^•^ "5 t> •-fl, C O CJa ^n -.a •s 3,ii ^ .ii ^ CO ~i oc .SO Ou cTD OC O0 ^ 01 C c •° § "° 1^1u c y D .2 '£S s -g C0"f , p. -5 (U T3 ~ o c '5) iO .U1 O S ~ = E 2 -S 5 0) ">(D c (D ^ £ §o a E 5 -Q o u o t: <D o aaj S^ •ca Eg o 01c oa T3 0 O).gb |5c Mitigatioc O ^ :c c M Jj> j) S o & ° S3 C*» o o». *c cO 0) "2 cro a>S£ at cJo 3 "0 .ii 3 a lo l? «* "5 i*5 -2 g sj0" 3 a<u o'g o> 1 Xi i tillI z 4 5. -S-t^ S I CO) C ri '" ".Q 01 .0 g>B 1 B 5 (Un O O (0-SJ O O>uu Q ^ >$ Q 2 c ^ 3 S O Q. o 8 - • <DD) C u 1 u S § ?5> 1 8. -i 1 O) U C Jl QJ •—i o i .g o | Q a O a. O Q. O) "c •- ¥u E >--it U i5 Q S5 (D c 7;.2 .c 0 -2 a CI '•= c "^ • ^ 0T3 2> fi a (D "^•S 5 o >- 1 2 ^ § 0 o c "O : ;. o) £0 -^ ':/>.I; "5 fl) 0 ~ (D T3 *~ "~ c 2 _ S <O "D"7? > -C QJ2 2 - g (1) a li 0. u a) > 2.0 .a j> a 'w o •£ 2 a S £ £ "r — i; O 0 "5 " S c O "> T3° i 1? — T3 O ~*- C (U O 3 S -Q•22^0 ^ ra "C - .— (1) <1) "O 42 o £ -Q ? MX — a v o "~ O 01 ^ •—I o 1 Mniss•p > 3 O (U•2 2 <o 3-< o 01 E S *N too (NCOo a< o ill oa. O u Oct: on: g biocC D> D O) co cg = c c "g * £Jit*Si °"» o O) >•c u~ cO 0) * §•O 01S £ 0) C ££i= 3 "2 =•° £3 CL 0) •«-tt O 3?'5 ~ >.COt0 « 0Q. c a.at O ae ^Mitigation Measurel||I||_ — Z G. Q. .£ ^ <t nHHi] i~ • '1 = « 1- II BI 5 & i ft2 > fi •Hn 3 ^> • 5 ?«^H O> n ^c 2 oH ° £ 111 "S S o 'I^H € R> »- S^^^P ^ o o CT c 0 U ?lg|^ x ~ ¥ c • c 8 fc a =5H^t.i§> MM • B a>or to site grading, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to carry out an appropriateitigation program. (A qualified paleontologist is defined as an individual with an MS ori.D. in paleontology or geology who is familiar with paleontology procedures andchniques.)The qualified paleontologist shall be present at the pre-construction meeting to consultJOI £ 1 fc 5 • tO T ro fop<*- aea. ona.f '_c 0) BQ with grading and excavation contractors.A paleontological monitor shall be on-site a minimum of half-time during the original• :_• D 1 B1 O ^(U U "^III ^ 0) BQ >C <D>. O D) » 1 B 8 1E £ a 1 ftO 3 a> V oZ <7> Of. > U4 'c <u8 ii O i?fl) U Z > S 2 85 -C O) "c "O ll §,cutting of previously undisturbed Santiago Formation to inspect cuts for contained fossils.In the event that fossils are discovered, it may be necessary to increase the per/day infield monitoring time. Conversely, if fossils are not being found then the monitoring shallbe reduced. (A paleontological monitor is defined as an individual who has experiencein the collection and salvage of fossil materials. The paleontological monitor shall workunder the direction of a qualified paleontologist.)When fossils are discovered the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall recoverthem. 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) mayrequire an extended salvage period. In these instances the paleontologist (orpaleontological monitor) shall be allowed to temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading toallow recovery *of fossft remains in a timely manner. Because of the potential for therecovery of small fossil remains, such as isolated mammal teeth, it may be necessary incertain instances, to set up a screen-washing operation on the site.Fossil remains collected during the monitoring and salvage portion of the mitigationprogram shall be cleaned, repaired, sorted, and cataloged.Prepared fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos, and maps, shalleither be deposited (as a donation) in a scientific institution with permanentpaleontological collections such as the San Diego Natural History Museum or retained bythe City and displayed to the public at an appropriate location such as City Hall.•• 'c (D 8 •I!> t>D ned on file at the City that outlinesinclude discussions of the methods11} O ed, and significance of recoveredA final summary report shall.be completed and retaithe results of the mitigation program. This report shallused, stratigraphic section(s) exposed, fossils collectfossils.• 2O)oal O) '•£oa T! O 0) O .O aO) ^Illl IIc cro o>Si: § •o oII lo .S 0>.O C P|O — Oago.M O c = E 2 * a-J= Z=.a.s£* ii •• IB1 O 5o > 11> £ § U £ o 8 O)I °!a ?> o-g c o> u .2 o <u ^ o S S i •« 1 S. O) 'c Os: u 1 g Bl §•uj O ~ •- ao o 53E ° ^ P <I).£ a ^ 00 Si £i •*=• T3 O•o •5 O O- S -^ J3| E a € p < o u K £ " O >• g a t> .S- u =- 1 '2 I | ^25'=ingwitdiea16 <u£i * o S^5 6 =o o" b^i§ § s^o o -c o >• £c ».o o£ "a. a> _ £ -^ "r-i ^ ^ oa ° Hi! I!Mil a< I 01 I TJ O O> O Cg §-£„,— tf» fl) V o S* 2o ^ <g Q "" 0 ~ cO 4) "c ao 5; < u- 0) C£-2 i= 0 T .y 3 acr<0) —ne o J O)c gof O "3 Oago.vi Oa 5a: ^ a> VIa 1 o B S 5 o 1 7! 1 S 1O r= O S 5 IStit lit. 'c ito •?U •> 0 £ « x <" E53 5| "c B o> S 0 Q Z II 3 CD 'c . § &S SO •:?J > <D= is x .2 E<u 4! "g o o> £ o Q -z. - d 3 '"S4) Q. a> Q-u E u E 68 68 a> .0 «-o O=Q-(DC c— oo Ifllili Sill11^1 Ik nrg c S^ c O) rC O) C c "5 p 1 "§ B C oo o 'S g B>- T3 Q- >• "D 'ra Q.~ c QJ •— c c OU O Q U O LU Q 2*2°"» D. 'B >,S a> o ^-8 - « u 0 § ^ 0C *- "^j _C ° §> 1 I8>i § ^D fc 0 T3 == ® ^L .52 (D . y >>• n <">• o O O ¥ b c£ Q. ^ =c 2 'c ^o a <u is (B O <U TIII! «D S 0 «3 o s zo .O) a *" Jix •*- ^> "- c £ E "5 ° <B U 73 T> C £ 0 g § "•= D "^ -a a c * § u S E g0 D a) 1) •-U "g o a 2 o o a) E 2^ o t; ~*" .2 ,_• "oo ^ a "B g c = 2 o o 'O O Q. ^ cS J^ Q. *~ 'c 0 ^ ° O C 1 .2 £ 1 E"D n £• t^ ~n o .S> •§ £ o ^ "Si = ^ —.2 ? o S 5£ .e -S o U CMi r 1 IO O)_c Ba ty. •a o D)c I •Io CD c c rt — C Q *" u oxJC Q)3 II V C s "5 fll !Si- Q.5 Q. lo 1ftago.M O 1) 2 I/I 1co 'ogi 1 .^ X « S « 1 ft 1iliill, '_c C Q) .2 D> B s (D n B O> iS Q Z S c C!) ''c ^ "R 'o S1 3 a>g> •§ -§ "D O "D b) o a> § .i1 IKina. o a C D> "E'£ CO)C '5 £ 5 0 ta. c O >~ 73 '01 Q-« C c* <1>U 0 u Q J= T3 — : TJ.•= ^ D C S 1 i i1 r 2 <D •=§ 8 2 i•D C 0 §o i> *~ 5: 8 | o ^ Ills J. -^ D »_ O 1? C^ .32 o >- 0 3 ° S•D -Q — u D >. 2 m '•5 g 1 -° 0) O O T3 _Q V- -— OJ 1 I 5 1 1/1 2 "D .5 — 2 S 1/1 t/1 f- _ u a .5 o0 •- m "5 2 E Q- ajQ. O ? fc <i> 5 s.c -a c g c ^ ° E ^ ' •^ ? o" "> ^'^ a 2 <o. T3 "*~ £— _o> _a> 'Q t 05 * "c .£ "bi "^ O £ ^\ O § _ (I) c ~ fc 0 Q. '01< 3 -s I £ I 'c c & 2 5o 5u > <u S "S JJ £ 33 ^ D O> S Q Z - (N X 5 5> § cBQ.0>Of. TD O O)C 2 co 5co B.O) 1 e5 oSlI** n Q. O55 ISg 5o o> >•C 0c cO 0* h- ^c a0 « 5 <t m cJj.2 •o o ^1 &Sm _ae O IS?"" "5 £•coto ••= n lo- SS Mitigation Measure•- -n -5tj S 0 ofe-DRE a. I5 8tltllt; ^c•• a, 1 81 8 § 1 * X « II? 2 R§Q. ^ 3 ^O Q. u E6 8 5 ^ 115 £ -2 _ D 0 R S <D§^!lU0 1 ^ a £ > o) if ° SC O) C C C 'c .SO <U <B£ iu E E £5 a> t: .£• t S <-CL c o c o o £>- TJ '5> CL 3 a -c o •t: C C 0> ° «> C <l>U OuJQUQitiX "5 "E n B "5 "5 *,oo-2 c _. 55 £ 1 0) ED • ! o S — < "5 "P o= 2. a 5 5] ? §Prior to approval of the tentative map for the West Village, a detailed agricultural chemiresidue survey will be required to fulfill the requirement of the City of Carlsbad's StandAgricultural Area Mitigation Condition (for agricultural sites). As part of the mitigalcondition, a report shall be presented to the San Diego County DepartmentEnvironmental Health Site Assessment (DEH) Voluntary Assistance Program and RegieWater Quality Control Board for review and comment prior to receipt of a grading permit>The residue survey shall include surficial soil sampling from depths of 1/2 foot and 11/21within areas planned for grading, as well as within current storage and mixing areas.County DEH will recommend a representative sampling of earth materials within the subparcel, to consist of collection from two locations within each one-acre grid. Soil sam|collected shall be tested for Chlorinated Pesticides and PCB's (EPA test method 80Organophosphorous Pesticides (EPA test method 8141), and Chlorinated Herbicides (test method 8151). Soils shall be remediated to a level deemed acceptable for resideiuses according to federal, state, and local guidelines and standards.Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad PlanningEngineering Departments and in consultation with the County DepartmentEnvironmental Health.i Sx CO2 X acu_ o i Q- oan co i n\ oi C£ oaio o_ O) 1aCDOL T3 D OlC 1 oat fill *> o O> >•c u fl> '» •= xcotO ~ Os-§°-41 < II i!II JfC KO EP BQ 8.13 B § E O o c£ HiU £ (U C §; t<u a .73 O ±: a> m D)OCD £ C'c 5 Q- >- 13S § O) C CD 'Cc 9 Q H5 a) Ml .Q B •=BUD2 'a u =5 O O <_ >- i "c ° c -H.£ „, <o U "D -C fc 0)c ~ a £^ o 2 >.-Q **" CD _Q• o — oLU y, "n ">u OCD C"O O55 b£ (D i— 5^ " § 5•^ o -5 £ S <B C O O i- D B 0) o u S - 8 B CD « 2 r a - £ | 1 | 2 £ i 8 o § 1 I I•^ C £ 'J (i ^"2 ^ •> •> y a =co p« £ ! a-o o o§ * >UJ «s 8 O <D Q. ^CD Bt- r- O o -s(U 0 WQ. O 0. og O 2 S 'o o <DO) Co n 1OCD O) O.y <D £ o 01 O CM 0 8tN I ocu_ O Q_ O O D&L O Ino E° ll If o- « 01J3 c'S '= Xcoro~o o O)oa! I OaCDOf. T3 O O) 1 .0 "ora co « Sa. o 5 f gs isS 3 II S *!*!*!o c 9 2 S 5 C 0).0 O) 1 8> ui o u3 B § 8 o "5 O O) £ o .S D) £ D-o i > ^ so -8 | ^ I .i I gO UJ .-e O g* o> .±:U U iS Q U I O o °- \-> ±i c nagemevelopmethe Eam drhinstoMadewititeieseu »- S. £ o '?o *-o c enoffsIT,o c -53 D > ^s ^X o .t=§ iO OJ? s >!2 2oL o> (U 'o ^ osi^ Q.^ Q. <D Oi= o'o tlS .2 0 £ O) •n 0) 1 ou =•o > o b t S C <D IIO) Oo c § £S °..ts D QJ 0 1._ o(D C 1 .2 1II<u ^ c Ml I 8>§ $S5o o g a Q '5a i- cr0 ^ £ •S 8 « 1 S"fc « x£ ^ ^a> >- 2C j2 ^raiinr'01 -n K,fil i^ §1 U £ Q igure 5.ge planProposed onsite draiS B. II § IIaJ "5.u E 6 8 E c «o <uo 2; 5 of .1 & O O) i; T3 .111O (1) C D) "o -S c b iS>. -c -g, Q. >..-= O c 0> •-U U uj Q U IIIQ- O- OjS 5 -cu- (D **""— > .£ S ' 1E.£ ^ 111 litO) i 2o * 5> HI (« .-* Og O Ji =: O ^*U U C D Tl = 0) "• O~ (D 'J2the gr1 = 2 | -S § S S 2 i = ac 'D o O O o0 — o ^- (D ^O O) O£ O n= "^ E<u 'o •5 « Sf$! (D 2 >!=; oo 'Sh*E c ®.a o — i£ Q O "0 £ S ~•§11a S1 o £ D Do 5 b T3 >- ^§°!D 0).* o "ic o3 u0 o - £r 5 i S £ ll S | B CD C 0) o "O £ a) E 5 f-l I'lia Q .SO i- 3 ^ ?Hi •- V "~!tfo> -0 ^C -n S*l»n o- .sW (U O ® ^ Q£ O -c , Wl C (D OJ O3 is Q.5 o 2 Facility BFacility Bo S< c 5a. OJ3 .0 "c C)"5Q cilitpoa o 01.c Q.CDat -a oen •go3=C O C O BO) cC 0o ^.s:c 2 * £J o a °2 Z cjE ou O) >• 5 <uS 3 O 0) 5 £ E§ i= •g TJ U01 = •3 Sa< tt£ O — O) if*0=0Q. C ». « 5 Mitigation Measure•>o| o||| !z!!.s£? C Q;O O) O =u :>it -*- | 0> Uj C g 3 a> 0) ^Lo Pc §O u cu0 0, o --5 S 2 o ^ Stl c EQ Q C 0- O O- 1?ii"*— n (1) i—o -S c o>. — 'nS O- .•S O c UJU' U ii Q -g £ B "o a 2 -2r c his measure requires that erosion, siltation, and emission of construction related pollulhall be controlled through compliance with the City of Carlsbad Standard Urban SVoter Mitigation Plan, Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) required under the CounIan Dieao Watershed Protection. Stormwater Manaqement, and Discharge Co^ 1/1 -^ v 65 O5 'I <D 8 te1) <D 'IiS>*8 O"v O » -^Drdinance (WPO) (section 67.871), General Construction Stormwater Permit (Order No)8, NPDES CAS000002) and the General Municipal Stormwater Permit (Order No. 200•JPDES CASOl 08758). In compliance with the General Construction Stormwater PerrriWPPP shall be prepared and approved prior to issuance of any grading permits.V*> W <£— <-f> (\\C ri •2 5 O ^1 i "o 55 -5*2 > S "D 0) "D -£cu .c q) 05S *~ "S c swner/developer shall be responsible for monitoring and maintaining the BMPs idenljelow on a weekly basis. In addition, prior to approval of the grading permit forespective village, the City Engineer must determine that project plans have incorpor<emporary desilting basins of adequate number and size in the East Village and permadetention basins of adequate number and size in the West Village.iome of the BMPs that shall be used during construction include, but are not limited to:1— ' -U w. •*— W V) "c CD 8 -1 Silt fence, fiber rolls, or gravel bag berms• Check dams• Street Sweeping and vacuumingi . 0)£o • Strom drain inlet protection• Stabilized construction entrance/exit• Vehicle and equipment maintenance, cleaning, and fueling1 Hydroseed, soil binders, or straw mulch• Material delivery and storage• Stockpile management1 Spill prevention and control1 Waste management for solid, liquid, hazardous and sanitary waste, contaminated soil• Concrete waste managementanm"a iH Co Q_ Ocoa; i 1o a01o a. D) oa0)ex.T> o O) o c,Q O c — t _ •£ > o 9* 5S E c "> 5 gx — c0 0 "2 tro o> 0) CJo-1"0 .y *§ o!n* rfd) «*•oe O « 01€•§>.§£tQ. C 0.vt O X *igation Measure.^ "1*1*1!li!ll< s -i S 01 § °> D =§ 0 5U > <B O > s ^ a> E 1 "^ ^ 4) n ° ° <U -S! °> LU o z > s: Q § §a £ Q) CLu E8 8 r E*™" •*— to **_ w. c D — Q. £ 0)Q O^ f— O r*t C ^ "*~ Q)"*"~ 2 TI "55 ^ D) -2 a E - S i =<£ o ai £ "D J > i ,_ ^ o f 1 | ° :§ .£ § ^ ^"0 21 (D .-t O O m Q U 'o c S "5 'o ® c ^ 2 -g 33 _ .£ ._§ . /j-t— >^^^^sj3 (1)§^(JQ.'a58.S £ § K " §• 2 .-§" o ^fo'i-2!"^- 1> -< U - *c d) S) (D .2 £ 2 fe 3- •§, i 1 f i "^g £ c 1 ^ § 1 I 5 8 g || 1o -s r, 5 ^ a o co- S » sz JE | e g2 c ° ~ (J *= > 2 c c2 § 5 ?r ^, c ® £ a o £=o2sg>2£^ a-acai^oliSco . s 0)O<U — Z>Q_O).c S3—•*-/^(D- "^t^ -^1 s> c § 9 n * i 2 8 i - 1 8 5 ? I I | ^ ° o 6 S § 1 § 8^IfoZgRo-^ ftiilSi^H i f *2r*l!i3s I I U^IIlIII 5^ Oi. jg = l«|*6lS 111,1;!Hsliss! ! i ? 1 |l§ 1 [^ c •- <_• fc ••= o s= t5 S £ Hi 2 a> C-R J4)03coEa3 " c g^=o j -i EIi 5 s 1 § i & i 1 1 5 1 U i ! iin |tlll i s i i |i f s i •-D5o§DO§ — i^t^i/l0- i ' i es ^~65 <N0 I . o o 0)£ D)C DO) i2c-ion to homeowners and residei>sal.- Vegetative Drainage Course- Existing Detention Basin BJB- Dog Waste Bag Dispensers- HOA shall provide informatirequirements of pet waste dispcoc aa_ O O§oc § I.Q X TD C <Daa. to t) 0a E i Monitoring and Reporting Program; A - Impactst- .X §) ® 2 <"endix A - Impactsa Q.•^ 1 E Brafi Q Hill ^HHH C •£IB ? °tHaiM ^{ OHI * ^H o '*irom] Q} 0)jms) *Q Q 1 o a>"JSiiiiJlJ '*3 ^H s *mi s -2 [HJi|j|l .£ </igjHj c "oHrajifl "~ Q|i|8a Q) QH § •-1 ^ ^ H| oJ 1 NoBI £ Cm ^ °BHHI U ^ f^Hl t/o ^H -^ -^ I ^ ^^ffil *O i--B||i|j QJ CT Hi 2" cB|g| Q Q B^gl ^_ r~ B^i O ^~liJBPj r- I/i -- ~ 1 ^ ° 1^mi K 1H, B 1 Hil Isg ia p o a ^ Izp ^S (D (D.C 'o 3 5 o « £ -*- 1 £w 0O -^ r: a 1| K; ^ _o •- U "f~ .2, oO O 1 Year 20101. Intersection #3: College Boulevard/Plaza DriveThe PM peak hour is at LOS "F" in the Year 2010 prproject traffic is less than two seconds the direct im|— .y Bi= ti.2.oa o .E 3 s >• 01"O cg "5 I.c (D ^i: c*~ a(U OU != ^ -1 U T5!E (!)O m •*= "D O '""(D O'6" u a*~ (Uw_ o 2c og .0) o ^d) £ £ E I I £ ^o S .£ 5 * o1.1U <D Year 20102. Intersection #23: Cannon Road/El Camino RealThe PM peak hour is at LOS "E1 in the Year 2010 pro.is more than two seconds, both direct and cumulat£! _y *Q •fc tj0)o a "o•*—D $ O tsto t/>ooa£ .1 | E? T3Co "o 2'•6 Q CO 73(U"D"DO y "g tj CD'oa fll * = 3 2 "5 B .1 2 Year 20103. Intersection #28: West Village Driveway/El CamThe Year 2010 AM peak hour level of service wouwould be significant.<2 _ 0)3C Proposed Project Improvement:1. Intersection #14: El Camino Real/Tamarack Avei — •ao 2 Proposed Project Improvement:2. El Camino Real - Tamarack Avenue to Cannon 1101 — | 5? o«^. 0 >Proposed Project Improvement:3. Intersection #28: El Camino Real/West Village Dit—Proposed Project Improvement:4. Intersection #25: E! Camino Real/Kelly DriveI-s.1 — •o 5 Proposed Project Improvement:5. Cannon Road - El Camino Real to College BouleCOi —Proposed Project Improvement:6. College Boulevard£ § CYL UJ "5 incD OJ V*D .OCo(^ IIoa; Eo Q_ O) Oa<Dry. OIo a ?o S .!••§ tja |ImpactNumberF CDC wo oi: O) a3.E > 1§CD Ow C. >• .,0 «f CD UT3 O C £.2 i U 0 CD Bc o"^ E.E i (D O O CD 0 ^ •- CCD O£ .0 CD 'Eo gi " c£ En ^ (11-^- (JJu —CD 01° 'B CDc '2•2 a Year 20301. Intersection #1 Vista Way /College BoulevardThe PM peak hour is projected to be LOS "F" in the Year 2030 with or without the addilthe project traffic is less than two seconds, the direct impacts resulting from theo El .£r.£. •— 1 § "u -•-0 oC CDc "3 8 a O CDU g CD 'o 0 r 4 oS &"0 .Ec<D ti X 0a) .£ -S2 Q "D ^8|<* o C CDn *"Siu_ Irt >• £c ^_ O D 73 ^ |0 o cuy -8E 5o a•*= CD f. U Year 20302. Intersection #4 College Boulevard/lake AvenueThe PM peak hour is projected to be LOS "F" in the Year 2030 with or without the projecCamino Real. If Marron Road is not extended, 2030 projections conclude an acintersection are considered significant. The cumulative impacts also are significant.t— tiCD '2o. 1^_oo.c 1b JZ1 m CDECD 2a .0 tiCDEJD _C 3og'5 8"8 bCD>- <o Year 20303. Intersection #14 El Camino Real/Tamarack AvenueThe AM and PM peak hour level of service is projected to be at LOS "F" or "E" during thnirprt impacts of the project on this intersection are considered significant.(N 1 — CDv\2.c "D 1 0OJ "c CD CD 0a JE co .1 1H o^ H-:s: C 1 | CN .C^_ 'v O 73CD 0 « 5 $ S£ g o> oc o '>— fl!D £•a o s CLU §Year 20304. Intersection #25 El Camino Real/Kelly DriveThe AM peak hour level of service is projected to be at LOS "F" and the PM at LOS 'described for Year 2010 Direct and cumulative impacts of the project on this intersect!n .C .!2.t .C'J —1 . o oCD —C 0C 0O *o"u ^ 0 ?" ^^CD 'Si: O 0 £0 O * 1c •-(D 7l •5 CDsa i§u ^O 0CD 0O£ C 73 « 8 -£ & £c tO —C O £. <^P, OO rl 5= 0 >- J2 "O 00 073 0 73 O0 ,-Year 20305. Intersection #23: El Camino Real/Cannon RoadThe PM peak hour is at COS "F" in the 2030 projection with or without the project trafficCannon Road in Oceanside. If Reach 4 is not extended, 2030 projections conclude aiintersection are considered significant. The cumulative impacts are also significant.•<r t— 0.a 73^ i £uDQ. 0> B D D O 73 a ti.iQ r i^ t/>9 B 0.Q 73 o 8o CN 8*"Year 20304. Intersection #15: El Camino Real/Faraday AvenueThe AM peak hour would be at LOS "E" and the PM peak hour level of service in YUl C 0— > 0 3=8^ £ Eu §.E o0 0 £ £0 — ~0 Cc o£.y 'c .y-£ So•t .c •«— *~u y,.2. c !«0 uIf'B o. E^ |§o 8 ^"0)^ .E 11b£ £ o '?lC pp .E Year 20307 Intersection #33: Palomar Airport Road/AAelrose DriveThe AM and PM peak hour levels of service would be at LOS "E" in the 2030 projectintersection delay resulting from the project traffic is less than two seconds, the directimpacts; however, are significant.X) *— uoa Ioa! aoCtL•a o •= Do a•IIo C S'l 8,1 I! i 5 > o T3C O D) CDT3 D O) o O) O) o O) '•D Ti t)CD"o"a II o cu S S 2£ ID(D C > 0) •D O)CD o S 0 § -M .fi o t * 2 u 52 >0^02•V f-I "* f— T3 JD B'oO -ME ?o c Z .2 •8 S.£fl) O 15 a •£ :•=*-•!=» a -a *co, I o 1 '5 = - ra Z B OO O) T3 T3 CD U S 2 1 S u ^ CD CDro CD o o D 10oJD <uoc_ o •D „; 43 ^- CD Da o sc -vo u iia o E CD U8 2 O< oa 0- ¥ e £ u J2O ? 0) (D 'o CD a i! S o P 3 I o 3 ~»J o o .?; 2 '5 Q. _ c £ 2 u _ •-= TI .¥ i > Ti j: ii 5 % 'I '! fi- • i\ .!! 1 L 1 <: J'* • r t J' ii t . IffO ( !: !.<! ( Ii '!(L -\111 i <! Ji i# I :Ii 1! * c: (J 4 H C\ " ij 1: U V. .i: .;: !: 3> -i ( '1u 3 j * i! c( cc I! * *Cl »• ir(i i ii TI C 4) 9 •j: C J: Ii <! < V **l$ o '(i T , j! ii J! *' o i 0!- -* <S> $ i\ <c $ ! ; o T 3 1:o !o ii :: .! i c s:o TIA) tit: '2aTJCDi/>&O Q. CD TJ.213oa CD _i.C CD 0 -o 3 2. ll•§ itl TD * _o 5? 1 3f o£^ 3§u "5TO v_ on •£ O OO ca £E oi B 1 UJo uoa Oa i T3 _O 1 o Q> OD (X<No • 5"5 uo o^~ B Iao .2> •£ CD O •D .U c 1a ena. ':;S^llIs c po X DCO O OOa T3OJ t)& CDn 1 "OI D 1 o O 73 a .g B"33 c.g a.a 'o 2uo >- a o -oa 2 •Si u 05 CD | ° Q- CD CD _aI g S .Q c •=•o ^ _ 18 Io£ O) Icuct: 73 O ?tl|•c olO 0-11^' 2<l II I oif o .co , Di an cO Ig 0. O) ba TJ O •sio .1-1 8,1 O. o3 .O oty.co - oct; 16,0 i I"?I < 03 DO X '"Oc CD QL Q. G) O O ~O O_C "0 C .0 "D.Q H— Co U CD D_C CO U u S b *eS.c c O CDtoin Q "O O - CD -D ->•Boa 8|° c/i to "OIIIprO mulaentoE*S 50 c2 CD o ^r U (-•2 S o a a o4) CNl SI otal of all directionDivided by_o "o0)tA a> o a< 01 2 3uu 'o "5 -iC CTUJ _H_ch Project Percentage of Future ADT alc Robertson Raintersection% ea Multiplied by—><_of intersection improvements*jj Estimated co!*Uu V)o I — ^.It ch Project total amount "Fair Share"c Robertson Ra%aa Divided by—? ^ 5 1 .CUC Robertson Ra^fe111UJ EqualQ < <Ua 010)Ik u o O)o o•oo fllM/ co*™ D .Q*zz "co U (D>_ O COiu. '5UL. UEo ^M ODD •-" 0 D)^ .— il0 T .£ •° ^o . — oit: i ^o *- oSZ. in "— «" CD CDage 0 « c o2-^, = u0) o 2 B B ^a o> c ^ ^ 1 8 g1 S.c o£ 0 T3 2 r ^1 = 1\ ~ .S E 'D CD 42 2O--D c b CD - CD .c ^ n E f i^.i2 O b: ii. ^^ *- CD 0 0 QU 4^ Q.— Q)CD 2 °- T3 •£'0 c o 0 «^a§&^ ^880£ O o 0 d-^ __2 *vT o § o =S2 a ZJ '-5 0 0 o "S •2 15 o *— * 5^C ^-1 §* 1 1 !o 3 1 S< <3 o)o </> c•O 3 C 3 -| "Xtf -< UJ * *x — ^ >-X ^. >• co:=tj 0)ADT at inter;0) ^"5JO !!••§ sfi" £ % JL S u X ID C CD Q.a ao 5 mvix C. "a b X n ^ Q. O2 CD OX Q_ » i Q X '"D C CD Q.a 0 _Q D co "5-*— 0 D) 0 0.0 -Q 5D 0)I- o>o>> (D c 2 Tn Ol <U O5 5 <b•« 01O 5lu «Restoration Type/ Area(N O O cso <Initial (Extensive) CSS Revegetation (AreaCN CO o CN CO <f -Initial^Extensive) CSS Revegetation (AreaOn West Village property)ss •o 10 0 0 o Extensive CSS Revegetation on Habitat Cslopes (Area B)ooo CO 0 Modest CSS Re-introduction in HabitatCorridor (Area C)^ ^ 0 Modest CSS Re-introduction with WestVillage Gradingcooo' 0 CO 00 2o Wetland (Riparian) Revegetation - CalavHillsco O 0 COo o Wetland (Riparian) Revegetation Expansi(1 2,000 sf)ss 0 S3 CN Future Wetland (Riparian) Revegetation -West Village (May occur in either Village)10 CO CN CO S3 ^> CN O LJJ >> .X LO oC (Daa cr co "a .O) Q_ Ml? CMtN Sage ScrubDiegan CoaQ O U Q. 1 cO g 11 3£± 2 o °J e Chaparral0 £ .QB COCM .O 0"55010 I"5c co .D) |B 03CO S Oct> 5 a01 ! B a > ?<fta Vegetation MitiWoodland MitigrNI I 8 i8> "| | ra ra1 1 T3 T3 ptulturi O .3 .0C fj C C_Q 3 Dl O) OJ < <( 1 )(2)(3) X T3c CD Q.a l\ C uS 0 10 "Q GOU) CDIT CK Q£ "D m a. oo CDcoID -ac D COCN coJZcDo_ CDCOoQ.O ROBERTSON RANCH PANHANDLE LAND USES VERA'HlfcLV ^ DEVELOPMENT' ROBERTSON RANCH BOUNDARYUNE EXISTING CALA VEftA CREEK RIPARIAN CORRIDOR DETENTION BASIN BJB OVERLAPING WETLAND RESTORA TION AND DETENTION BASIN BJB TRAIL ROBERTSON RANCH AND SURPLUS WETLAND RESTORA TION SOURCE: Planning Systems, 2005 4/4/04 f$. 980-2005 • 1 1 E ms •|i 3S iZ Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR Proposed Panhandle (PA 23E) Land Uses and Restoration FIGURE 5.5-7 111 o x T3 C 0Q. QL .O .0 C CDQ P '•4— <4^ 0 Co oou CO >sQ) .t: o COCD "o o 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6106 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MASTER PLAN FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF EL CAMINO REAL, 5 EAST OF TAMARACK AVENUE, EAST AND WEST OF COLLEGE BOULEVARD, AND EAST AND WEST OF 6 CANNON ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 14. 7 CASE NAME: ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN 8 CASE NO: MP 02-03 9 WHEREAS, Calavera Hills II, LLC, "Developer," has filed a verified 10 application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Calavera Hills II, LLC and Gary Robertson and Brian Robertson, as co-successor trustees of the Robertson Family 12 1995 Trust dated April 19,1995, as to an undivided one-half interest; Gary Robertson and 13 Brian Robertson, co-successor trustees under Declaration of Trust dated October 8, 1976, 14 , r as to an undivided 7% interest; and Gary Robertson and Brian Robertson, co-successor 16 trustees of the Elsie M. Kelly Irrevocable Trust dated June 19, 1989, as to an undivided 17 43% interest, "Owners," described as: 18 Those portions of Lots D and E of Rancho Agua Hedionda, in jp the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. According to Map thereof No. 823, filed in the Office of the 20 County Recorder of San Diego County, November 16, 1896, described as follows: 21 Parcel 1: 22 Parcel 1 on Certificate of Compliance recorded November 28, 23 2001, as File No. 2001-0865064 of Official Records. Parcel 2:24 Parcel 2 on Certificate of Compliance recorded November 28, 25 2001, as File No. 2001-0865065 of Official Records. 26 Parcel 3: 27 Parcel 1 and the remainder parcel of Carlsbad Minor Subdivision 02-10 as shown on Parcel Map No. 19804 recorded 28 August 3, 2005, as File No. 2005-0659805 of Official Records. ("the Property"); and /73 WHEREAS, said verified application- constitutes a request for a Master Plan as 2 shown on Exhibit "MP 02-03" dated May 31, 2006, on file in the Carlsbad Planning 3 Department, ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN - MP 02-03, as provided by Chapter 4 ^ 21.38 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and 6 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 31st day of May, 2006, 7 consider said request; and 8 WHEREAS, after hearing the staff presentation for the Robertson Ranch 9 Master Plan and public testimony on the project, the Planning Commission did continue 10 the public hearing to June 21,2006; and 11 WHEREAS, after hearing the additional staff presentation for the Robertson 1 & 13 Ranch Master Plan and public testimony on the project, the Planning Commission did 14 continue the public hearing to a date uncertain; and 15 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 20th day of September, 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing on the continued Robertson Ranch Master Plan 17 project; and 18 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony 2Q and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors 21 relating to the Master Plan. 22 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning 24 Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: 25 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 2" B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission 27 RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN - MP 02-03 based on the following findings and subject to the following 28 conditions: PC RESO NO. 6106 -2- Findings: 2 1. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in conformance 3 with the Elements of the City's General Plan, based on the facts set forth in the staff report dated May 31, 2006, and as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution 4 No. 6107 for GPA 02-04, incorporated by reference herein, and including, but not - limited to the following: the proposed open space lots provide over 140 acres associated with "Link B" of the HMP and result in large conservation areas that 5 are visually pleasing and reflect the environmental values of the area; the project includes open space for the preservation of natural resources, public safety, and 7 open space for outdoor recreation; the General Plan Amendment provides for the shift of dwelling units resulting in a clustering of development; the Master Plan contains development standards and architectural design guidelines as well as a o review process to ensure that the desired level of quality is attained; the proposed land use designations in the Master Plan provide for a local shopping center site and 10 community facilities site which will allow for uses that will serve the proposed and existing residential development areas; dedication and improvement of all 11 circulation facilities needed for the project will be completed; and areas designated as RH will accommodate affordable housing. 1 £* 13 2. That all necessary public facilities can be provided concurrent with need, and adequate provisions have been provided to implement those portions of the Capital Improvement 14 Program applicable to the subject property, in that the Master Plan includes an analysis of the public facilities needed to support the proposed development, consistent with 15 those contained in the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 14, as amended, .,- which the project must implement concurrent with development in order to comply with City standards and ordinances including Growth Management. 17 3. That the residential and open space portions of the community will constitute an 18 environment of sustained desirability and stability, and that it will be in harmony with or provide compatible variety to the character of the surrounding area, and that the sites proposed for public facilities, such as schools, playgrounds, and parks, are adequate to 2Q serve the anticipated population and appear acceptable to the public authorities having jurisdiction thereof, in that the residential segments of the Master Plan include a wide 21 variety of housing types that range from lower-income attached units to 10,000- square-foot single-family lots; over 40% of the Master Plan is designated for active 22 recreation, passive recreation, and open space preservation; and the Master Plan __ vision is to create a neighborhood that embodies the "Ahwahnee Principles" for the development of "livable communities." 24 4. That the proposed commercial and industrial uses will be appropriate in area, location, 25 and overall design to the purpose intended, that the design and development are such as to create an environment of sustained desirability and stability, and that such 2" development will meet performance standards established by Title 21, in that the 27 commercial and community facilities components of the Master Plan are centrally located to be accessible to all segments of the Master Plan and the Master Plan 28 includes special design guidelines, including the requirements of the Local Shopping Center Zone and Community Facilities Zone for the applicable planning areas. PCRESONO. 6106 -3- ^ 5. That in the case of institutional, recreational, and other similar nonresidential uses, such 2 development will be proposed, and surrounding areas are protected from any adverse effects from such development, in that such uses are sited in locations where they are 3 adjacent to existing or planned uses which are compatible and the Master Plan includes development and design standards, and required permit processes to 4 ensure that land use conflicts are not created. 6. That the streets and thoroughfares proposed are suitable and adequate to carry the 5 anticipated traffic thereon, in that the Master Plan includes various street improvements necessary for the development as well as portions of circulation 7 element roadways identified in the General Plan. • 7. That any proposed commercial development can be justified economically at the location o proposed and will provide adequate commercial facilities of the types needed at such location proposed, in that an extensive commercial study was prepared by the City of 10 Carlsbad which established the need for a local shopping center within the Robertson Ranch Master Plan boundaries. 11 8. That the area surrounding the development is or can be planned and zoned in coordination and substantial compatibility with the development, in that proposed 13 Master Plan perimeter land uses were determined based on achieving compatibility with surrounding existing development and zoning designations. 14 9. That appropriate measures are proposed to mitigate any adverse environmental impact as 15 noted in the adopted Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR 03-03) for the ,,. project, in that the mitigation measures identified in the Final Program EIR 03-03, the Candidate Findings of Fact, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 17 will be implemented and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is proposed for the significant impacts that will not be mitigated to below a level of significance. 18 10. That the project requires an allocation of 171 dwelling units from the City's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank and the project will provide sufficient additional public 2Q facilities for the density in excess of the control point to ensure that the adequacy of the City's public facilities plans will not be adversely impacted as demonstrated in 21 the Zone 14 Local Facilities Management Plan as amended in conjunction with the Robertson Ranch Project. 22 __ 11. That there have been sufficient developments approved in the quadrant at densities below the control point to cover the units in the project above the control point so 24 that the approval will not result in exceeding the quadrant limit in that there are adequate units in the bank (3,146 units as of April 2006) for the requested allocation 25 and the transfer of these units would not exceed the Proposition E dwelling unit cap of 9,042 dwelling units for the Northeast Quadrant. The Zone 14 LFMP estimates 2" current residential build-out for the Northeast Quadrant to be 7,467 dwelling units 27 including the Master Plan proposal of 1,154 units. 28 12. That all necessary public facilities required by Chapter 21.90 of the CMC will be constructed or are guaranteed to be constructed concurrently with the need for them created by this development and in compliance with the adopted City PCRESONO. 6106 -4- standards in that the Robertson Ranch Master Plan project will be required to 2 comply with these adopted performance standards as a condition of approval for any development project within the Master Plan. 3 13. 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. 6 Conditions: 7 . Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make, all corrections ° and modifications to the Master Plan document(s) necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown in the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development, different 10 from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. 2. Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims 13 and costs, including court costs and attorney's fees incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this Master Plan (MP 02-03), 14 (b) City's approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or nondiscretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/ Operator's installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including without ,,- limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This obligation survives until 17 all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the City's approval is not validated. 18 3. PA 22 shall be designated as an "Unplanned Area" in the Master Plan with the intent that final Land Use designations will be determined when a comprehensive 2Q study of PA 22 and the adjacent "Option Parcel" is completed. Future land uses shall be subject to approval of a Master Plan Amendment and any other 21 discretionary applications deemed necessary based on the proposed land uses. This shall not preclude the use of PA 22 as a temporary RV storage facility for the East 22 Village, subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. 23 4. Any future development proposals for PA 22 or the Option Parcel shall take into 24 consideration the following: 25 a. Line of sight from Rancho Carlsbad to the proposed development; b. Hours of operation of any proposed uses; c. Noise and light mitigation from the proposed project; and d. Site designs that reduce landform alteration, where feasible, and reduce the removal of healthy mature trees. 28 5. The Robertson Ranch Master Plan shall be revised, subject to the Planning Director's approval as follows: PCRESONO. 6106 -5- 1 I " 2 a. Replace the Robertson Ranch Master Plan Land Use Plan Figure II-4 with the new exhibit included as Attachment 3 of the staff report dated September 20, 3 2006. Revise the associated text and graphics to reflect the new Land Use Plan. 4 b. Revise the associated text and graphics of the Master Plan and individual ~ Planning Areas to reflect the new maximum number of dwelling units, the revised General Plan land use designations, and the revised allocation of excess 5 dwelling units. 7 c. Revise the text for PA 7 to require a minimum of 50% of the units be developed as senior housing. A reference shall be incorporate to Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.84 - Housing for Senor Citizens as additional development standards o for the senior housing portion of the site. 10 d. Revise the text and graphics for PA 13 and PA 14 to allow development of the site as an elementary school as its primary use. In the event that CUSD does not 11 purchase or develop the site as planned, the alternative land use shall be RM (Residential Medium Density 4-8 du/ac) with a maximum of 52 dwelling units. The unit allocation is based on the Growth Control Point for the existing RLM 13 designation which would allow 32 units (10 acres x 3.2 du/ac) together with a shift of 20 du's from several other planning areas (PA 5-10 du's, PA 6-1 du, 14 PA 10-6 du's, and PA 21-3 du's). As proposed, 35 du's would be located within PA 13 and 17 du's would be located within PA 14. These planning areas 1 would be developed as small-lot, detached, single-family residences on minimum ,s 5,000 sf lots, according to the development standards currently proposed for PA 16, PA 17, and PA 18. 17 6. The park area (PA 12) shall be dedicated to the City in accordance with the 18 provisions of the Parkland Agreement for the Robertson Ranch Master Plan, prior to recordation of the first Final Map within the Master Plan or as otherwise specified in the agreement. Developer shall fulfill all obligations as outlined in the 2Q Parkland Agreement. 21 7. A Hillside Development Permit and Floodplain Special Use Permit shall be approved, including grading plan approval and security posted for grading of the 22 park site in PA 12 prior to recordation of the first Final Map within the Master _~ Plan, or in accordance with the terms of the Parkland Agreement for the Robertson Ranch Master Plan. 24 8. A Hillside Development Permit, Floodplain Special Use Permit (if required), and 25 revegetation plans shall be approved, including grading plan approval and security posted for grading of the habitat corridor in PA 23C prior to recordation of the first 26 Final Map within the Master Plan. 27 9. Grading for the habitat corridor (PA 23C) shall be initiated within six (6) months of 28 approval of the first Final Map within the Master Plan. PCRESONO. 6106 -6- 10. The developers of the East and West Villages shall be responsible for the dedication 2 and installation of the pedestrian trails within PA 23C, PA 13, and PA 14. These trails shall be installed in conjunction with the grading and revegetation of the 3 habitat corridor in PA 23C. The trails shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Trails Manager. - 11. The Robertson Ranch Master Plan shall be revised, subject to the Planning Director's approval as follows: 6 a. Include Attachment 8 of the staff report (dated September 20, 2006), 7 Alternative 2 - Circuitous Routing Plus Tamarack Connection as a new Figure IV-4A in the Robertson Ranch Master Plan.8 o b. Revise the associated text and graphics of the Master Plan to include a conceptual access point from Tamarack Avenue at PA 2 to PA 3. 10 c. Relocate the RV Storage site within PA 2 to within PA 1. Revise the 11 associated text and graphics to show the new "Tamarack Connection" and to reflect the new Open Space (OS) boundaries. 13 12. Prior to the issuance of any permits for the project, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Director a digital copy and a camera-ready master copy of the final 14 ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN - MP 02-03, in addition to the required number of bound copies.15 ,, 13. This approval is granted subject to the certification, adoption, and approval of the Program Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting 17 Program, GPA 02-04, LFMP 14(B), and HMP 06-04 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6105, 6107, 6108, and 6109 for 18 those other approvals incorporated herein by reference. 1 Q 14. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or recordation of the first Final Map in the 20 Master Plan, Developer shall submit to the City a Notice of Restriction to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, 21 notifying all interested parties and successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Program EIR, Master Plan, and Habitat Management Plan Permit by 22 Resolutions No. 6105, 6106, and 6109 on the property. Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property description, location of the file containing complete project details and all conditions of approval as well as any conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion 24 in the Notice of Restriction. The Planning Director has the authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice which modifies or terminates said notice upon a 25 showing of good cause by the Developer or successor in interest. 26 27 28 PCRESONO. 6106 -7- Engineering: ,. 2 General 3 15. On future discretionary permits for each subsequent Planning Area within this 4 Master Plan, the Developer shall provide public road and public utility . improvements as necessary to serve the planning area as well as provisions for adjacent planning areas to ensure facilities provide a network circulation and 5 facility system to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Developer shall provide detailed studies and/or analysis to verify capacity of existing and proposed 7 infrastructure required. Q 16. AH single-family lots or individually owned condominium units within this Master p Plan shall be provided with their own potable water meter to the satisfaction of the District Engineer. 10 East Village 11 17. Prior to recordation of the first Final Map, Developer shall design and secure frontage improvements along both sides of Cannon Road from College Boulevard to 13 El Camino Real and install traffic signals at intersections with "A" Street and "O" Street at the time directed by the City Engineer. 14 18. Prior to recordation of the first Final Map, Developer shall design and secure 1 ^ frontage improvements to College Boulevard along each planning area of the East 16 Village. 17 19. Prior to recordation of the first Final Map, Developer shall design and secure frontage improvements to Cannon Road along each planning area of the East 18 Village. 19 20. Developer shall design and install storm drain improvements described in Master 20 Drainage and Stormwater Quality Plan, LFMP and Drainage Study. Improvements include but are not limited to: 21 a. 84-inch RCP from BJB detention basin 22 b. proposed onsite drainage improvements West Village 24 21. Concurrent with the Master Tentative Map for the West Village, the Developer of 25 the West Village shall cause the Property Owner to execute an irrevocable offer to dedicate (IOD) a public road easement along PA 1 adjacent to Tamarack Avenue. " In the event the signal at El Camino Real and Tamarack Avenue does not meet City 27 Growth Management Requirements, said easement shall accommodate future dual left-turn lanes on Tamarack Avenue as it approaches El Camino Real. The width 28 and extent of the IOD shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. PCRESONO. 6106 -8- 22. In conjunction with the submittal of the Fjrst Tentative Map for the West Village, 2 the developer of the West Village shall coordinate with the Colony HOA or its designated representatives to determine what methods of traffic calming, if any, are 3 acceptable to the residents according to the procedures in the Traffic Management Program. Any approved traffic calming measures shall be designed and secured by the developer prior to the recordation of the First Final Map within the West Village. Traffic calming measures shall be installed prior to the extensions of Glasgow Drive and Edinburgh Drive. 6 23. Prior to recordation of the first Final Map, at the intersection of Cannon Road and 7 El Camino Real, the Developer shall re-stripe northbound El Camino Real after frontage improvements have been installed along the West Village to allow for a shared thru/right-turn lane to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 9 24. Prior to recordation of the first Final Map, at the intersection of El Camino and 10 Lisa Street, the Developer shall add a third southbound lane on El Camino Real from Tamarack Avenue to Cannon Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This improvement shall be funded by the Developer of the West Village and may be subject to reimbursement through formation of a financing district or other public improvement funding mechanism. 13 25. Prior to recordation of the first Final Map, at the intersection of El Camino Real 14 and Tamarack Avenue, the Developer shall widen northbound El Camino Real to provide three thru-lanes and a separate right-turn lane to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This improvement shall also include construction of a southbound shared , , thru/right-turn lane at Tamarack Avenue, which may be accomplished through re- striping, subject to approval by the City Engineer. 17 26. Prior to recordation of the first Final Map, Developer shall design and secure full- 18 width improvements to El Camino Real along the entire Master Plan frontage with El Camino Real including necessary transitions in both lane directions. These improvements shall include, but not be limited to, full-width right-of-way 2Q dedication, potable water, recycled water, sewer line, storm drainage, undergrounding of overhead utilities, grading, paving, sidewalk, curb and gutter, 21 street lights, parkway landscaping, striping, signage, median curbs, median hardscape, and median landscape/irrigation per major arterial standards, all to the 22 satisfaction of the City Engineer. 23 27. Prior to recordation of the first Final Map, Developer shall reconfigure the traffic 24 signal and appurtenances at the intersection of Cannon Road and El Camino Real as necessary to accommodate the ultimate lane assignments by widening El Camino 25 Real north of Cannon Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 28. Prior to recordation of the first Final Map, Developer shall widen northbound El 27 Camino Real to provide a right-turn only lane at Tamarack Avenue/El Camino Real and add a third northbound thru-lane along the entire project frontage of El 28 Camino Real, and re-stripe northbound El Camino Real north of Tamarack Avenue to allow for a transition from three lanes to two lanes to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This improvement shall also include construction of a southbound shared PC RESO NO. 6106 -9- ,- Jo I thru/right-turn lane at Tamarack Avenue, which may be accomplished through 2 re-striping, subject to approval by the City Engineer. 3 29. Prior to recordation of the first Final Map, at the intersection of El Camino and West Village entrance/Lisa Street, the Developer shall install a traffic signal and 4 provide a northbound separate right-turn lane at the intersection of El Camino Real , and the West Village entrance to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This improvement shall also include construction of a southbound shared thru/right-turn 5 lane at Tamarack Avenue, which may be accomplished through re-striping, subject to approval by the City Engineer. 7 30. Prior to recordation of the first Final Map, at the intersection of El Camino Real and Kelly Drive, the Developer shall modify the existing traffic signal and construct 9 a third northbound lane on El Camino Real. Developer shall also construct PA 1 driveway (east intersection leg) and construct a third southbound shared thru/right- 10 turn lane to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 11 31. Prior to recordation of the first Final Map, at the intersection of El Camino Real and Cannon Road, the Developer shall construct a second southbound left-turn lane for southbound El Camino Real to eastbound Cannon Road, which may be 13 accomplished through re-striping, subject to approval by the City Engineer. 14 32. As part of grading PA 12, Developer shall construct a vehicular access path that allows the City to maintain the outlet (discharge) of the 84-inch RCP storm drain to 1^ the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 33. Prior to recordation of the first Final Map, Developer shall extend a public sewer 17 main in El Camino Real as necessary to serve the West Village. 18 34. Prior to recordation of the first final map for the West Village, Developer shall provide a design study addressing the public sewer through the West Village that will extend north of PA 9 as necessary to connect to the existing sewer in Edinburgh 20 Drive as required to shut down the existing sewer pump station as shown in the Master Plan. The study shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 21 Prior to recordation of the final map for PA 9 and PA 10, Developer shall complete this sewer extension and provide security as necessary to extend this sewer to the 22 satisfaction of the City Engineer. 23 35. Developer shall provide all public road and public utility improvements within the 24 project as necessary to serve the planning areas of the West Village to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 25 36. Developer shall construct all necessary storm drain facilities pursuant to the Local 26 Facilities Master Plan (LFMP 14B) including but not limited to: 27 a. Facility BFB 28 b. Facility BF1 c. Detention Basins in PA 1, PA 2, PA 7, and PA 11 PCRESONO. 6106 -10- ,«» 1 d. Facility BFA 2 e. Proposed onsite drainage infrastructure 3 37. Developer shall provide the necessary technical studies and implement measures to demonstrate that storm water from this project does not exceed the capacity of existing or planned infrastructure. 38. Prior to issuance of grading permits, Developer shall show all existing areas 6 inundated by 100-year flood limits and demonstrate this project does not impact flood limits pursuant to FEMA regulations. Developer shall prepare the necessary technical studies, subject to approval by the City Engineer. 39. Prior to issuance of grading permits, Developer shall submit the necessary technical studies and documentation to the City Engineer to process the necessary applications with FEMA (CLOMR) to adjust regulatory floodplain limits that 10 currently encumber the subdivision. 40. Prior to release of grading security and prior to Occupancy of Buildings, Developer shall process and receive approval of the necessary application(s) with FEMA (LOMR) to complete the adjustment of the regulatory floodplain limits. 13 41. Prior to recordation of the first Final Map for the West Village, Developer shall 14 cause Property Owner to pay their fair-share reimbursement for the construction of Cannon Road and College Boulevard pursuant to City Council Resolution 2004-293. 16 NOTICE 17 Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "imposition" of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as "fees/exactions." 19 You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If 20 you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely ~~ follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. 23 You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions 24 DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading, or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. 27 28 PCRESONO. 6106 -11- 1 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of September, 2006, by 4 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning 2" 3 „ the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman, Segall, and Whitton 6 NOES: 7 ABSENT:8 9 ABSTAIN: 10 MARTELL B. MONT<gOMERY|£nairperson 12 CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 13 14 ATTEST: 15 16 DONNEU 17 Assistant Planning Director 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PCRESONO. 6106 -12- 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6107 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE 4 ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF EL CAMINO REAL, EAST OF TAMARACK AVENUE, EAST AND WEST OF 6 COLLEGE BOULEVARD, AND EAST AND WEST OF CANNON ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT 7 ZONE 14. CASE NAME: ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN 8 CASE NO: GPA 02-04- WHEREAS, Calavera Hills II, LLC, "Developer," has filed a verified 10 application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Calavera Hills II, LLC and Gary Robertson and Brian Robertson, as co-successor trustees of the Robertson Family 13 1995 Trust dated April 19,1995, as to an undivided one-half interest; Gary Robertson and 14 Brian Robertson, co-successor trustees under Declaration of Trust dated October 8, 1976, *-> as to an undivided 7% interest; and Gary Robertson and Brian Robertson, co-successor trustees of the Elsie M. Kelly Irrevocable Trust dated June 19, 1989, as to an undivided 17 43% interest, "Owner," described as 18 Those portions of Lots D and £ of Rancho Agua Hedionda, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. 20 According to Map thereof No. 823, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, November 16, 1896, 21 described as follows: 22 Parcel 1: Parcel 1 on Certificate of Compliance recorded November 28, 23 2001, as File No. 2001-0865064 of Official Records; 24 Parcel 2: 25 Parcel 2 on Certificate of Compliance recorded November 28, 2001, as File No. 2001-0865065 of Official Records; Parcel 3: 2' Parcel 1 and the remainder parcel of Carlsbad Minor ~~ Subdivision 02-10 as shown on Parcel Map No. 19804 recorded August 3,2005, as File No. 2005-0659805 of Official Records; 1 ("the Property"); and 2 WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a General Plan 3 Amendment as shown on Exhibit MGPA 02-04" dated May 31,2006, attached hereto and on file 4 5 in the Carlsbad Planning Department, ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN - GPA 02-04, 6 as provided in Government Code Section 65350 et seq. and Section 21.52.160 of the Carlsbad 7 Municipal Code; and 8 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 31st day of May, 2006, hold a 9 duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 10 WHEREAS, after hearing the staff presentation for the Robertson Ranch 11 Master Plan and public testimony on the project, the Planning Commission did continue 13 the public hearing to June 21,2006; and 14 WHEREAS, after hearing the additional staff presentation for the Robertson ^ Ranch Master Plan and public testimony on the project, the Planning Commission did continue the public hearing to a date uncertain; and 17 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 20th day of September, 18 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing on the continued Robertson Ranch Master Plan 20 project; and 21 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony 22 and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors 23 relating to the General Plan Amendment. 24 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning 25 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:26 27 A) That the above recitations are true and correct. 28 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN - GPA 02-04, based on the following findings: PCRESONO. 6107 -2- Findings; 2 The Planning Commission finds that the project is in conformance with the Elements of 3 the City's General Plan based on the facts set forth in the staff report dated May 31, 2006, hereby incorporated by this reference, including but not limited to the following: 4 that the proposed change in General Plan Land Use designations from Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM, 0-4 du/ac), Residential Medium Density (RM, 5 4-8 du/ac), Open Space (OS) and "floating" Elementary School (E) and Local Shopping Center (L) designations to RLM, RMH, Residential Medium-High Density (RMH, 8-15 du/ac), Residential High Density (RH, 15-23 du/ac), 7 L, Community Facilities (CF), Elementary School (E), Unplanned Area (UA), and OS land use designations are required to reflect the Land Use designations of the ° Robertson Ranch Master Plan; that the proposed Land Use designations are q compatible with the surrounding land uses in that the adjacent lands are designated for RLM, RM, L, and OS land uses; that the land use change to OS is based on the 10 environmental constraints of the property and is environmentally and topographically appropriate for the site in that the slopes and the habitat areas 11 included in the open space preserve areas are consistent with the "hardline areas" shown on the draft Robertson Ranch Hardline Map dated September 15, 2004, and 1 that these areas are proposed to be designated as Open Space on the General Plan Land Use Map; that City policy allows for transfer of density from designated open spaces to developable areas resulting in the new RM, RMH, and RH designations; 14 that the CF designation implements the Master Plan requirement for Community Facilities; and that the L designation reflects the site of the Local Shopping Center, and that the UA designation will allow for future comprehensive planning efforts on Planning Area 22 in conjunction with the "Option Parcel."16 17 Conditions: 18 1. This approval is granted subject to the certification, adoption, and approval of the Program Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting 19 Program, MP 02-03, LFMP 14(B), HMP 06-04 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6105, 6106, 6108, and 6109 for those other approvals incorporated herein by reference. 21 2. Exhibit "GPA 02-04" shall be revised to reflect a Residential Low-Medium (RLM) 22 designation on Planning Area 10, an Elementary School (E) designation on Planning Areas 13 and 14, and an Unplanned Area (UA) on Planning Area 22. 23 24 3. Exhibit "GPA 02-04" shall be revised to delete the Community Facilities (CF) land use designation within Planning Area 2. 25 26 27 28 PCRESONO. 6107 -3- 1 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning 2 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of September, 2006, by 3 the following vote, to wit: 4 - AYES: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman, Segall, and Whitton 6 NOES: 7 ABSENT:8 9 ABSTAIN: 10 11 12 13 MARTELL B. MONTGOMERY,ifhairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 14" 15 ATTEST: 16 17 DONNEU 18 Assistant Planning Director 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PCRESONO. 6107 -4- GPA 02-04 ROBERTSON RANCH Date: 09/20/06 PROPOSED Related Case File No(s): EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/LFMP 14(B) /HMP 06-04 G.P. Map Designation Change Property A. 208-01 0-36 B. 168-050-47 C. 168-050-54 D. 168-050-56 From: RLM, RM, OS, L&E RLM RLM RLM To: RLM, RM, RH, L.CF.OS, E RM, RMH, RH, OS, E, UA OS OS PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 61081 : A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 2 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE LOCAL 3 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR ZONE 14 TO 4 UPDATE AND BE CONSISTENT WITH THE ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN ON PROPERTY GENERALLY 5 LOCATED NORTH OF EL CAMINO REAL, EAST OF TAMARACK AVENUE, EAST AND WEST OF COLLEGE 6 BOULEVARD, AND EAST AND WEST OF CANNON ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 14. 7 CASE NAME: ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN 8 CASE NO.: LFMP 14fm 9 WHEREAS, Calavera Hills II, LLC, has filed a verified application with the 10 City of Carlsbad which has been referred to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Local Facilities 12 Management Plan Amendment for Zone 14 (dated May 31, 2006, on file in the Planning 13 Department) and incorporated by this reference (collectively referred to as the "Local Facilities 14 Management Plan Amendments"), as provided in Section 21.90.125 of the Carlsbad Municipal jg Code; and 17 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 31st day of May, 2006, hold a 18 duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 19 WHEREAS, after hearing the staff presentation for the Robertson Ranch Master Plan and public testimony on the project, the Planning Commission did continue ^r 1 the public hearing to June 21,2006; and WHEREAS, after hearing the additional staff presentation for the Robertson £3 Ranch Master Plan and public testimony on the project, the Planning Commission did continue the public hearing to a date uncertain; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 20th day of September, 2006,26 hold a duly noticed public hearing on the continued Robertson Ranch Master Plan project; and28 1 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony 2 and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 14. 4 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning 5 Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: 6 A) That the above recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of an AMENDMENT for Local Facilities Management Plan - Zone 14, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings; 11 1. That the Local Facilities Management Plan amendment for Zone 14 is consistent with 12 Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Growth Management), and with the Citywide Facilities and Improvement Plan, in that it contains all matters required by Section 21.90.110 including special conditions for wastewater treatment capacity, parks, drainage, circulation, fire facilities, open space, school facilities, and sewer and water facilities. This ensures implementation of and consistency with the General 15 Plan and to protect the public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring that public facilities and improvements will be installed to serve new development prior to or concurrently 16 with need. 17ix Conditions: 18 1. Approval is granted for an amendment to Local Facilities Management Plan - Zone 14 as 19 contained in the Plan titled Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 14(B), dated May 31, 2006, on file in the Planning Department, and incorporated herein by reference and on file in the Planning Department. The amended Zone 14 Local Facilities Management Plan, dated May 31, 2006, shall replace in its entirety the Zone 14 LFMP dated February 6,1990. 22 2. This approval is granted subject to the certification, adoption, and approval of the 23 Program Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (EIR 03-03), MP 02-03, GPA 02-04, and HMP 06-04 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6105, 6106, 6107, and 25 6109 for those other approvals incorporated herein by reference. 26 3. The Zone 14 LFMP Amendment shall be revised, subject to the Planning Director's approval, to reflect the new maximum number of "1,122 du's - with school" and "1,154 du's - without school," and revise the General Plan Designations and 28 PCRESONO. 6108 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 allocation of excess dwelling units as described in the General Plan errata (dated September 20, 2006). 4. Prior to the issuance of any permits for the project, the applicant shall Amendment submit to the Planning Director a digital copy and a camera-ready master copy of the LFMP Zone 14(B) Plan, in addition to the required number of bound copies. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad on the 20th day of September, 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman, Segall, and Whitton NOES: ABSENT: AU.TATXT. I ^ ^^| JT_ ^JjH • . &%J **^f y)» MARTELL B. MONTQ^OMERY^Iirperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST:Q ~xL,t&ffjy\ s *&tt DONNEU Assistant Planning Director PCRESONO. 6108 -3- )Q%/7 o< 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6109 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN PERMIT 4 FOR THE ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN FOR 5 PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF EL CAMINO REAL, EAST OF TAMARACK AVENUE, EAST 6 AND WEST OF COLLEGE BOULEVARD, AND EAST AND WEST OF CANNON ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES 7 MANAGEMENT ZONE 14. CASE NAME: ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN 8 CASE NO: HMP 06-04 9 WHEREAS, Calavera Hills II, LLC, "Developer," has filed a verified 10 application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Calavera Hills II, LLC, and Gary Robertson and Brian Robertson, as co-successor trustees of the Robertson Family 13 1995 Trust dated April 19,1995, as to an undivided one-half interest; Gary Robertson and Brian Robertson, co-successor trustees under Declaration of Trust dated October 8, 1976, as to an undivided 7% interest; and Gary Robertson and Brian Robertson, co-successor 16 trustees of the Elsie M. Kelly Irrevocable Trust dated June 19, 1989, as to an undivided 17 43% interest, "Owners," described as:18 Those portions of Lots D and E of Rancho Agua Hedionda, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. 20 According to Map thereof No. 823, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, November 16, 1896, described as follows: 22 Parcel 1: 23 Parcel 1 on Certificate of Compliance recorded November 28, 2001, as File No. 2001-0865064 of Official Records; 24 Parcel 2: 25 Parcel 2 on Certificate of Compliance recorded November 28, 2001, as File No. 2001-0865065 of Official Records;26 Parcel 3: 27 Parcel 1 and the remainder parcel of Carlsbad Minor 28 Subdivision 02-10 as shown on Parcel Map No. 19804 recorded August 3,2005, as File No. 2005-0659805 of Official Records; 1 ("the Property"); and 2 WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has received authorization to issue permits to 3 impact various sensitive species and habitats, including species listed as Threatened or 4 Endangered, by virtue of Incidental Take Permit No. TE022606-0 from the U.S. Fish and 6 Wildlife Service and Natural Community Conservation Planning Permit No. 2835-2004-001-05; 7 and 0 WHEREAS, the authority stated above is based on a plan titled Habitat 9 Management Plan for Natural Communities hi the City of Carlsbad, Final Approval November 10 2004, referred to as the HMP, and approval of all projects is contingent on a finding of . 2 consistency with the HMP; and 13 WHEREAS, said verified application by Developer constitutes a request for a 14 Habitat Management Plan Permit pursuant to the City's authority, on file in the Planning Department; and 16 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 31st day of May, 2006, 17 consider said request; and18 WHEREAS, after hearing the staff presentation for the Robertson Ranch 20 Master Plan and public testimony on the project, the Planning Commission did continue the public hearing to June 21,2006; and 22 WHEREAS, after hearing the additional staff presentation for the Robertson 23 Ranch Master Plan and public testimony on the project, the Planning Commission did 24 continue the public hearing to a date uncertain; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 20th day of September, 27 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing on the continued Robertson Ranch Master Plan project; and PCRESONO. 6109 -2- WHEREAS, at said hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and 2 arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Habitat Management Plan Permit. 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning 4 ^ Commission as follows: 6 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 7 B) That the ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN project is consistent with the HMP as described in the following findings.8 9 C) That based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Habitat Management Plan Permit, 10 HMP 06-04, for the ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions. 12 Findings: 13 1. That the Robertson Ranch Master Plan is shown in Figure 28 of the approved HMP as a Proposed Standards Area. The applicant has negotiated an HMP "hardline" 14 preserve design for the Robertson Ranch Master Plan that has conceptually been . - deemed acceptable to the Wildlife Agencies. The HMP conservation goals for this area include (1) Establish, Enhance and Maintain Habitat Linkage, (2) No-Net-Loss 16 of Wetlands Functions and Value, and (3) Coastal Sage Scrub Preservation, Restoration, and Enhancement. The majority of the wetland and riparian habitats 17 will be preserved along with conservation of over 67% of the sensitive upland habitats (Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub and Chamise Chaparral). The project has been determined to meet these HMP standards which include the following: 19 • Conservation of at least 67% of Coastal Sage Scrub 20 • Creation of a linkage which should utilize patches of existing habitat • Avoid removal of natural habitats that are contiguous with open space on adjacent parcels 22 • Maintain and enhance the wildlife movement potential between core areas using sensitive design of any road or utility crossing of Linkage B (e.g., 23 bridging, undercrossing) • Conserve all riparian habitats on-site • Prohibit fill or development within the existing floodplain, except where 25 required for Circulation Element roads, Drainage Master Plan facilities, or other essential infrastructure 26 • Conserve any narrow endemic plant populations • Set back development 100 feet from existing wetland habitats and encourage ^ habitat restoration or enhancement in the riparian buffer areas. 28 PCRESONO. 6109 -3- 2. That authorization to take species of concern is subject to continuous compliance with all 2 provisions of the Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad (HMP), the Citywide Incidental Take Permit issued for the HMP, the 3 Implementing Agreement, the Terms and Conditions of the Incidental Take Permit, and the Biological Opinion. 4 <- 3. That authorization to take species of concern is subject to continuous compliance with all mitigation measures as stated in the Program Environmental Impact Report and 6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, MP 02-03, GPA 02-04, and LFMP 14(B), and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6105, 6106, 6107, and 6108 for those other approvals, including but not limited to recordation of conservation easements over all conserved areas and management and monitoring in perpetuity by a qualified conservation entity. 9 4. That authorization to take species of concern is subject to continuous compliance with the 10 provisions of Volumes I, II, and III of the Multiple Habitat Conservation Program and the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for Threatened and Endangered Species Due to Urban Growth within the Multiple Habitat Conservation Program Planning Area (SCHNo. 93121073). 13 5. The Planning Commission hereby finds that all development in Carlsbad benefits from the Habitat Management Plan, which is a comprehensive conservation plan and 14 implementation program that will facilitate the preservation of biological diversity and provide for effective protection and conservation of wildlife and plant species while continuing to allow compatible development in accordance with Carlsbad's Growth 16 Management Plan. Preservation of wildlife habitats and sensitive species is required by the Open Space and Conservation Element of the City's General Plan which provides for 17 the realization of the social, economic, aesthetic, and environmental benefits from the preservation of open space within an increasingly urban environment. Moreover, each new development will contribute to the need for additional regional infrastructure that, in turn, will adversely impact species and habitats. The In-Lieu Mitigation Fee imposed on all new development within the City is essential to fund implementation of the City's 20 Habitat Management Plan. 6. That all impacts to habitat and all take of species .will be incidental to otherwise lawful _, activities related to construction and operation of the Robertson Ranch Master Plan project. 23 7. That the project design as approved by the City of Carlsbad has avoided and minimized 24 impacts to wildlife habitat and species of concern to the maximum extent practicable. Specifically: 26 a) 2.18 acres of Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh are present, 1.96 acres are preserved (89.9%), and 0.22 acres of impact requires a minimum of 0.22 acres of 27 mitigation for a "no net loss" of wetlands; b) 2.95 acres of Southern Willow Scrub are present, 2.34 acres are preserved (79.3%), and 0.61 acres of impact requires 1.22 acres of mitigation (2:1); PCRESONO. 6109 -4- .A / 1 I - 2 c) 0.52 acres of Emergent Wetland are present and will be preserved; 3 d) 0.05 acres of Mule Fat Scrub are present and will be preserved; 4 e) 71.62 acres of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub are present, 50.4 acres are preserved , (70.4%), and 21.22 acres of impact requires 42.44 acres of mitigation (2:1), which is satisfied by the on-site preservation; 6 f) 1.91 acres of Chamise Chaparral are present, 1.77 acres are preserved (92.7%), 7 and 0.14 acres of impact requires 0.14 acres of mitigation (1:1) which is satisfied by the on-site preservation; and o 9 g) 1.28 acres of impacted Non-native Vegetation, 1.88 acres of Eucalyptus Woodland, 8.47 acres of Intensive Agriculture (nurseries), and 220.0 acres of 10 Extensive Agriculture (row crops) will be mitigated by the payment of a Habitat In-Lieu Mitigation Fee consistent with the adopted HMP. *2 8. That adequate funding has been provided to address changed circumstances and adaptive management needs that may be reasonably anticipated in the future, consistent with the 13 HMP Implementing Agreement. 14 9. That the incidental take of species of concern as a result of the project will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the species in the wild due to compliance with all of the above stated requirements, as well as ongoing monitoring 16 and reporting to the wildlife agencies and the public. 17 10. That the Planning Director is authorized to sign the Take Permit. * ° 11. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer -, n 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 20 degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project. 21 Conditions: 22 1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be 23 implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to 24 revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke, or further condition all certificates of occupancy 25 issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; record a notice of violation on the 26 property title; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer 27 or a successor in interest by the City's approval of this Habitat Management Plan Permit. 28 PCRESONO. 6109 -5- 2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections 2 and modifications to the Habitat Management Plan Permit documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. 3 Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development, different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. 4 c 3. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are 6 challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid, this approval shall be invalid 7 unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with all requirements of law. o 9 4. Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and 10 representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorney's fees incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this Habitat Management Plan 12 Permit, (b) City's approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or nondiscretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and 13 (c) Developer/Operator's installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the 14 facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This obligation survives until all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the City's approval is not validated. 16 5. This approval is granted subject to the certification, adoption, and approval of the 17 Program Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, MP 02-03, GPA 02-04, and LFMP 14(B), and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6105, 6106, 6107, and 6108 for 19 those other approvals incorporated herein by reference. 20 6. A formal request for concurrence of a Minor Amendment to the City's Habitat Management Plan for Robertson Ranch with Equivalency Findings shall be submitted for the "Tamarack Connection," subject to the terms outlined in the 22 e-mail from USFWS, dated August 22, 2006, included as Attachment 10 of the staff report (dated September 20,2006). 23 7. This project has been found to result in impacts to wildlife habitat or other lands, such as 24 agricultural land, non-native grassland, and disturbed lands, which provide some benefits to wildlife, as documented in the City's Habitat Management Plan and the environmental analysis for this project. Developer is aware that the City has adopted an In-Lieu 26 Mitigation Fee consistent with Section E.6 of the Habitat Management Plan and City Council Resolution No. 2000-223 to fund mitigation for impacts to certain categories of 27 vegetation and animal species. The Developer is further aware that the City has determined that all projects will be required to pay the fee in order to be found consistent 2° with the Habitat Management Plan and the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan. The fee shall be paid prior to recordation of a final map, or issuance of a PC RESO NO. 6109 -6- grading permit or building permit, whichever, occurs first. If the In-Lieu Mitigation Fee 2 for this project is not paid, this project will not be consistent with the Habitat Management Plan and the General Plan and any and all approvals for this project shall 3 become null and void. 8. As a condition of this approval, applicant must comply with the requirements of all , regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over the project and any mitigation requirements of the environmental documents for the project. Pursuant to Government Code section 6 65871 and Carlsbad Municipal Code Title 20, Chapter 20.04, section 20.04.140, applicant shall grant a conservation easement for the conservation, protection, and management of 7 fish, wildlife, native plants, and the habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of certain species thereof, in accordance with the City's adopted Habitat Management Plan. 9" 10 NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "imposition" of fees, dedications, 12 reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as "fees/exactions." 13 - . You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 15 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely 16 follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, 19 zoning, grading, or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PCRESONO. 6109 -7- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 20th day of September, 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman, Segall, and Whitton NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: lARTELL B. MONTJGOMER1 CARLSBAD PLANNING COf PEST: hairperson SSION DONNEU Assistant Planning Director PCRESONO. 6109 -8- RLBCSEDWE SEP 2 5 2006 CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY CLERK'S OFFICE n\ zJ All Receive For the Information of the' CITY COUNCIL September 21, 2006 TO: RAY PATCHETT FROM: Fire < ROBERTSON RANCH CONCEPT CIRCULATION PLAN ALTERNATIVES In response to the Mayor's inquiry regarding whether the Fire Department prefers Robinson Ranch Circulation Plan Alternative No. 1 or Alternative No. 2, the Fire Department supports Alternative No. 2. The Fire Department's primary concerns in evaluating development plans are access for emergency vehicles and emergency evacuation routes. The preferred development plan is the one which provides the greatest number of primary access points. In the proposed Robertson Ranch development, Concept Circulation Plan Alternative No. 2 is the preferred plan because it provides four (4) primary access points. Background The following Robertson Ranch Concept Circulation Plan alternatives were reviewed and discussed at the Planning Commission meeting held on September 20, 2006. Alternative One - Circuitous Routing: Description: The original plan, which includes extensions of Glasgow and Edinburgh and a signalized intersection at El Camino Real (ECR) and Lisa Street. A circuitous street design is used in the West Village to reduce cut-through traffic. Number of Primary Access Points: Three (3) Gates: None Alternative Two - Tamarack Connection (Local Street Standards): Description: Includes all of Alternative One with the addition of a right-in and right-out at a new street (A.K.A. Tamarack Connection) on the south side of Tamarack Avenue generally located midway between La Portalada Drive and Pontiac Drive. Number of Primary Access Points: Four (4) Gates: None Alternative Three - Collector Tamarack Connection/Gated Glasgow and Edinburgh: Description: Includes the Tamarack Connection with a signalized intersection, a gated community for Robertson Ranch Planning Areas 9 and 10 (bordering Edinburgh) and a gated emergency evacuation point at Glasgow. Number of Primary Access Points: 2 Gates: Two (2) - (A community with two (2) gated primary access points) CT>.t>. KEVIN CRAWFORD SEP 2006 CHy Manapr's OfficeCity of Carlsbad For the Information of the: CITY COUNCIL November 13, 2006 J**1"otra LUJ/ ^'cr 5 £- TO: Fire Chief FROM: Operations Chief Council Member Sigafoose regarding Gated Communities. I was contacted by phone this morning 11/13/06 by Council Member Sigafoose with questions related to gated communities. I informed her that the Fire department does not support gated access to communities. The main reason is the delay in our response of from 45 to 90 seconds depending on trigger mechanism. Two options to trigger the gate exist. An opticom gate is the fastest, and can be used by all responding agencies. A KNOX key access is specific to the jurisdiction and requires neighboring agencies to carry our KNOX key. The key system is slower because it requires the Company Officer to exit the vehicle to access the lock. In addition the fire department has identified no instances where a failure of a gate has resulted in a negative outcome. In closing Council Member Sigafoose asked if (would be present at the council meeting and I informed her I would be present. ALL RECEIVE For Information ofCity Council CA CM ^ CC Date [ | jm-jni? Asst City Mgr. City of Carlsbad ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MEMORANDUM November 14, 2006 TO: Lisa Hildabrand, Assistant City Manager FROM: Barbara Kennedy, Planning Department, and Jeremy Riddle, Engineering Development Services SUBJECT: COLONY RESIDENTS PROPOSED CONDITION REGARDING TRAFFIC MONITORING FOR GLASGOW DR AND EDINBURGH DR (ROBERTSON RANCH, MP 02-03) In general, staff is not in support of the Colony's recommended condition. This condition basically abandons the original access concept and essentially shuts down the streets versus raising a solution to address the concern. First the thresholds listed are not the maximum target staff considers when designing public roads. Staff does not agree that a local street operating at 73% (Glasgow) and 80% (Edinburgh) must trigger the need to install gates at the project boundary. Adding this condition creates uncertainty and potentially more controversy with future residents of the West Village and potential Colony residents that may become accustomed to using Glasgow Dr. and Edinburgh Dr. to reach their destinations. Staffs concerns with the condition are: 1. Designing the West Village with open public roads and then (after a few years) constructing gates after residents are established in the West Village opens up potential concerns/objections from future West Village residents by shutting down streets that they may be using at that time. 2. The thresholds listed in the draft condition are still less than the operating threshold for local roads (2000 ADT). These thresholds do not justify closing the roads and installing gates. 3. Street Closures are subject to the California Streets and Highways code and, if thresholds are triggered, will be subject to two public hearings. Processing a "street closure" to an existing open road that is used by the public will cause confusion to those residents that have already been using the road for some time. They may have concern over not being notified before they moved in about the circulation system in their community being subject to change. What if they object to the gates? These questions will be challenging to answer. 4. Making the findings for closing a public street resulting from thresholds (that do not exceed City Standards) is not a strong argument. Usually a public facility failure may warrant the finding or a statement that the roads are not needed nor will be needed in the future. If the roads operate at a capacity of less than 100%, making this finding to close public access will prove difficult. 5. Removing the open access from Glasgow and Edinburgh for the West Village will result in time delays for emergency responders. 6. If PA9 and PA10 are developed with open public roads and (because thresholds are triggered) a gate at Edinburgh is required, this condition does not explain how (and what process) PA9 and PA10 must become a private gated community and that it will now become a responsibility to maintain the gates (as they were proposed on Alternative 3). The West Village HOA fees will then be subject to modification for being burdened with maintaining the gate(s). Residents and HOA for PA9 and PA10 may raise potential concerns for having this new added financial and safety responsibility. Additionally, their HOA fees would also be subject to modification for being burdened with maintaining the private streets. 7. If PA 9 and PA10 change to a private gated community, then all the public roads within PA9 and PA10 will have to be vacated as public roads as they will change to private streets. If PA9 and PA10 are not designed as a private gated communities the resulting circulation would result in only one access point to a community containing over 25 units. 8. If the community for PAS and PA6 are developed with open public roads and (because thresholds are triggered) a gate at Glasgow is required, this condition does not explain what effects this has on the circuitous roads they were originally built with to reduce cut-through traffic for the Colony. Alternative 3 includes that if Glasgow were gated, that circuitous roads would not be constructed to allow the West Village for efficient access to enter/exit the neighborhood. If the City Council is inclined to recommend gates on Edinburgh and Glasgow in the future, then staff recommends that the West Village be designed with gates as shown in Circulation Alternative 3. If chosen, this can be done by adopting the Errata for Circulation Alternative 3 and revoking the conditions that were added for Circulation Alternative 2 shown on the Planning Commission Errata Sheet dated September 20, 2006 (see hand-numbered pages 529-532 for Circulation Alternatives 2 and 3). This would be a preferred action over adopting the Colony's recommended condition to add gates in the future. Alternatives 2 and 3 are described in detail on hand-numbered pages 400-402 of the Agenda Bill with the corresponding exhibits shown on pages 413 and 414. If there are concerns that the traffic calming that would be installed in the Colony neighborhood may be insufficient over time, Condition # 22 of Resolution 6106 (hand- numbered page 181) could be modified to require additional traffic calming to be installed up to a specified time period after final occupancy of the last unit in the West Village. Staff will be prepared with a proposed replacement condition for the City Councils consideration. November 13, 2006 To: Mayor Lewis Matt Hall Ann Kulchin Mark Packard Norine Sigafoose CC: City Clerk From: Kari &Tom Atherton 4781 Brookwood Ct. RE: Robertson Ranch My husband and I moved into the Colony six years ago and were thrilled to find an established neighborhood with such a great sense of community. We couldn't think of a better place to raise our family and now enjoy watching our two-year-old son play with the neighborhood kids. How disappointed we were to hear that this neighborhood and community are at risk with the proposed master plan for Robertson Ranch (Alternative 2) when there is another option that is available - Alternative 3. Alternative 3 is an answer that everyone is willing to accept - the Applicant, the Planning Department and the Colony Residents. It is an answer that meets the most needs of all parties involved. Why Alternative 3 works • Protects the quality of life and safety concerns within the Colony by eliminating cut through traffic on both Edinburgh & Glasgow. • Provides certainty with the increased traffic numbers when we have been told numerous times that the traffic studies are not science and cannot guarantee the minimal impact predicted. • Provides four access points into West Village. Main access on ECR and another access on Tamarack (which we would support a right-only ingress/egress, if needed) with gated access on Edinburgh through PA 9 & 10's gated community, and emergency access for evacuation on Glasgow (currently planned as a gate for evacuation purposes only, but we would support other means that would allow for easier access of emergency personnel, ie. bollards). We feel this more than adequately address the ingress/egress concern. East Village currently has been approved with only two access points. • Improves response time. With the elimination of the possibility of cut through traffic, less circuitous routing is available, resulting in an improvement of response time throughout the West Village. • Provides for connectivity through trails and pathways. This Alternative is the best solution for all of the reasons stated above and many more. It protects an existing established community from being destroyed by a new development. In addition, I would like to address my concerns with the comments: We should have known and expected this. This is absolutely not true. When we bought our house six years ago on Edinburgh (we have subsequently moved to Brookwood Ct, still within the Colony) we were told of the plan for a "Future Road Extension", and were told that Edinburgh would connect to Glasgow to form a horseshoe. We were never told that it would connect to 1200 homes and El Camino Real. Had we been told that, I'm sure we would have reconsidered. And, based on the knowledge that the Colony had previously experienced two "Future Road Extensions" that resulted in a 21 home cul de sac on Gateshead and a 14 home cul de sac on Brookwood we certainly never expected a 1200 development with almost 50% multi family homes to have access to our streets. We were also told that we were unrealistic if we never expected those 400 acres of land to be developed. To which we respond, we are not trying to stop the development. We are only trying to manage the growth and protect an existing community. Commissioner Segall stated at the last hearting that it is a "critical matter of preserving the existing character of a neighborhood... the Colony is a solid and unique community and there is concern about destroying that." Please heed his words, and approve Alternative 3. Sincerely, Kari & Tom Atherton 4781 Brookwood Court. Carlsbad, CA Page 1 of 1 Council Internet Mailbox - Robertson Ranch Development AGENDA ITEM #. AUA City Coancfl From: "Pynes, Susan" <SPynes@miracosta.edu> City Manager To: <council@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> City Attorney Date: 11/14/200610:41 AM CityClerk Subject: Robertson Ranch Development • £-M^y /^'^ - Dear Mayor Lewis and Council Members Hall, Kulchin, Packard, and Sigafoose: We would like to add our voice to the many that you have already heard concerning the impact of the Robertson Ranch Development on the Colony and Edinburgh Estates. The goal of the Colony residents is not to be exclusive, but to to come to an agreement of mutual benefit for the City, the Developer, and our neighborhood. We appreciate the many hours of careful consideration by the Planning Commissioners, City staff, and others. Tonight you will hear many facets of this issue. Please consider that this small group of about 170 homes has a large number of active school and city volunteers, including several commissioners and three PTA Presidents, because the residents value community participation and 'giving back1 to the city we love. Our homes are not the high end, luxury, or expensive homes of new Carlsbad developments, but it is our residents-and those of other established neighborhoods-that provide the 'nuts and bolts' of life in Carlsbad. Please do not alter this disappearing way of life in Carlsbad for the sake of new, large development no matter how much money or prestige it brings to the City. Some City staff and leaders have summarily said "no" to gates of any kind (although there are plenty of them in South Carlsbad) because they are philosophically against them. Although gates are usually not the best option, in this case, they may be the only option—not because our neighborhood wants to be exclusive, but because people are brought together on a personal basis—working and playing together— not through increased traffic—which separate people and cause safety issues. It is not viable for an established neighborhood to add traffic calming devices or circutious routing, as the developer has suggested. There is not one Colony resident who wants a speed bump or traffic circle in front of their home. Yet, if these things are added to the new neighborhood, the Colony will become a 'sling-shot' route. Residents of the Colony have a problem-solving approach to this issue. We are not opposed to making additional changes (such as limiting the intersection on Tamarack), but we do advocate for Alternative 3, which would protect our neighborhood as well as connect the older and new developments through walking trails. Although you have heard many things from all sides of this issue, we trust that you will listen tonight with an open mind and an open heart. Thank you. Sincerely, Steve and Susan Pynes 2746 Inverness Drive 760-729-8114 file://C:\Documents and Settings\Klinb\Local Settings\Temp\GW} 00001.HTM 11/14/2006 Page 1 of 1 Council Internet Mailbox - Alternative 3 - West Village - Robertson Ranch From: Bruce Meyer <mtnest2004@sbcglobal.net> To: <council@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>, <masingale@nctimes.cm> Date: 11/13/2006 9:27 PM Subject: Alternative 3 - West Village - Robertson Ranch Mayor Lewis Matt Hall Ann Kulchin Mark Packard Norine Sigafoose 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear City Council Members: As a resident of The Colony I ask that you consider Alternative 3 for the Robertson Ranch development of the West Village. As a 20 year citizen of Carlsbad, I have seen tremendous growth in our city. I am concerned about the amount of cut through traffic that will come through The Colony as a result of the opening of Edinburgh Drive and Glasgow Drive. Three separate traffic studies were conducted over the past 12 months. The results all differed making it difficult to ascertain the true impact of the additional traffic. The City is committed to the quality of life in Carlsbad. One of the quality of life issues that the Council has addressed revolves around crime/safety. The increase in cut through traffic resulting from the development of Robertson Ranch will impact the safety of our neighborhood. The residents of The Colony are not looking to become an exclusive neighborhood! We just want to ensure the safety of the children and maintain the sense of community which has been established over the past two decades. Please do not sacrifice an existing community for a new one. I urge you to implement Alternative 3. Alternative 3 satisfies the developer and the needs of emergency services. Thank you. Sincerely, Bruce H. Meyer 4775 Brookwood Court Carlsbad, CA 92010 file://C:\Documents and Settings\Klinb\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00001 .HTM 11/14/2006 Mary S. Butterfield 4797 Gateshead Road Carlsbad, CA 92010 760-434-5650 November 8, 2006 Mayor Bud Lewis City of Carlsbad Carlsbad City Hall 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA Re: Robertson Ranch Dear Mayor Lewis, The purpose of this letter is to communicate our hope that the Carlsbad City Council will be sensitive to the needs of our neighborhood, a family neighborhood established over 21 years ago, and approve Plan Three as submitted to the Carlsbad Planning Commission. My husband and I have lived in Carlsbad for over 20 years. Our son was born here and we have lived in the Colony for the past six years. We are very apprehensive about the plans for the development of Robertson Ranch and its impact on our community, specifically the traffic. We are concerned that: • Our safety, that of our child and that of our neighbors and their children will be compromised. We believe this because: • An appreciable addition in traffic will flow from Robertson Ranch down Edinburgh Drive and Glasgow Drive. Both Edinburgh Drive and Glasgow Drive are straight and wide. Certainly if these streets were built today they would be more circuitous - but they are not. Our experience with 'traffic calming measures' convinces us that such measures would be inappropriate and ineffective for our neighborhood. Mayor Bud Lewis November 8, 2006 Page 2 • Edinburgh Drive and Glasgow Drive intersect - this is already a dangerous intersection - adding traffic from two directions will certainly exacerbate the problem. We have been informed that it was 'always planned' for Edinburgh Drive and Glasgow Drive to go through. Even so, things have changed a lot in Carlsbad over 20 years and we have seen that the City can be flexible. For example, Tamarack Avenue was supposed to be four lanes from El Camino Real west to Highway 5 - clearly it's not - even though that was what was originally planned. One of the reasons we have lived in Carlsbad for so long and loved it so much is that the Council has always listened and responded to the residents. Although the Planning Commission recommends Plan Two, the vote was very close. What the Colony is asking, if approved by the Council, can be accommodated by the developer and is agreeable to the fire department; who is inconvenienced or negatively impacted by the approval of Plan Three? Thank you for considering this correspondence, and for the fine work you have always done for the City. Sincerely, Mary and David Butterfield David Stoffel 760-4345223 p.l Fage l or 1 David Stoffel From: "David Stoffel" <dpstoffel@msn.com> To: <council@cartsbad.ca.us> Sent: Monday, November 13,2006 5:11 PM Subject: Robertson Ranch development City of Carlsbad Council Members Mayor Lewis, Matt Hall, Ann Kulchin, Mark Packard, Norine Sigafoose, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 760-720-9461 (fax) We are very concerned about the Robertson Ranch development and the impact it will have on The Colony at Calavera Hills. We have lived in this neighborhood since our home was built over 23 years. We have been involved in making long-range planning with the City (Yes, we know Mike Howes and Mike Holzmiller. Previous City planners ). There were always long-range goals for the City not to turn El Camino Real into the mess that is evident along El Camino Real in Encinitas. There was always a long range goal to help this area maintain some, at least "semi-rural" atmosphere. Please help maintain this long term goal by seriously questioning the still "high density" that is being proposed for this project. We know traffic is always an issue, and you probably wish those types of concerns would go away. However, with quality of life and safety issues hanging on this topic, we must disagree with the current proposal to allow "cut-through" traffic through our neighborhood. We already have quite a bit of traffic cutting through some of our streets to get to the Cape and the Calavera Hills Park. The increase is just not safe. Traffic studies conducted by the developer have even pointed out how Edinburgh Drive and Glasgow Drive traffic risk dangerous overload. We appreciate that the Planning Commission took some steps to reduce the impacts to our neighborhood, but their decision still leaves our neighborhood vulnerable to many uncertain impacts, especially safety by cut-through traffic. We appreciate that the final decision regarding our safety and well-being will be made by the thoughtful consideration of our elected representatives, the Carlsbad City Council. Thank you for serving our community and city, David and Paula Stoffel, 4705 Edinburgh Drive Carlsbad, 92010 11/13/2006 i Page 1 of 2 Council Internet Mailbox - Robertson Ranch impact From: Jennie Vance <vanceteacher@sbcglobal.net> To: <council@ci. carlsbad. ca.us> Date: 11/13/2006 7:13 PM Subject: Robertson Ranch impact Dear Mayor Bud Lewis, Council Members Matt Hall, Ann Kulchin, Mark Packard, and Norine Sigafoose, I am a resident in the Calavera Hills Colony. I reside at 4718 Edinburgh Dr. This address is located at the comer of Glasgow and Edinburgh Dr. I am writing to you, imploring you to reconsider the recommendation of the planning commission in the acceptance of the Robertson Ranch West Village alternative 2. This plan destroys the current community I live in. The plan increases the traffic quantity tremendously. Apparently when discussing a road outlet onto Tamarack east of El Camino Real, numbers such as 2400 cars are used. Yet when discussing egress and ingress at this corner we are referred to as a percentage. The number of cars will remain the same. The plan also asks us to implement traffic calming devices. I have seen, the traffic calming devices recently put in between the two fields at Chase Ball Park. These are similar to what our community would have to implement considering the amount of traffic that would be accelerating to get up the hill and accelerating due to the grade of the road to get down the street. Though these devices look interesting at the ball park, they would destroy the aesthetic value and quaint feeling that currently exists when one walks through or passes through the neighborhood. I live on the corner where all the traffic "action" if you will, would happen. As it is, I hear screeches of cars disregarding the current traffic signs several times a day. The interesting thing about the destinations of the drivers disregarding the signs is that they aren't usually the ones entering our community. They are park goers and residents that live across the street from the park wishing to enter Tamarack by way of Edinburgh. We value our community and so wish to fight to maintain its beauty, peace and safety. Others that are "passing through" seem to not value this as greatly if at all. I have two children. They enjoy walking to the little park across the street though not unaccompanied. They are beginning to ask to walk to the neighbor's house alone. My son who is 9 is allowed. He is issued serious directions about looking all ways twice and if a car is approaching the intersection at all he is not allowed to cross regardless of signs. With an increase of 2400 cars passing through this intersection, you will be increasing the chances of him being hit by any of these cars. His name is Theo. I offer it to you as a reminder that we are one of many families here with children whose safety must come first. I am not comforted by the traffic analysis nor by the percentage amount that is being told to you. It is the same 2400 cars that discourages the planning commission from building the additional Tamarack intersection. Our community is unique. Many of you have friends here or have come through during our annual garage sale. That is how my husband and I found the neighborhood and decided this is where we would want to live and raise our children. I'm asking you to make a decision that makes a huge difference for 120 families. Battalion Chief McFadden accepted Plan 3 at the Planning Commission Meeting. It meets the city's, state's and environmentalists' requirements. Our community approves of it as well. I file://C^Documents and Settings\Klinb\Local Settings\Temp\GW} 00001 .HTM 11 /14/2006 Page 2 of2 am befuddled as to why a win/lose decision would be made, when a win/win decision is one of the options. Respectfully, Jennie Vance vanceteacher@sbcglobal .net 434-9908 file://C:\Documents and Settings\Klinb\Local Settings\Temp\GW} 00001 .HTM 11/14/2006 11/14/2006 09:52 FAX 7602680569 CHI TITLE November 7,2006 Mayor Lewis, Matt Hall, Ann Kulchin Mark Packard, Norine Sigafoose and Ray Patchett 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: Robertson Ranch Development My family and I are residents of The Colony the neighborhood that will be directly impacted by the approval of the Robertson Ranch project. We have lived in our neighborhood for the past 13 years. We have strong concerns of the additional traffic that will cut through our neighborhood and the impact that it will have on our children and our neighborhood. I feel that any additional traffic on Edinburgh and Glasgow puts my children at risk, they will no longer be able to ride their bikes to a friend's house and walk to the park that is part of our own development. We strongly urge you to support our neighborhoods recommendation of making PA 9 & 10 its own gated community or implementing back to back cul-de-sacs with emergency access at Edinburgh and Glasgow. As I pick up my children from school, I noticed in the new developments in the Calavera Hills area that the roads used to travel thru the area do not run directly through their neighborhoods but run along the edge of each neighborhood/community, we are just asking that our neighborhood not be destroyed and all traffic be directed to travel on the outer edge of our community as it appears to do in the newer developments also built by McMillian. Sincerely, Fonda Arcidiacono 2774 Dundee Court Carlsbad, C A 92010 oXso From: <vballgee@aol.coiTi> To: <Council@[205.142.109.13]> Date: Sat, Nov 11, 2006 10:58 PM Subject: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to department, City Council. FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE. Below, please find the information that was submitted: Regarding Robertson Ranch 11/14/2006 Agenda Item I think this development represents an example of excessive density and developers squeezing big houses onto the smallest lots possible. For some reason, you continue to permit this. No one in the surrounding neighborhoods is pleased with the plan for this development. It doesn't match the feel of the existing neighborhoods. When I submitted comments to the EIR, I received a "thank you very much and have a nice day." My major concerns are: 1. You should NOT approve any entrance/exit to this development on Tamarack that would ever result in yet another traffic signal to annoy the residents in this area. 2. Reduce the allowable residential units to fewer than 700 to more closely match the existing General Plan or as a reduced scale project. I see no compelling reason to allow the increased density suggested by the RR Master Plan. 3. There should be no single family residential units on lots less than 10,000 sq. feet. Currently the plan proposes over 600. Such small parcel sizes are inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhoods and will make this neighborhood a less desirable place to live in the future. 4. Proposed View Planning Area #1 is unattractive. The setback from the corner is much too small. It is inconsistent with other corners at this intersection and others. For example, on the corner of El Camino Real and Carlsbad Village Drive, the distance from the corner to a living space or wall is much greater and filled in with vegetation. I strongly request you change the setback here. 5. Robertson Ranch is filled with rolling hills, as are the surrounding neighborhoods. These rolling hills be preserved. I hope the Council will have a new look at this Plan and not just rubber stamp it. Talk about it, make some changes and serve your residents. I feel that we can do better than what is proposed. Best regards, Dee Ann Dee Ann Gee , 92010 vballgee@aol.com Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; sbcydsl 3.12; YComp 5.0.0.0) 75.24.183.162 Page 1 of2 Council Internet Mailbox - Robertson Ranch Impact to Village By the Sea Neighborhood From: "Joanie McGrath" <joanie_mcgrath@hotmail.com> To: <council@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 11/12/2006 9:25 AM Subject: Robertson Ranch Impact to Village By the Sea Neighborhood Dear Mayor Lewis and Council Members Matt Hall, Ann Kulchin, Norine Sigafoose and Mark Packard, As I write this letter, I am sitting at my computer in the master bedroom of my house. Our desk faces the window upstairs in the front of the house and looks out over our street, Edinburgh Drive. It's a beautiful Sunday afternoon and the neighborhood is peaceful. We just returned from my son's "fall ball" game and we won, so everyone is happy right now. But, I have to remember why I'm writing this letter. I have to convince all of you why this is so important to me and my family, how hard we've worked to get here, and how important it is for the rest of the people in this neighborhood to preserve this safe and serene environment. I've lived here since I was in the fourth grade. In fact, my parents lived here before I was born. When my father's job took him away from here, they vowed to come back to this "sleepy, little seaside town" that they loved so much. Six children later, they did move back here and we have all been here ever since. For my immediate family to remain here, it wasn't easy. The prices of homes in Carlsbad are high, really high. I bought my first 2 bedroom condo on Somerset Way, and when the market favored me, I sold it and bought my second 3 bedroom condo on Regent Road. It was a tight fit with 2 children and one on the way, but the boys shared a room and we waited for the right time to inch our way up once more. Although the market was on the downswing, we wanted more room for our family and we looked and looked and looked and looked and finally found our house. It is this house, a bedroom for each of the children and a yard for them to play in. Just in the nick of time, Aidan is 13, and he has never really had a backyard of his own. We have completely remodeled our home because we planned on remaining for a long time. These moves were financially difficult at times,.but this is my town, my family lives here and I love it. One of the things we considered in regard to buying in this neighborhood is that it is self-contained. We do have traffic, especially in the morning and evening hours, but ostensibly, it is mostly residents of our own neighborhood. If we put Edinburgh through to this huge community that is three times our size being developed below us, our quality of life is at risk and the safety of our children is at risk. The number of cars alone that will be driving up and down Edinburgh and the predicted speeds at which they will be driving will be putting our children at risk and devaluing our home. I attended Buena Vista Elementary School, Valley Jr. High School and Carlsbad High School. My oldest son attends Calavera Middle School, my middle son is at Hope and I am the Administrator at Casa Montessori de Carlsbad School where my three year old daughter attends preschool. My husband works at Qualcomm and gladly commutes the distance to Sorrento Valley either on the Coaster or by car. I have been a patient at Packard Dental, Mark, since I was a teen and Dr. Floyd pulled my wisdom teeth. I was at the high school Mr. Lewis, when you were a teacher there. I voted for Norine Sigafoose and Ann Kulchin because I wanted women's voices on the City Council. So as you can see, I am your former student, your patient, your constituent and your neighbor. Carlsbad is not the sleepy little seaside town that it once was and I certainly don't want to stand in the way of progress. However, I don't want my neighborhood, the one for which we have worked so hard to be in to be destroyed by it either. Please consider us as one family and the rest of our neighborhood as a small community of its own as you vote on these measures. We must keep this potentially huge amount of cut-through traffic off of our street. Tamarack, El Camino Real and Cannon represent plenty of access without opening our small file://C:\Documents and Sertings\Klinb\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 11/13/2006 Page 2 of2 neighborhood to this potentially devastating and dangerous amount of traffic. Sincerely, Joanie Wilson-Alexander Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows_Liye.Spaces file://C:\Documents and Settings\Klinb\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00001 .HTM 11/13/2006 Page 1 of2 Council Internet Mailbox - robertson ranch application From: <tacomell@sbcglobal.net> To: <council@ci. carlsbad. ca.us> Date: 11/12/2006 2:42 PM Subject: robertson ranch application CC: <masingale@nctimes.com> City Council Members, Mayor Lewis Matt Hall Ann Kulchin Mark Packard Norine Sigafoose Council Members, Having worked,lived,paid taxes and enjoyed the Carlsbad area for more than 35 years, I looked forward to retirement in my quiet and peaceful! Calaveras Hills home.Alas, i now find that my street is expected to be sublected to traffic far beyond its oringinal design intent. According to traffic counts i have seen and assuming that 90% of that traffic will occur between 7am and 7 pm this averages one vehicle every 103 seconds(1 3/4 mins). i question how one can be expected to safely reverse out of my corner driveway.? Last OctobeM 2th. I was involved in an accident at the Glasgow/Carlsbad Blvd traffic Light, when a car speeding up Carlsbad Blvd ran the Red Light and broadsided my vehicle as i was making my turn. I feel this is one of the effects of additional cut thru traffic after the opening of College Blvd. This project has the potential to further these traffic problems.I have heard that traffic calming measures will be studied but I submit that this amounts to fixing damage that could be avoided with better planning. Several of my close neighbors bought there thier homes when the project was new in the early 80,s with the expectation of living their lives in a quiet enviroment.Others have purchased more recently hoping to raise famillies in the same way. I do not think that the long laid plans for the growth of Carlsbad called for harming the safety and livability of existing neighborhoods for the sake of new development. il appeal to you to give adequate thought and planning to the affects of this project on the lives of existing homes.Lets continue to strive to keep Carksbad America,s finest city. sincerely Melvyn & Karen Taylor 4738 Edinburgh Dr Carlsbad November 12th,2006 file://C:\Documents and Settings\Klinb\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 11/13/2006 Page 2 of2 Sincerely, Melvyn & Karen Taylor 4738 Edinburgh Drive carlsbad file://C:\Documents and Settings\Klinb\Local Settings\Temp\GWJ00001.HTM 11/13/2006 Page 1 of2 Council Internet Mailbox - Robertson Ranch From: "Mike McManus" <mmac@sbcglobal.net> To: <council@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 11/13/2006 9:24 AM Subject: Robertson Ranch CC: <masingale@nctimes.com> Mayor Bud Lewis Matt Hall Ann Kulchin Mark Packard Norine Sigafoose Dear Carlsbad Council Members, My name is Mike McManus. I reside at 4761 Edinburgh Dr. with my wife Diane. I am a partner in a marketing company based in Orange County. We have lived at this address since 1985. We raised our three boys here. They attended Kelly and Hope elementary schools, Valley Jr. High, and Carlsbad High School. We have been involved in numerous community programs for the past twenty plus years. I coached my son's youth baseball teams at Carlsbad Little League for 7 years, helped with one of their Pop Warner teams, and volunteered many hours and donated merchandise for fund raisers with the Carlsbad High School sports programs, primarily the boys Water Polo and swimming programs. My wife was a volunteer at the Carlsbad Senior Center for over 15 years. She drove for the "Meals on Wheels" program during that time providing hot meals to the seniors of our community until this past year. She is now driving our parents to various doctor's appointments and activities since they can no longer drive. We chose our neighborhood because of the real sense of community. Our kids grew up in the neighborhood. They rode their bikes and skateboards everywhere. They played catch in the streets and cul de sacs. We felt the neighborhood offered a safe environment for them and fell in love with the area. I am very concerned about the possibility of through traffic on Edinburgh and Glasgow. Since College opened up and connects to Carlsbad Village Drive, the traffic has increased dramatically. If you have ever attended a concert at Calaveras Park with cars parked everywhere, imagine what the traffic will be like if these streets are opened. There have been two accidents at the intersection of Glasgow and Edinburgh in the past year alone. My neighbor's car was totaled and luckily she was not injured. Several of the Planning Commissioners have stated that they aren't in favor of destroying one neighborhood (ours) for a new one. Please consider making PA9 and 10 its own gated community or implement back to back cul-de-sacs with emergency access at Edinburgh and Glasgow. Sincerely, Mike and Diane McManus 28 year Carlsbad residents CC: Bob Masingale, Carlsbad Editor North County Times 1722 South Coast Highway Oceanside, Ca 92054 file://C:\Documents and Settings\Klinb\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00002.HTM 11/13/2006 Page 2 of2 Mike McManus President Calwest Marketing (714) 527-1397 office (714)527-6753 fax (760) 447-5575 cell mmac@sbcglobal.net file://C:\Documents and Settings\Klinb\Local Settings\Temp\GWj00002.HTM 11/13/2006 From: Knut Madden <knut.madden@yahoo.com> To: <council@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: Mon, Nov 13, 2006 12:23 PM Subject: Robertson Ranch Development Can I please get a responce letting me know this was received and to whom it was delivered? Dear Carlsbad City Council Members, November, 12, 2006 Regarding the Robertson Ranch Development, specifically the proposed extension of Glasgow and Edinburgh streets to El Camino Real (ECR). Why not dead-end Glasgow and Edinburgh, with similar dead-end streets in the new West Village Development (i.e. like in Plan #3 presented at the last planning commission meeting)? Please help me understand. Nobody wants neighborhoods with through-fare traffic or "traffic calming measures" to reduce cut-through traffic. In this case better options exist! My neighborhood, the Colony, does not want Glasgow and Edinburgh to extend to ECR; any developer of the proposed Robertson Ranch communities will want to build neighborhoods with "kid friendly streets" and less traffic. Furthermore, major Arterials (ECR and Tamarack) are in place to move cars without connecting the traffic patterns of the different neighborhoods and making them through-fares between ECR, College Blvd and Hwy 78. Barbra Kennedy, city staff, has corresponded with me regarding the Staff recommendation of Plans 1&2 that extend Glasgow and Edinburgh as circuitous through-fare routes to ECR, and the objections to Plan #3. She indicated that the following two points against Plan #3 existed: 1) Emergency access 2) The connectivity of neighborhoods. Both where also emphasized by the Planning commission at the last meeting and used to pass Plan #2 (circuitous routes with Glasgow and Edinbourgh as through-fares to ECR), rejecting Plan #3. I see both points as reasons to SELECT Plan #3 rather than reject it! First, regarding Emergency access. No proposed new home under Plan #2 has a shorter response time than in Plan #3. In fact, because of the circuitous routing required in Plan #2 to prevent cars from using Glasgow and Edinburgh as shortcuts - the response times are longer. Ms Kennedy indicated that the emergency access in areas 9&10 where of primary concern in plan #3; however, no response time to these areas is shorter in plan #2 than in plan #3. More importantly, response times to other areas of the proposed development under plan #2 are longer because of the circuitous routing, traffic calming measures and neighborhood route for emergency access plan 2 dictates! To improve Emergency Access dead-end neighborhoods connected to major arterials should be implemented not rejected. Regarding neighborhood connectivity. Less automobile connectivity will increase neighborhood connectivity. A dead-end for cars does not eliminate walking, biking, riding, etc. between neighborhoods; in fact, fewer cars promotes walking/biking etc. - without cars, connectivity is better. Neighbors with through-fares connecting their homes have fewer conversations (except discussions about reducing traffic); more cars inhibit people from walking/riding; if walking/riding is discouraged more neighbors will select isolated car trips. Better traffic flow supports neighborhood connectivity by trying to keep cars out of the picture. Please help me understand why Carlsbad is considering a neighborhood development proposal nobody wants. Please help us keep our neighborhoods safe, quite and fun by minimizing automobile traffic. It will help the new neighborhood too. Thank you. Knut Madden, 2705 Glasgow Dr. Carlsbad CA 92010. Knut.madden@yahoo.com Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited From: Valerie Madden <madval05@adelphia.net> To: <council@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: . Mon, Nov 13, 2006 1:54 PM Subject: Robertson Ranch Development Dear Carlsbad City Counsel Members, Congratulations to the newly elected members, we hope your wisdom and vision benefit Carlsbad, like with the Robertson Ranch Development currently up for debate. A development the size of the proposed West Village in the Robertson Ranch Development in Carlsbad on the corner of Tamarack and El Camino Real (ECR) needs at least two major inlets/outlets to these arterials. Please do not plan a development of this size with less than 2 major arterial connections. Please do not use Glasgow and Edinburgh Drs to the Northeast as alternative in/outlets for daily traffic. Both Glasgow and Edinburgh drives currently support vital, happy neighborhoods with plenty of kids and concerned citizens who's homes open up to these streets - streets that have helped the growth and prosperity of our neighborhoods as a pedestrian friendly places. Turning these streets into through-fares to ECR is not required and better, much better alternatives exist. The Robertson Ranch Development is in the planning stage; planning it right is possible now for everyone concerned; great options exist for the existing homes and the new neighborhoods to come. Cul-de-sacs are great and can flourish. There is plenty of time too! Lets do it right and demand a plan that saves the old, sets up the new for success and accommodates all the changes into the rest of Carlsbad with style! With two major in/outlets to ECR and Tamarack, no daily automobile connection is required between the new proposed development and the existing Colony neighborhoods on Glasgow and Edinburgh. Plenty of alternative options exist for: 1) emergency access and 2) neighborhood connectivity by means other than cars. In fact, proposals maintaining the existing Colony neighborhood, and benefiting the new neighborhoods - WITHOUT AUTOMOBILE THROUGH-FARES - already exist; they have better emergency response times and better connectivity. The existing colony members and the people who will buy into the new developments in the West Village of Robertson Ranch all want quite streets to grow, prosper, have fun and sleep. Existing arterials are also in place to accommodate development and to maintain quiet neighborhood streets. Furthermore, plenty of time exists before the proposed development of West Village will commence to make the best development possible. Please consider Keeping and Creating the best neighborhoods for Carlsbad! Thanks and hope to see you at the Tuesday meeting, Kendal (12yrs old), Micaela (10) and Diana (3) Madden. Madval@adelphia.net Dear Mayor Lewis: Page 1 of 1 Council Internet Mailbox - Robertson Ranch: Attention Mayor Lewis, council members Hall, Kulchin, Packard, Sigafoose 11 >«-»wi«uir»M», "^JWSHUWSK v" -warns .1 From: "Sandra Meador" <sandrameador@roadrunner.com> To: <council@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 11/02/2006 7:10 PM Subject: Robertson Ranch: Attention Mayor Lewis, council members Hall, Kulchin, Packard, Sigafoose Dear Mayor Lewis: I have resided in Carlsbad since 1969. Naturally, I have witnessed growth and progress during this period. I have also seen a recent trend to disregard the wishes of existing residents in order to accommodate new developments. Since I have friends in The Colony, I have visited this quiet, friendly neighborhood many, many times. I have always been impressed by its well-kept homes and yards as well as the safe atmosphere provided for the neighborhood children for whom I have often stopped as a game of kickball or softball was played on its streets. Please allow this neighborhood to preserve its quality of life. Listen to its residents. Carlsbad is a special place in which to live. Please keep it that way. Sincerely, Sandra Meador 4098 Harbor Dr. Copies to: Council Members Hall, Kulchin, Packard, Sigafoose, file://C:\Documents and Settings\Klinb\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00001 .HTM 11/13/2006 Dear Mayor Lewis, Matt Hall, Ann Kulchin, Mark Packard, and Norine Sigafoose, I am a resident of The Colony at Calaveras Hills and am very worried that the neighborhood I have lived in for twenty years, the neighborhood where I raised my children, and the neighborhood where I hope to retire is in jeopardy of being destroyed. As you are aware, the citizens of the colony have been working diligently, and in good faith, with the planning department to mitigate the cut-through traffic that will be created by connecting Edinburgh and Glasgow to El Camino. I have two daughters who had friends across the street. The couple next door have two daughters that are one and three years old. What will this neighborhood be like for them? The citizens of the colony have researched the effects of the traffic on our neighborhood and have offered two alternatives that would save our neighborhood (back to back cul de sacs or a gated community/cul de sac combination) and both have been turned down by the planning commission. I have not been involved in the discussions, but from a concerned homeowner looking in, it almost seems as though the planning department refuses to look at any proposal except their own. This is human nature, but not good public policy. The back to back cul de sacs with emergency access roads between the neighborhoods would straighten the roads (as opposed to the circuitous plan that was approved) so that emergency vehicles would actually shorten emergency response time! Pedestrians and cyclists would be able to move between neighborhoods at will. Bollards could be added to the emergency access roads if required to alert traffic; however, emergency vehicles only signs should suffice. Why was this not approved? As far as I know, the planning department never gave the commission a justification. Now, it is up to you. You are our voice. We elected you to help maintain our community. We don't think, I don't think, it is fair to destroy our neighborhood to create a new one. This isn't what the city had in mind when they wanted to promote communities. Consider what you would do if you lived on Edinburgh. Sincerely, Steve & Nancy Gates 4725 Edinburgh Carlsbad, Ca 92010 Page 1 of 1 Council Internet Mailbox - A letter of concern From: Kendal patterson <kendalpat@sbcglobal.net> To: <council@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 11/05/2006 8:57 PM Subject: A letter of concern Dear Mayor Lewis and council members Matt Hall, Ann Kulchin, Mark Packard and Norine Sigafoose, Those of us fortunate enough to live in the Colony at Calavera Hills love our community and know we have something special. That's why we're so deeply concerned by the proposed Robertson Ranch development. By connecting those new homes so directly to ours, we stand to see all the peace and quiet and joy of our neighborhood gone forever. Our kids actually ride their bikes to their friends' homes and cross Edinburgh to walk to the park. Those days would be gone forever with the increase in traffic the project would bring. Carlsbad is special because it is full of neighborhoods that feel like small towns. We are not L.A. We are not Orange County. We don't want to be. The pace of development in our city in the last decade is disturbing and heartbreaking. Yes, development brings dollars, but at what cost? Please help us keep Carlsbad the place where people want to live, not just the place where developers want to build. Kendal Patterson The Colony at Calavera Hills Carlsbad file://C:\Documents and Settings\Klinb\Local Settings\Temp\GW} 00001 .HTM 11/13/2006 From: martzim <martzim@yahoo.com> To: <council@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: Thu, Nov 9, 2006 10:28 AM Subject: Robertson Ranch Nov. 9, 2006 Carlsbad City Council Claude A. Lewis Matt Hall Ann J. Kulchin Mark Packard Norine Sigafoose Re: Robertson Ranch Mayor, Mayor Pro Tern and Council Members, I strongly urge you not to approve the Robertson Ranch Master Plan in its current form. The plan being offered to you is seriously flawed and will have a huge negative impact on my neighborhood, the Colony at Calavera Hills. No one in the Colony is against the development. But we are against bad planning, in this case bad planning that is absolutely unecessary. There is a far, far better solution, one that was accepted by the city's planners, the city's fire department and the developer as well as residents of the Colony. There is absolutely no reason not to go with this plan - the alternative of gates at Edinburgh and Glasgow (Alternative No. 3) - instead of the one being presented to you. There are plenty of talking points about this project - the secretiveness, the iffy information backing up shaky assertions, the lack of notification and so on - but the biggest issue is pretty simple: WHY DESTROY AN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD FOR NO REASON? Why shunt traffic through our family-oriented, safe streets when there is no reason, no need, to do so? Our streets were not designed for commuter traffic, yet that is exactly what is proposed now; our neighborhood of 174 homes will draw traffic from the new neighborhood of more than 1100 homes plus commercial development and draw cut-through traffic from commuters dodging Tamarack and Cannon — streets that are designed for heavy traffic ~ as well. You can well imagine the impact this will have on our long-established neighborhood (we have already been impacted by the opening of College; there's far more traffic at Calavera Park than before and that's only a taste of what will happen). There will be an increase in traffic noise and pollution, but far more important there will be a dramatic ratcheting up of the danger level for our children — as they go to and from school, as they walk or bike to friends' houses, as they go to the park to play baseball or soccer. The plan that included gates at Edinburgh and Glasgow offers the best solution for all involved, and does no harm to our neighborhood, the Colony, while meeting ALL the needs expressed by the city's planners, the city's fire department and the project's developer. I can't emphasize this enough: This was a win-win situation where everyone's needs were met. It demands to be implemented. I strongly urge you to reject the Planning Commission's recommendation and insist that Alternative No. 3 - the alternative of gates at Edinburgh and Glasgow - be implemented as part of the Robertson Ranch Master Plan. Sincerely Martin Zimmerman 2740 Glasgow Drive Carlsbad, CA 92010 Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com From: Irene Lechowitzky <ireneknee@yahoo.com> To: <council@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: Thu, Nov 9, 2006 3:07 PM Subject: Robertson Ranch Nov. 9, 2006 Carlsbad City Council Claude A. Lewis Matt Hall Ann J. Kulchin Mark Packard Norine Sigafoose Re: Robertson Ranch Mayor, Mayor Pro Tern and Council Members, I am not now, and have never been, opposed to the proposed Robertson Ranch development. What bothers me greatly is the terrible impact this will have on our neighborhood, the Colony, an impact that is totally unnecessary. There is a much better alternative, a solution that met everyone's needs — a solution that was acceptable to the developer, the fire department, the city planning staff and the residents of the Colony. I'm talking about Alternative No. 3, the gating alternative for Edinburgh and Glasgow. For the life of me, I can't understand why the solution that worked for everybody was not the solution that the Planning Commission approved. When my husband landed a job in San Diego nine years ago, we were ecstatic. We were very impressed with Carlsbad, and chose to live here over all the other cities in San Diego County because it was such a lovely, well-planned city. (After a few years here, I even wrote an article for the Los Angeles Times Real Estate section singing the praises of this great community.) We moved from a large, noisy, faceless community in Los Angeles that had a school district and city government bureaucracy that was unresponsive to citizens' needs. Finding a new city to move to was not an easy task; we spent many hours researching neighborhoods. As we searched for a neighborhood to live in, many people we spoke to raved about the Colony as being a wonderful, safe place to live. After exploring the neighborhood, we agreed. The Colony had all the values we were looking for; in particular it was a friendly community that was safe enough that we could let our son ride his bike and play catch with his friends on the neighborhood's streets. Over the past nine years, our son has thrived here, making friends and having the life we had dreamed of for him. Now, his life and the quality of life for other children - for other families — in the Colony is being threatened. The Colony that I felt was emblematic of the very heart and soul of Carlsbad is being threatened, and I feel the City is not listening to the concerns of residents in our area. My family and our neighbors were stunned at the outcome of the last Planning Commission meeting. The Colony, after exhaustive research and hard work from a team of people in different professional disciplines, came up with a very good alternative that answered everyone's concerns and met everyone's needs — including the developer, the city planners, the fire department and the residents of the Colony. I can't emphasize that enough: THE ALTERNATIVE OF GATES AT EDINBURGH AND GLASGOW (ALTERNATIVE NO. 3) MET THE NEEDS OF EVERY PARTY CONCERNED WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT. Yet the planning commissioners went with a different alternative which did not address our concerns. There were a few on the committee who seemed open to our concerns, but in the end just decided to cave into the pressure and voted with the other members who never budged from their stance that the Colony should be sacrificed. This is not right! Sadly, the communication with city staff members was difficult at best, and often secretive and maddening to boot. It was clear from the beginning that City staff were working under a false impression of what the Colony wanted, yet they refused to listen to us and realize that all we wanted was to maintain the existing character of our neighborhood. But it's not too late. We are counting on you - our elected officials - to do the right thing and save our neighborhood. Sincerely, Irene Lechowitzky Resident of the Colony Page 1 of 1 Council Internet Mailbox - Robertson Ranch From: "Jeff Zimmerman" <jeffzim@gmail.com> To: <council@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 11/09/2006 3:58 PM Subject: Robertson Ranch Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and Council Members, I'm a 19-year-old resident of the Colony at Calavera Hills, and grew up in this neighborhood. I feel strongly that you should not approve the Robertson Ranch Master Plan in its current form because the plan will have a terrible impact on the youngest residents of our community. This impact will come from the traffic that will be funneled onto our streets from the opening of Glasgow and Edinburgh. This traffic will put kids using the streets for everyday purposes like going to school or to the park at risk. The streets were safe for me and my friends to use as children, and I hate to see that disappear - especially when there is a better alternative. Alternative No. 3 - gates at Edinburgh and Glasgow - is the best solution and meets all the needs listed by the city's planners, the city's fire department and the developer. This alternative is a win for everybody, including the Colony, and should be put into the document in place of the current plan. I used to skateboard on the street with my friends everyday. I still do sometimes and they are out there all the time. They most likely will cause a problem as they wont move out of the road promptly every time a car comes and it may cause more congestion. I also feel that taffic will not be regulated efficiently, as it has already been proposed and shot down that a light be put in at the 4-way stop intersection at the top of Glasgow. I honestly don't see any reason not to go with this alternative. It preserves our neighborhood, keeps our streets safe for kids and does no harm to anyone. Please consider these thoughts, and please put Alternative 3 into the Robertson Ranch Master Plan. Thank you, Jeffrey Zimmerman 2740 Glasgow Drive Carlsbad CA, 92010 file://C:\Documents and Settings\Klinb\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 11/13/2006 Now 11 06 12:30p Dina Masamoto 76O-72O-Z212 ALL RECEIVED November 11, 2006 Dear Mayor Lewis, Mr. Hall, Ms. Kulchin, Dr. Packard, and Ms. Sigaibose: Please make the development of Robertson Ranch a win-win for BOTH the Colony and the new neighborhood. As currendy proposed with roads going through Edinburgh and Glasgow, more cars will simply be zipping up and down the hills, fracturing our close knit community. I would not feel safe letting my children pky or ride their bikes in such an environment. The proposal for back to back cul-de-sacs or gated communities, which were approved by the fire department, could be enhanced with sidewalks and bike paths to facilitate a true connection whereas roads simply encourage people to hop in their cars. We have resided at 4773 Gateshead Road for over 14 years. My three girls, ages 5, 9, and 12 have grown up running up and down Gateshead Road to reach their friends' homes. Gateshead Road would no longer be safe if Edinburgh becomes a through street. Edinburgh and Glasgow in the Colony are extended hills and have no circuitous roads so cars build up speed while coming down them. It will onry be a matter of time before a child or adult gets hit by a driver surprised by the speed they have attained by die time they reach the intersections. End-to-end cul-de-sacs would ensure the intersections stays safe. The benefit of the current plan to both communities is that it makes it convenient for drivers to cut through both communities to get to their destinations. The risks include decreased safety for children of the Colony, a less walk able Colony community, increased traffic in the Colony, and a decreased feeling of community for the Colony. I urge you to consider an end-to-end cul-de-sac or the inclusion of a gated community for die Robertson Ranch. Connecting bike paths and walkways between the two communities can create a link between the communities. Less car traffic for both Robertson Ranch and the Colony families will enhance the quality of all our lives and most importantly, our children will be safer. Sincerely, Dina Masamoto, D.D.S. 4773 GATESHEAD ROAD • CARLSBAD, CA • 92010 PHONE: (760) 720-2212 • E-MAIL: DINA.MASAMOTO@STANI-ORDALUMNI.ORG November 4, 2006 Via Fax, e-mail and regular mail To: Mayor Lewis Matt Hall Ann Kulchin Mark Packard Norine Sigafoose City Attorney City Clerk From: Gary & Shelley Smith - Colony Homeowners and residents 2729 Glasgow Drive, Carlsbad CA 92008 . CC: The Colony at Calaveras Hills Home Owners Association (Colony HOA) Re: Robertson Ranch Development - Issues & Concerns of The Colony City Council Agenda Item - Scheduled for November 14, 2006 As most of you probably know, The Colony at Calaveras Hills ("The Colony") is a small, established and vibrant community of approximately 172 single family homes that were built in the early 1980s - over 20 years ago. The Colony has had from the beginning, and still has, an active and fully formed Home Owners Association, The Colony at Calaveras Hills HOA ("Colony HOA"). The Colony land area immediately abuts the proposed 398 acre Robertson Ranch project which is currently projected to have over 1,100 dwelling units (including single family, market rate and lower income apartments, senior living) and 170,00 square foot retail center (which will most likely include a 50,000 - 60,OOOsf grocery store, a 20,000 - 30,000 sf drug store, ancillary shop spaces, pad sites for fast food and gas). The City and Developer are proposing the Council that the Robertson Ranch development should connect their access on El Camino Real to and through Glasgow and Edinburg in the Colony. Our concerns and issues are as follows 1. Lack of proper and complete written notice to Colony HOA and to all Colony homeowners a. It is our understanding that the Developer is responsible for preparing a mailing list which is provided to the City who in turn completes the appropriate legal, public notice letters per the city's project noticing requirements. In reviewing the 72 page mailing list provided by the Developer, the Developer has the Colony HOA listed three times - all with completely incorrect mailing addresses. b. Official written notices on this project over the past three years or more (public scoping meetings, EIR review hearings, master plan approval at Planning Commission, etc.) were never received by the HOA, who in turn would send to all members of The Colony HOA. c. While homeowners who were within the 600' foot radius of the project were noticed - these homeowners represent less than 30% of the total project - stated otherwise, approximately 50 out of 172 homeowners were formally noticed. This appears to violate both the letter and, more importantly, the spirit of the public noticing requirement put in place. This point was brought up repeatedly in the Planning Commission review process and was effectively ignored. d. The Developer stated in an August 2006 letter, that they are not required to notice an adjacent HOA - this seems unfair given the size and impact of this very large development in generating and creating significant traffic and safety impacts to this small and well established neighborhood. 2. Poor notice signage placement and effectiveness a. The orange public notice signes were placed at the 20 year old dead ends of both Glasgow Drive and Edinburgh Drive in the Colony. If you have ever been to our neighborhood, it would be obvious that probably less than 30% of our community would ever see these signs - who drives knowingly to the end of dead end streets? b. The City states that they have met the noticing requirements because of orange notice signs placed at intersection of Tamarac and El Camino and Cannon and El Camino - how is an average resident to know that all of these signs are for the same project? Or even have a chance to read these signs at these busy intersections? It should be noted that there have been several applications over the years for several different uses at the corner of El Camino and Tamarac (unrelated to the Robertson Ranch master plan in its entirety) - many denied thus far. 3. "They (The colony residents) knew these roads would be connected" a. This is a statement we heard from both the City and Planning Commissioners - it is patently untrue. b. We collectively have researched our closing documents and have found no indication that Glasgow and Edinburg would ever be connected to El Camino Real and to a major new residential and retail development. 4. Lack of promised time for Colony to process and respond a. In various meetings, the City promised that the Colony residents would be given ample time to receive, distribute, meet, digest and respond to new reports and information as they were received - traffic studies, road layouts, etc. b. The City repeatedly did not give our group the courtesy of this time they had promised - we all work and this is not our full time job - and not our collective area of expertise. 5. "Work with The Colony and look at all options." a. The Planning expressly directed the City staff to "work with the Colony and look at all options." b. This was not done - the City staff immediately told the Colony they would only consider three options which effectively conformed with the City and Developers original plans. c. Not a balanced and fair process. 6. Original EIR and related Traffic Studies were flawed a. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that many of the components of the original EIR were incorrect - this original EIR was approved and this projects approval has been based on this incorrect and incomplete information - particularly as it relates to traffic studies. 7. Traffic reports indicate high probability of future street failures a. Reports have indicated that there is a high probability that Galsgow and Edinburg will fail if connected as planned to the Robertson Ranch development. b. City staff has been willing to "risk" our neighborhood and our residents to these failures. This seems unfair and not in keeping with Carlsbad's strong traditions of maintaining safe and unique neighborhood areas that allow for a walking and kids playing. 8. Request for copies of documents never answered a. We had requested copies of documents between the Developer and Rancho Carlsbad HOA, and the Developer and Preserve Calaveras - these were never provided. b. It appears that the City, Rancho Carlsad residents and Preserve Calaveras received benefits from the Developer, and these have not been fully and openly disclosed. 9. Immediate traffic and safety needs of the Colony a. With the large amount of new development in and around the Colony area, The Colony has already suffered significant issues with the cut through traffic at the intersection of Glasgow and Edinbug. b. We would request that a 4-way stop sign at this intersection be put in place immediately to mitigate this problem as best as possible. c. We have heard that the City is not willing to put in a four way stop sign as it will create potential problems with backup of traffic out on to Tamarac - this is a symptom of a problem in the making. d. Ingress and egress to Tamarac from the Colony is becoming more and more difficult and dangerous for all of our residents - lights and other traffic management solutions need to be evaluated and implemented to mitigate these challenges before we have any more traffic incidents or injuries. We love living in Carlsbad and being part of a small and dynamic neighborhood - a place where we all know each other and watch out for each others well being. As fellow citizens of Carlsbad and respected City Leaders, we request that you take our concerns into your thought process as you consider the Robertson Ranch proposal and look for ways to protect and preserve the safety and integrity of our small community. Thank you for your time and consideration - it is appreciated The Honorable Claude "Bud" Lewis «l. p.---.. 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive ^k RECE'VED Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Mayor Lewis, I am writing you in regard to the recent Planning Commission decision on which proposal to support, for the Robertson Ranch Development. Do not be swayed by the Commission vote of 6-1 in favor of Alternate #2. The opinions were evenly divided amongst the commissioners as they prepared to vote. One of the colony's main concerns is the cut- through traffic that will utilize the streets of Glasgow and Edinburgh to avoid 2-3 traffic lights on Cannon and Tamarack Roads to get to thorough fares heading east. They will use our neighborhood streets to reach Calavera Park, Calavera School, and access to College Ave for shopping and access to Highway 78. These neighborhood streets are filled with children that have come to feel safe in this neighborhood. This is why we chose this neighborhood to raise our children. Perhaps you summed up best what will happen to our neighborhood when you stated " Small roads opened up turn into major arteries", at the April 25th 2006 City Council meeting. Also, Commissioner McCormack stated that his experience shows that "people take the path of least resistance." We don't have to imagine what the traffic through our neighborhood will be; we already have an example... Tanglewood. There has already been a child death on the road through Tanglewood, due to speeding cut-through traffic from Carlsbad Village Drive to Marron Road. Tanglewood has the same circuitous routing that is proposed in Alternate 2 that was passed by the Commission. The traffic and speeding through Tanglewood has lead to the Police Department having to set up radar on numerous occasions in that neighborhood at the request of the residents. Will it take the death of one of our children to prove that the assumptions of the Commissioners are wrong? We are not against the Robertson Ranch development or trying to be isolationist. We worked hard with the McMillan Corp. and Robertson Family Trust representatives to reach agreements that were acceptable to all sides. The residents favor making PA 9&10 its own gated community or implementing back-to-back cul-de-sacs with emergency access at Edinburgh and Glasgow. This is a rare case of the developer and the neighborhood agreeing. The McMillan Corp representative has stated to the Commission that his company has no problem with this alternative. It does not violate any law, ordinances, or codes. The Fire Department has indicated that they can work with that alternative. This gives us the security and safety of gates at the connection points of Glasgow and Edinburgh streets. We want to maintain our quality of life in Carlsbad. Again, we are only interested in maintaining our neighborhood safety; not cutting ourselves off from the Robertson Ranch development. Several Planning Commissioners including Segall, Whitton, and Heinemann have stated that they aren't in favor of destroying one neighborhood in favor of a new one. This is exactly what will happen under the current Planning Commissions decision. Res David Rouse 4801 Gateshead Road (760) 729-0810 October 29, 20Qk Mayor Lewis 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, Ca 92008 Re: The Colony and Anticipated Impact from the Robertson Ranch Development Dear Mayor Lewis: My wife and I have lived in our home at 4781 Edinburgh Drive for over 20 years and have raised our 19 and 17 year old sons here. You may have seen our 17 year old son, Sam at a recent Planning Commission Hearing expressing his concerns for the safety of the many neighborhood kids and family pets if traffic was to increase on Edinburgh Drive and Glasgow Drive. We do not necessarily oppose the Robertson Ranch Development. However, we are extremely concerned about the anticipated increase of traffic on our quiet neighborhood streets and we have attended all recent Planning Commission Hearings to express those concerns. We remain strongly in favor of Alternative 3 which provides for gates at the end of Edinburgh Drive and we have yet to hear a legitimate reason as to why gates would be unacceptable to the City. At the September 20th Planning Commission Hearing, Chief McFadden from the Carlsbad Fire Department stated that "the Fire Department can adapt, improvise and overcome any obstacles that may be imposed by the selected alternative". Also at the September 20th, 2006 Planning Commission Hearing, Commissioner Segs! stated that in giving his support to Alternative 3, "it is a critical matter of preserving the existing character of a neighborhood"; "the Colony is a solid and unique community and there is concern about destroying that". Commissioner Heineman concurred with the Residents' choice of Alternative 3 then appeared to become very confused and actually voted against Alternative 3 even though he had shown strong support up to that point. Chairperson Montgomery also expressed concerns that our safe little neighborhood would not continue if our roads were open to "cut through traffic". He seemed to be very much in favor of Alternative 3 especially when a new road off Tamarack (east of El Camino Real) into the Robertson Ranch Development was approved at an earlier PC meeting. So it was very puzzling to everyone when he ultimately voted for Alternative 2 and appeared to base his reasoning solely on whether or not the new road off Tamarack was to be signalized. What does that have to do with installing gates at the end of Edinburgh Drive? As a reminder, at the April 25, 2006 City Council meeting, you stated that "small roads opened up, turn into major arteries". The Colony is a neighborhood of 174 homes that will be surrounded by 1150 homes. Traffic should continue to stay on Tamarack, El Gamine and Cannon Roads rather than cut through the 174 homes which is absolutely certain to happen without the installation of gates at the South end of Edinburgh Drive. As long time residents of Carlsbad and The Colony, we are asking that you please not destroy our existing, wonderful community for a new one. We have worked all our lives to live in a neighborhood like this and three years ago did a major remodel on our home as we planned to spend the rest of our lives here. It is unfortunate that more concern is seemingly being shown for the anticipated needs and conveniences of the new residents of Robertson Ranch rather than those of the Colony Residents. We respectfully urge you to adopt Alternative 3. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, : & Sam Countreman 4781 Edinburgh Drive Carlsbad, California 92010 (760)729-1429 Home (858) 442-5752 Cell The Honorable Bud Lewis November 7,2006 Carlsbad City Council 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive .. Carlsbad, CA 92008 LL Jean Walker 2753 Glasgow Drive Carlsbad, CA 92010 (760) 434-8563 Dear Mayor Lewis, I am writing you today regarding the proposed Robertson Ranch development. I wanted to let you know how this development will directly impact my family if Glasgow Drive is made into a through street. My husband, Todd, and I bought our home in November 2003. We looked at communities throughout San Diego County, including Scripps Ranch, Carmel Valley, Encinitas, and Poway before deciding on this home in Carlsbad. Todd wanted a home with enough room for our family to grow. I wanted a decent sized backyard for our future children. None of the over twenty homes we looked at fit our criteria. In particular, there were no homes with large backyards. We had resigned ourselves to buying a home with little to no yard because that was all that was available. Then, we toured this home on Glasgow Drive. Because this is an established community built in the 1980's, the lots are larger than most newer homes of a similar size. We have a large backyard and 2000 square feet of living space. Beyond that, we loved the community here in our neighborhood. We visited this home several times before we put in a bid on the house. I was struck by the nicely maintained homes, the number of people I saw walking with children in strollers, and the number of people running and walking with dogs. It is the perfect neighborhood for raising a family, and will likely attract young families with children for years to come. I now have an eighteen month old son, Drew, and am pregnant with our second child. I walk up to Calavera Park regularly with Drew in the stroller. On garbage day, we are often forced to walk in the street due to the sidewalks being lines with garbage cans. After I gave birth to Drew, I resumed a running program. The hills in the neighborhood are great for training for the Carlsbad Half Marathon, which I completed last January, only eight months after Drew's birth. Both of these activities will be made much more difficult if Glasgow becomes a through street into the new Robertson Ranch development. I will not feel comfortable walking or running on the roadway with increased traffic. Drew will definitely not be allowed to walk to his friends' houses when he is older if there is increased traffic, let alone cross a busy street. My next door neighbor has Alzheimer's disease. He is a very nice, friendly man who walks his dog daily through the neighborhood. Increased traffic would affect his ability Robert and Carol Ann Size 4737 Gateshead Road Carlsbad, CA 92010 ^LL RECEIVED November 7, 2006 Ms. Bud Lewis, Mayor City of Carlsbad City Hall 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Mayor Lewis: Re: Robertson Ranch Development My husband and I have been residents ofThe Colony/Edinburgh Estates for about seven years now. We are very concerned about the safety of our neighborhood for our children and adults when the Robertson Ranch Development is built. To quote you, "Small roads opened up turn into major arteries", April 25, 2005, City Council meeting. Please do not destroy our neighborhood for a new one. We are a group of 1 74 homes with two entrances/exits on Tamarack Road and Edinburgh. There are a number of children here and we are concerned for their safety. This Development will bring many, many cars driving through our quiet neighborhood and we really are skeptical of this. We don't want to stop the development of Robertson Ranch — we only want to stop the traffic through the Colony. Traffic studies done have significantly varied! Which of the traffic studies done are we to believe? We know we will be connected to Robertson Ranch but this does not mean by oodles of cars driving through our neighborhood. We believe that an in/out entrance on Tamarack Road and El Camino Real is sufficient for the Development. We strongly support Option 3 which has been presented to the Planning Commission. Thank you for taking this letter to heart. Yours truly, Robert and Carol Size November 4, 2006 Mayor Lewis 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Mayor Lewis: As a resident of The Colony, I am writing to you regarding the Robertson Ranch projec ? My family has lived in the Colony since 1987. My son, currently in 8th grade at Calavem Middle School, grew up in the Colony. We have enjoyed every Halloween, visiting tht other homes in the Colony all decorated and welcoming. We participated in the Christmas parades with the kids on their bikes, trikes and skateboards. My son still plays football in the street with his neighborhood friends. It really is a great neighborhood in every way. Now we find our neighborhood and quality of life in jeopardy due to the proposed new development, Robertson Ranch. Please be clear, we in the Colony have never opposed the construction of Robertson Ranch. Our only concern is the enormous amount of increased traffic through our small (174 homes) neighborhood by the residents of the proposed 1 150 new homes. We only want to keep through traffic on Tamarack, Cannon and El Camino. We would like you to consider making PA 9 & 10 it's own gated community, or make back to back cul-de-sacs with emergency access at Glasgow and Edinburgh. This would ensure that traffic would stay on Tamarack, El Camino and Cannon. Allowing open access through our small neighborhood will turn our quiet residential streets in to busy thoroughfares. This would jeopardize the safety of our children and ruin the quality oi life we now enjoy. " Please don't destroy our neighborhood in the process of creating Robertson Ranch. Oar fate is in your hands. Please imagine this is your neighborhood when making your final decision. Thank you. Michelle Wagner 4765 Edinburgh Drive Carlsbad, C A 920 10 RECEIVED FRANCES CAMINER 4748, INVERNESS CT. CARLSBAD CA. 92008. Email: jfcaminer@rodrunner.com Novembers, 2006 We retired to California 20 years ago from the East Coast and were very fortunate to find Carlsbad and buy a house in the Colony at Calaver aHills. We enjoy living here and were pleased with the development of the city. Over the years we have taken advantage of many activities that Carsbad has to offer. Although now I have started to feel some doubt-On the whole the Planning commission has listened to some of our concerns-but I just want to be sure that the promise of less density/ Tamarack Extension/ and traffic calming will become a reality. I just cant help the feeling that our small community will be adversely affected by cut through traffic. I myself use public transportation and want to feel safe walking to my bus stop. Thank you for being "Good Listeners" for our City NOV-Q5-2006 12I5& Pn Pl_ s> u => November 4, 2006 Francis & Irasema Perrot 2726 Glasgow Drive Carlsbad, CA 92010 (760) 434-9037 Council Member Mayor "Bud" Lewis VIA FACSIMILE 760- 720-9461 RE: Robertson Ranch Project We are writing this letter to express our concerns with the upcoming Robertson Ranch Project. After several meetings with the developer and the City Planning Commission, we feel that the Planning Commission has not done enough to protect The Colony and its residents. 1. Our neighborhood was established 25 years ago, with many of the original owners still living here. We've been here 18 years, and have opted to remodel rather than move away from this peaceful community. 2. Allowing our 174-homes to be surrounded by 1150 new homes (as well as allowing the opening of Glasgow and Edinburgh into Robertson Ranch) will cause an unacceptable increase in traffic and endanger the lives of our children, seniors and pets. According to Mayor Lewis (April 25, 2006 City Council Meeting) "Small roads opened up turn Into major arteries". 3. We are invested in this city and allowing this neighborhood to be destroyed by the increase in traffic is unreasonable. a. Planning commissioners Segall, Whitton, and Heinemann, have stated that they aren't in favor of destroying one NOV-05-2006 12:56 PM PC S O S neighborhood for a new one. Yet, when we requested Alternative 3 (emergency gates on Glasgow & Edinburgh), to help protect our neighborhood, we were turned down in favor of Alternative 2 (Round-about on Glasgow & Edinburgh), even though, Alternative 3 met with all the codes stipulated by the city, and the emergency gates at Glasgow and Edinburgh would prevent cut through traffic 4. Glasgow and Edinburgh join as the streets exit onto Tamarack. Opening up these streets to Robertson Ranch will cause major gridlock and a hazard for the homes located on these corners. 5. Traffic coming down Glasgow, from Calaveras Hill Park will also cause gridlock as it crosses Edinburgh. We support the opening of Tamarack, allowing an additional egress and ingress into Robertson Ranch, as well as emergency gates at Glasgow and Edinburgh, We are asking the City Council and Mayor Lewis to support The Colony and its residents. Do not destroy The Colony at Calaveras Hill. Sincerely, Francis & Irasema Perrot November 1, 2006 A|_L RECE|VED Re: Robertson Ranch Project Dear Mayor and City Council Members, Near the end of 1994, I decided to buy a house in Carlsbad. I was not familiar with the San Diego area. My husband was deployed in the Persian Gulf at the time, so I had to make a decision where to live on my own. I looked and looked and eventually came upon Carlsbad. Edinburgh Estates to be exact. The real estate agent showed me properties in other areas of Carlsbad, but once I saw this neighborhood, I knew it was the one I wanted to five in. I saw people out enjoying their community -either jogging or leisurely strolling the sidewalks. The neighborhood had an open, clean feeling about it - the houses weren't cramped close to each other and the streets were quiet. And there was abundant plant life. This neighborhood was the antithesis to where I'd been living. Torrance, CA. Wow! I thought. My husband could go running without having to inhale tons of exhaust or me worry that he'd get flattened crossing traffic. I assumed seeing people outside meant the neighborhood was safe. > A big consideration for someone whose husband can be gone for six month stretches. So by December of 94, the house on 4717 Edinburgh Drive was ours. Within months we got to know people from all over the neighborhood. How was this possible? Just the act of fixing the front yard had immediate and non immediate neighbors stopping by to chat. Today, after twelve years of living here, things have not changed. Granted we've finally fixed our front yard issues, hallelujah, but people still slow down to talk to us. Sometimes people in their cars, or on bikes slow to talk to us or to just wave 'hi'. Why? Because they can. I've lived in neighborhoods where no one talked to each other - people just went about their own business day in, day out. It was cold. I thought all places were like that, until I moved here. What we have here in Colony Calavera Hills is breathing space. Having breathing space has allowed positive interaction to occur. And I would like it to stay this way. I believe connecting Colony Calavera with the new development via road way is the wrong way to go. Increasing the traffic would chip away at our casual, relaxed atmosphere. I have heard of proposals, such as creating back to back cul -d-sacs or installation of emergency access gates to maintain Colony Calavera's intimate charm. I believe such proposals would also help the new development - it would give them the possibility of having their own intimate charm and breathing space. Thriving, interactive communities - isn't this what we strive for? I hope my letter makes it clear how much your decision concerning Robertson Ranch will impact the lives of not only Colony Calavera residents, but also those of the future development. Thank you for your time, Sincerely, Lynn Tucker P.S. In no way did I mean to offend those of you who happen to love Torrance, CA. ALL RECEIVED !fc^ //L^^- ^^€- j^ag, ><^J k^/#/«>^, ^^ 5 ^ ^/ C£jr7ls&4& ( November 1,2006 Dear Mayor Lewis, Matt Hall, Ann Kulchin, Mark Packard, and Norine Sigafoose, I am a resident of The Colony at Calaveras Hills and am concerned about the negative impacts upon the safety and integrity of my neighborhood. To mitigate the cut-through traffic that will be created by connecting Edinburgh and Glasgow to El Camino, the suggested two alternatives that would save our neighborhood (back to back cul de sacs or a gated community/cul de sac combination) have been turned down by the planning commission. The back to back cul de sacs with emergency access roads between the neighborhoods would straighten the roads (as opposed to the circuitous plan that was approved) so that emergency vehicles would actually shorten emergency response time! Pedestrians and cyclists would be able to move between neighborhoods at will. Bollars could be added to the emergency access roads if required to alert traffic; however, emergency vehicles only signs should suffice. We elected you to help maintain our community. It is not fair to destroy our neighborhood to create a new one. This isn't what the city had in mind when they wanted to promote communities. Sincerely, Christine F Gallup 4799 Gateshead Rd Page 1 of 1 Council Internet Mailbox - Robertson Ranch Development From: "Barbara Wood" <bartwood@earthlink.net> To: "Carlsbad City Council" <council@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 10/19/2006 1:00 PM Subject: Robertson Ranch Development CC: "North County Times" <masingale@nctimes.com> TO: Mayor Bud Lewis, and Councilmembers Matt Hall, Ann Kulchin, Mark Packard, and Norine Sigafoose Please see my attached letter regarding the Robertson Ranch Development. Barbara Wood bartwood@earthlink.net file://C:\Documents and Settings\Klinb\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00001 .HTM 10/20/2006 BALANCING THE BIG PICTURE I have attended all the Planning Commission hearings, and subsequent private meetings, concerning the Robertson Ranch development; and I have the following concerns and observations: It appears that the biggest objection and challenge to the City of Carlsbad residents is not the proposed development, but the amount of traffic that would impact surrounding neighborhoods. An overwhelming amount of residents cited the failure of existing roads and flawed traffic patterns and the inability to travel within the city during peak hours. It has occurred to me that maybe Carlsbad's Growth Management Plan needs to be amended to lower the population cap at build-out. Even though it appears that Carlsbad has the land to provide new dwelling units, it is obvious that the City cannot accommodate the resulting additional traffic. Would it not be prudent and wise to temporarily reduce the build-out population cap until such time as the City has the roads and ability to move traffic without the problems of congestion, cut through traffic in residential neighborhoods, and long waits at traffic signals? The Growth Management Plan was put into effect in 1986, and it appeared to be a sensible and desirable solution to keeping Carlsbad from becoming another Orange County. However, after twenty years and much desired development, it appears that the Plan is flawed and failing in that it did not anticipate the lack of major streets for motorists. In other words, we can provide people with homes, but we cannot give them a stress-free environment when they get into their cars to commute. I feel fortunate that I am retired and do not have young children to transport to and from schools and can choose to commute to errands, appointments, etc., between the hours of 9:00 am and 3:00 pm. All other times are a "nightmare" of traffic issues. I not only refer to the proposed Robertson Ranch but note that the Bressi Ranch and other large developments within the city in progress will add to congestion on existing major streets. Therefore, looking at the big picture, it appears that in order to obtain balance of new and old dwelling units, the roads and streets must be in place prior to making new homes available. People have to be able to freely move about the city in safe and reasonable conditions and without old, existing neighborhoods being inundated with overflow traffic. I propose that city planners review the Growth Management Plan with an eye toward amending the document by temporarily reducing the population build-out cap, or placing a moratorium on any new developments until city streets can accommodate the expected growth. Barbara Wood 4770 Brookwood Court Carlsbad, CA 92010 (760) 729-3054 Nov 14 2006 3:53PM H RRMSEY BRRC1K UN 1Vbu November 14,2006 TRANSMITTED VIA FAX TO 760720-9461 AMD EMAIL TO COUNCrL(%C'I.CARLSBAD.CA.US N. Ramsey Barcik 4738 Gateshead Road Carlsbad C A 92010 Mayor Lewis Matt Hall Ann Kulchin Mark Packard Norine Sigafoose 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Robertson Ranch Development The Colony Dear Mayor Lewis, Mr. Hall, Ms. Kulchin, Mr. Packard, Ms. Sigafoose: This letter is to urge you to vote to approve the proposed resolution, known as "Alternative 3" to the Robertson Ranch Plan. Alternative 3, in short, opens Glasgow only for emergency vehicles while installing a gate at Edinburgh. On October 23,2001,1 met with Eric Munoz, the Carlsbad City Planner whom, I was informed, was in charge of Robertson Ranch. As a prospective buyer of a home in The Colony, I stated to him that I was concerned about Glasgow opening for through traffic given the fact that the house on which we'd made an offer was located close to the intersection of Glasgow and Gateshead. Mr. Munoz showed me an aerial map and stated "Glasgow will never be opened for through traffic." He further explained that he had personally walked Robertson Ranch and that there is a steep grade on the other side of the current end of Glasgow which abuts a designated open space and preserve. He stated that because of these topographical issues, no plan would be approved to open Glasgow. On reliance of Mr. Munoz's representations, we bought our house on Gateshead Road. I suspect that I am not the only one to whom such representations were made by Mr. Munoz and others in the Carlsbad Planning Office. Planning commission members Messrs. Segall, Heineman, and Montgomery have already stated that they believe that Alternative 3 is "what is best for The Colony." Alternative 3 was developed, proposed, and approved by McMillan. Given the approved additional access at Tamarack, the concerns voiced by the Fire Department have been resolved by Alternative 3. Further, this would reduce the traffic, safety, and noise issues which are anticipated to come with opening Glasgow and Edinburgh to traffic from more than 1,100 homes as well as traffic from El Camino Real. Keep in mind that The Colony is a community of 174 homes situated immediately between Robertson Ranch and Hope Elementary/Middle School, Calavera Hills Elementary/Middle School (where McMillan has promised that its home buyers would send their kids), as well as Highway 78, and various shopping centers. nov it eruuc. j:oji-n n Ki-int>tT HHKUIK. uin lYbUVifUUbbB p 2 Letter to City Counsel November 14,2006 Page 2 of 2 We sincerely hope that you will consider carefully your decision regarding Alternative 3. You have, within your power, the ability to determine whether our reliance on the representations of the Carlsbad Planning office will to our detriment or not. Furthermore, given the ferocity of feeling which this situation has inspired in residents of The Colony, I am concerned about what the future may hold for the City of Carlsbad, and, in particular, the residents of The Colony, if it is rejected. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, ^f*~~~l&^ N. Ramsey Barcik