The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2015-07-28; City Council; 22056; Approval Habitat Mitigation with College Boulevard Reach A, College Boulevard, Sunny Creek Road, Cannon Road Zone 15CITY OF CARLSBAD-AGENDA BILL 15 AB# 22,056 APPROVAL OF LEGISLATIVE AND DISCRETIONARY DEPT. DIRECTOR ~- MTG. 07/28/2015 PERMITS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CITY ATTORNEY ftd__ DEPT. CEO HABITAT MITIGATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE CITY MANAGER t(\ DEVELOPMENT OF COLLEGE BOULEVARD REACH "A" ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF COLLEGE BOULEVARD AND SUNNY CREEK ROAD AND SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF COLLEGE BOULEVARD AND CANNON ROAD, WITHIN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENTZONElS RECOMMENDED ACTION: Introduce Ordinance No. CS-282 approving Zone Change ZC 14-01, and adopt Resolution No. 2015-207 adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum and approving General Plan Amendment GPA 14-02, Hillside Development Permit HDP 14-04, Special Use Permit SUP 14-03, Habitat Management Plan Permit HMP 14-02, and Minor Subdivision MS 14- 10 to allow for the implementation of habitat mitigation associated with the development of College Boulevard Reach "A" on two parcels (APN 209-060-71, 72} totaling 17.44 acres {16.43 net acres) located north of the intersection of College Boulevard and Sunny Creek Road and south of the intersection of Cannon Road and College Boulevard, within Local Facilities Management Zone 15. ITEM EXPLANATION: Project Application(s) Planning Commission City Council GPA 14-02 RA X zc 14-01 RA X HDP 14-04 RA X SUP 14-03 RA X HMP 14-02 RA X MS 14-10 RA X RA = Recommended Approval x = Final City decision-making authority On June 3, 2015, the Planning Commission recommended approval (5-0; Commissioners Black and Anderson absent) of the College Boulevard Mitigation project. The proposed project includes the enhancement and preservation of sensitive wetland and riparian habitat, as well as the creation of new wetland, riparian and upland habitat areas adjacent to Agua Hedionda Creek. The creek is currently narrowly incised and flows from east to west through the central portion of the project site. The proposed project satisfies the biological resources mitigation measures set forth in Environmental Impact Report, EIR 98-02 (State DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Shannon Werneke, 760-602-4621, Shannon.Werneke@carlsbadca.gov FOR CITY CLERKS USE ONLY. ri COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED CONTINUED TO DATE SPECIFIC 0 DENIED 0 CONTINUED TO DATE UNKNOWN 0 CONTINUED 0 RETURNED TO STAFF 0 WITHDRAWN 0 OTHER-SEE MINUTES 0 AMENDED 0 f College Boulevard Mitigation July 28,2015 Page 2 of 2 Clearinghouse No. 99111082), as it relates to the future construction of Detention Basin BJ and College Boulevard Reach A, which represents the missing link between the northern and southern extents of College Boulevard, a major arterial road. The Planning Commission discussed the development potential for Parcel D, which is proposed to remain vacant, but will be removed from the flood plain as part of the Special Use Permit proposed in conjunction with the mitigation project (proposed on Parcel C). Commissioner Siekmann requested that biological mitigation measure BIO-20 be revised to prohibit the use of pesticides on Parcel A, which abuts the mitigation site and is designated to be used as a future garden. Three people spoke in opposition of the project at the hearing; David Bentley (BENTEQ); Michele Staples (Mandana), and Warren Kato. The primary objections to the project focused on the environmental review (please see discussion below), the development potential for Parcel D, as well as the mitigation project's impact on the financing for College Boulevard Reach "A", which is currently under discussion with the property owners located in Local Facilities Management Zone 15, but outside the scope ofthe proposed mitigation project. David Bentley also expressed concern regarding access to the Lubliner property located adjacent to the proposed mitigation site and east of the proposed College Boulevard extension. City staff confirmed a temporary private access easement exists through the project site to the Lubliner property. A 12-foot-wide access easement was also identified in a deed to the City pursuant to Document No. 2007-0205886, recorded March 27, 2007. To provide temporary access to the Lubliner property, the construction plans for College Boulevard also include a temporary 12-foot-wide driveway adjacent to College Boulevard. Once the construction of the extension to College Boulevard is completed and a permanent access point through Cantarini Ranch (CT 00-18) is constructed, the access easement to the Lubliner property will be terminated. Given the biological significance of the habitat mitigation project, as well as the increase of General Plan- designated Open Space (OS) proposed in conjunction with the implementation of the project (i.e., net gain of 5.44 acres of OS), the Planning Commission recommended approval ofthe project with the condition to revise BIO-20 to indicate that the use of pesticides is prohibited on Parcel A. A full disclosure of the Planning Commission's actions and a complete description as well as staff's analysis of the proposed project is included in the attached minutes and Planning Commission staff report. The Planning Commission and staff are recommending approval ofthe proposed habitat mitigation project. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impacts to the city have been identified. All public infrastructure required for this project will be funded and/or constructed by the developer. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Environmental Protection Ordinance (Title 19) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, staff conducted an environmental impact assessment to determine if the project could have any potentially significant impact on the environment. The environmental impact assessment identified potentially significant impacts to Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, and Hazards/Hazardous Materials. Mitigation measures were incorporated into the design of the project or have been placed as conditions of approval for the project such that all potentially significant impacts have been mitigated to below a level of significance. College Boulevard Mitigation July 28, 2015 Page 3 of 3 A Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) was published in the newspaper and the requisite BO-day public review period for the MND occurred from April 7, 2015 to May 6, 2015. A number of comment letters were received at the end of review period, including a letter from the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians, requesting revisions to the Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures as it pertains to Native American involvement in the grading activities Staff responses to comments received from David Bentley (BENTEQ), Michele Staples (Mandana) and Diane Nygaard (Preserve Calavera) were prepared and are attached to the Planning Commission staff report (Exhibit 5) for reference In addition, the Wildlife Agencies submitted correspondence on May 18, 2015, concurring that the project is consistent with the Habitat Management Plan (HMP). The HMP concurrence letter is also attached to the Planning Commission staff report. In response to the comments received from the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians, an addendum has been prepared in accordance with Section 15164 of CEQA. Specifically, revisions have been made to Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures No. 1 and 2. The revisions have no new significant environmental effects and none o the circumstances requiring recirculation or a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 exist. A Notice of Determination will be filed by the City Planner upon final project approval. PUBUC NOTIFICATION: Information regarding public notifications of this item such as mailings, public hearing notices posted in the newspaper and on the City website are available in the Office ofthe City Clerk. EXHIBITS: 1. City Council Ordinance No. CS-282 2. City Council Resolution No. 2015-207 3. Location Map 4. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 7102, 7103, 7104, and 7105 5. Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 3, 2015 6. Planning Commission Minutes dated June 3, 2015 3 EXHIBIT 1 ORDINANCE NO. CS-282 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 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 21.05.030 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP TO GRANT A ZONE CHANGE FROM LIMITED CONTROL (L-C) TO OPEN SPACE (OS) FOR PARCEL A (1.0 ACRES), PARCEL B (0.84 ACRES) AND PARCEL C (8.81 ACRES) ON A 17.44-ACRE SITE (16.43 NET ACRES) LOCATED NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF COLLEGE BOULEVARD AND SUNNY CREEK ROAD AND SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF CANNON ROAD AND COLLEGE BOULEVARD, WITHIN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 15. CASENAME: COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION CASE NO.: ZC 14-01 The City Council ofthe City of Carlsbad, California, does ordain as follows: WHEREAS, the City Council did on the day of , hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Zone Change as shown on Exhibit "ZC 14-01 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION," dated June 3, 2015, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said City Council considered all factors relating to the "ZC 14-01 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION." NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad does ordain as follows: SECTION I: That section 21.05.030 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, being the zoning map, is amended as shown on the map labeled "ZC 14-01 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION," dated June 3, 2015, attached hereto and made a part hereof. SECTION II: That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission in Planning Commission Resolution No. 7103 shall also constitute the findings and conditions of the City Council. -1- 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 EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective no sooner than thirty days after its adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published at least once in a publication of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within fifteen days after its adoption. INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting ofthe Carlsbad City Council on the day of 2015, and thereafter. /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the day of 2015, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY CELIA A. BREWER, City Attorney MATT HALL, Mayor ATTEST: BARBARA ENGLESON, City Clerk (SEAL) (a ZC 14-01 Exhibit "ZC14-01" June 3, 2015 College Boulevard Mitigation L-C R-1-0.5Q EXISTING L-C \ R-1-0.5Q RD-M PROPOSED Related Case File No(s): GPA 14-02 / HDP 14-04/ SUP 14-03 / HMP 14-02 / MS 14-10 Zoning Designation Changes Property From: To: A. 209-060-71 L-C OS B. 209-060-72 L-C L-C/OS C. 1 1 2 5 6 10 13 14 EXHIBIT 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2015 207 3 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, 4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND ADDENDUM, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND THE OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM RESIDENTIAL LOW-MEDIUM DENSITY (RLM) 7 AND OPEN SPACE (OS) TO OS FOR PROPOSED PARCELS A, B, AND C, AND APPROVING HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT HDP 14-04, 8 SPECIAL USE PERMIT SUP 14-03, HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN PERMIT HMP 14-02, AND MINOR SUBDIVISION MS 14-10 TO ^ ALLOW FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF HABITAT MITIGATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF COLLEGE BOULEVARD REACH "A" ON TWO PARCELS (APN 209-060-71, 72) TOTALING 11 17.44 ACRES (16.43 NET ACRES) LOCATED NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF COLLEGE BOULEVARD AND SUNNY CREEK 12 ROAD AND SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF CANNON ROAD AND COLLEGE BOULEVARD, WITHIN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 15. CASENAME: COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION CASE NO.: GPA 14-02/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/ 15 MS 14-10 16 The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as 17 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning 19 Commission did, on June 3, 2015, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to 20 consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum, attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 7102, General Plan Amendment 14-02, according to Exhibit "GPA 14-02" attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 7103, and Hillside Development Permit HDP 14-04, Special Use Permit 14-03, Habitat Management Plan Permit HMP 14-02 and Minor Subdivision MS 14-10 according to Exhibits "A-G" dated June 21 22 23 24 25 2g 3, 2015; and 27 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the day of 28 , 2015, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider said Mitigated Negative 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 16 17 20 24 25 26 27 28 Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum, General Plan Amendment, Hillside Development Permit, Special Use Permit, Habitat Management Plan Permit, and Minor Subdivision; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and 6 arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the City Council considered all factors relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum, General Plan Amendment, Hillside Development Permit, Special Use Permit, Habitat Management Plan Permit, and Minor Subdivision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 14 2. That the application for a General Plan Amendment (GPA 14-02) to the amend the Land Use Element and the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General 15 Plan to change the General Plan Land Use designation from Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM) to Open Space (OS), as shown in Planning Commission Resolution No. 7103, is hereby accepted and approved and that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 7103, on file with the City Clerk, are incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions ofthe City Council, and shall 18 be effective no sooner than thirty days after its adoption. 19 3. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum, and approval of the Hillside Development Permit (HDP 14-04), Special Use Permit 21 (SUP 14-03), Habitat Management Plan Permit (HMP 14-02) and Minor Subdivision (MS 14-10) are adopted and approved, and that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission 22 contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 7102, 7104, and 7105, are on file with the City Clerk, are incorporated herein by reference, and are the findings and conditions ofthe City 23 Council. /// /// /// 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 "NOTICE TO APPLICANT" The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking review must be filed in the appropriate court not later than the ninetieth day following the date on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the record is filed with a deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost or preparation of such 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 which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA. 92008. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting ofthe City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 28th day of July, 2015, by the following vote to wit: AYES: Hall, Blackburn, Schumacher, Wood, Packard. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. MATT HALL, Mayor ATTEST: EXHIBIT 3 N NOT TO SCALE SITE MAP College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02 / ZC14-01 / HDP 14-04 / SUP 14-03 / HMP 14-02 / MS 14-10 EXHIBIT 4 1 2 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 7102 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF 3 CARLSBAD, CAUFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING 4 PROGRAM AND ADDENDUM, TO ALLOW FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF HABITAT MITIGATION ASSOCIATED WiTH THE DEVELOPMENT OF 5 COLLEGE BOULEVARD REACH "A" ON A 17.44-ACRE SITE (16.43 NET ACRES) LOCATED NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF COLLEGE ^ BOULEVARD AND SUNNY CREEK ROAD AND SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF CANNON ROAD AND COLLEGE BOULEVARD, WITHIN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 15. CASE NAME: COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION CASE NO.: GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/ MS 14-10 20 WHEREAS, WP Golf & Equestrian, "Owrier," and Bent- West LLC, "Applicant," has filed a 11 verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as 12 Northern Parcel. APN 209-060-71 That portion of Lot 'B' of Rancho Agua Hedionda in the County of San 13 Diego, State of California, according to the map thereof, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, November 16, 14 1896. 15 Said parcel being described as Parcel A of Certificate of Compliance recorded March 27, 2007 as instrument No. 2007-0205890 of official 16 records. 17 Southern Parcel. APN 209-060-72 That portion of Lot 'B' of Rancho Agua Hedionda in the County of San 18 Diego, State of California, according to the map thereof No. 823, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, November 19 16,1896. 20 Said parcel being described as Parcel D of Certificate of Compliance recorded September 13, 2007 as instrument No. 2007-0603110 of 21 official records 22 ("the Property"); and 23 WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program> and Addendum was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Plarining Commission did on June 3, 2015, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 13^ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 16 17 18 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Addendum. K NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum, Exhibit "MND/' according to Exhibits "Notice of Intent (NOI)," and "Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Initial 20 Study (EIA)," attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: 11 Findings: 12 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: 13 a. it has reviewed, analyzed, and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Addendum for COLLEGE 14 BOULEVARD MITIGATION - GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10, the potential environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any 15 comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and 29 c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and 20 based on the EIA and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project 21 will have a significant effect on the environment. 22 2. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed to 23 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. 24 " 25 26 27 28 PC RESO NO. 7102 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting ofthe Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on June 3,2015, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Scully, Commissioners L'Heureux, Montgomery, Siekmann and Segall NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Commissioners Anderson and Black VIcrORIAfSCULLY, Chairperson CARL5W6 PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: DON NEU City Planner PC RESO NO. 7102 -3- C City of Carlsbad NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT NAME: College Boulevard Mitigation PROJECT NO: GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 PROJECT LOCATION: Two contiguous parcels (APNs 209-060-71 and APN 209-060-72) located adiacent to Agua Hedionda Creek, north of the intersection of College Boulevard and Sunny Cr^ek Road and south of the intersection of Cannon Road and College Boulevard. within the northeast quadrant of the city of Carlsbad, countv of San Diego, state of California. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed College Boulevard Mitigation project consists ofthe enhancement and preservation of sensitive wetland and riparian habitat, as well as the creation of new wetland, riparian and upland habitat areas adjacent to Agua Hedionda Creek. The proposed project satisfies the biological resources mitigation measures set forth in Environmental Impact Report, EIR 98-02 (Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II, Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4 & Detention Basins, State Clearinghouse No. 99111082), as it relates to the future construction of Detention Basin BJ and College Boulevard Reach A, which represents the missing link between the northern and southern extents of College Boulevard, a major arterial road. The project site, consisting of two privately-owned parcels (APN 209-060-71, 72) totaling 17.44 acres (16.43 net acres), is located north of the intersection of College Boulevard and Sunny Creek Road and south of the intersection of Cannon Road and College Boulevard. Access to the site is provided by a dirt road extending from the southern terminus of College Boulevard. The site is also located within the boundaries of the Zone 15 Local Facilities Management Plan. APN 209-060-71, the northern parcel, is 6.49 acres in size (6.02 net acres), and APN 209-060-72, the southern parcel, is 10.95 acres in size (10.41 net acres). Both properties have a split General Plan Land Use designation of Open Space (OS) and Residential Low-Medium (RLM) density and a zoning designation of Limited Control (L-C). The mitigation area comprises 8.6 acres of the total project area (5.5 acres of upland mitigation area and 3.1 acres of wetland mitigation area). Agua Hedionda Creek flows from east to west, bisecting the project site. Existing uses consist of an equestrian barn and stables, an equestrian training and riding school and a vacant single-family residence. With exception to a few of the stables located at the southeastern corner of the project site, all of the structures will be demolished to implement the proposed habitat mitigation project. Ultimately, the remaining stables will be demolished in conjunction with the development of College Boulevard Reach A. In addition to the creation of the natural habitat/mitigation area, a minor subdivision is proposed to subdivide the existing two (2) legal lots into four (4) legal lots. Parcel A, 1.0 acres in size (gross/net), is proposed as an agricultural open space lot; Parcel B, 1.12 gross acres (0.84 net acres) will exclusively be developed with a bio-retention basin associated with the development of College Boulevard Reach A; Parcel e, 9.23 gross acres (8.81 net acres) consists of the mitigation area, which will be permanently preserved as natural open space; and Parcel D, 6.09 gross acres (5.78 net acres) is proposed to be reserved for future residential development. PROPOSED DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation ofthe California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the Initial study identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where Community & Economic Development Planning Division 1635 FaradayAvenue I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-602-4600 I 760-602-8560 fax clearly no signiflcant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the project "as revised" may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission. AVAILABILITY: A copy ofthe Initial Study documenting reasons to support the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Division, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008 and is available online at: http://www.carlsbadca.gov/services/depts/planning/agendas.asp. COMMENTS: Comments from the public are invited. Pursuant to Section 15204 ofthe CEQA Guidelines, in reviewing Mitigated Negative Declarations, persons and public agencies should focus on the proposed finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. If persons and public agencies believe that the project may have a significant effect, they should: (1) identify the specific effect; (2) explain why they believe the effect would occur; and (3) explain why they believe the effect would be significant. Written comments regarding the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration should be directed to Shannon Werneke, Associate Planner, at the address listed below or via email to shannon.Werneke@carlsbadca.gov. Comments must be received within 30 days ofthe date of this notice. The proposed project and Mitigated Negative Declaration are subject to review and approval/adoption by the Planning Commission. Additional public notices will be issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Shannon Werneke in the Planning Division at (760) 602-4621. PUBUC REVIEW PERIOD April 7. 2015 to Mav 6. 2015 PUBLISH DATE April 7. 2015 lb Ccityof Carlsbad MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT NAME: College Boulevard Mitigation PROJECT NO: GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 PROJECT LOCATION: Two contiguous parcels (APNs 209-060-71 and APN 209-060-72) located adiacent to Agua Hedionda Creek, north of the intersection of College Boulevard and Sunny Creek Road and south of the intersection of Cannon Road and College Boulevard, within the northeast quadrant of the citv of Carlsbad, countv of San Diego, state of California. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed College Boulevard Mitigation project consists of the enhancement and preservation of sensitive wetland and riparian habitat, as well as the creation of new wetland, riparian and upland habitat areas adjacent to Agua Hedionda Creek. The proposed project satisfies the biological resources mitigation measures set forth in Environmental Impact Report, EIR 98-02 (Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II, Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4 & Detention Basins, State Clearinghouse No. 99111082), as it relates to the future construction of Detention Basin BJ and College Boulevard Reach A, which represents the missing link between the northern and southern extents of College Boulevard, a major arterial road. The project site, consisting of two privately-owned parcels (APN 209-060-71, 72) totaling 17.44 acres (16.43 net acres), is located north of the intersection of College Boulevard and Sunny Creek Road and south of the intersection of Cannon Road and College Boulevard. Access to the site is provided by a dirt road extending from the southern terminus of College Boulevard. The site is also located within the boundaries of the Zone 15 Local Facilities Management Plan. APN 209-060-71, the northern parcel, is 6.49 acres in size (6.02 net acres), and APN 209-060-72, the southern parcel, is 10.95 acres in size (10.41 net acres). Both properties have a split General Plan Land Use designation of Open Space (OS) and Residential Low-Medium (RLM) density and a zoning designation of Limited Control (L-C). The mitigation area comprises 8.6 acres of the total project area (5.5 acres of upland mitigation area and 3.1 acres of wetland mitigation area). Agua Hedionda Creek fiows from east to west, bisecting the project site. Existing uses consist of an equestrian barn and stables, an equestrian training and riding school and a vacant single-family residence. With exception to a few of the stables located at the southeastern corner of the project site, all of the structures will be demolished to implement the proposed habitat mitigation project. Ultimately, the remaining stables will be demolished in conjunction with the development of College Boulevard Reach A. In addition to the creation of the natural habitat/mitigation area, a minor subdivision is proposed to subdivide the existing two (2) legal lots into four (4) legal lots. Parcel A, 1.0 acres in size (gross/net), is proposed as an agricultural open space lot; Parcel B, 1.12 gross acres (0.84 net acres) will exclusively be developed with a bio-retention basin associated with the development of College Boulevard Reach A; Parcel C, 9.23 gross acres (8.81 net acres) consists of the mitigation area, which will be permanently preserved as natural open space; and Parcel D, 6.09 gross acres (5.78 net acres) is proposed to be reserved for future residential development. DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the Initial Study identified potentially significant effects on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows: Community & Economic Development Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-602-4600 I 760-602-8560 fax ' ^ Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on the attached sheet have been added to the project. Q The proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. (Mitigated Negative Declaration applies only to the effects that remained to be addressed). Q Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. A copy of the Initial Study documenting reasons to support the Mitigated Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Division, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. ADOPTED: ATTEST: DON NEU, AlCP City Planner Initial Study ^ CARLSBAD <^'^^^ CITY OF 1. PROJECT NAME: College Boulevard Mitigation 2. PROJECT NO: GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 3. LEADAGENCY: 4. PROJECT APPUCANT: City of Carlsbad Bent-West LLC 1635 Faraday Avenue 5796 Armada Drive, Ste. 300 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008 5. LEAD AGENCY CONTACT PERSON: Shannon Werneke, Associate Planner, (760) 602-4621 6. PROJECT LOCATION: Two contiguous parcels (APNs 209-060-71 and APN 209-060-72) located adjacent to Agua Hedionda Creek, north of the intersection of College Boulevard and Sunny Creek Road and south of the intersection of Cannon Road and College Boulevard, within the northeast quadrant of the city of Carlsbad, county of San Diego, state of California. 7. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: RLM/OS (Residential Low-Medium Density, 0-4 du/ac and Open Space). 8. ZONING: L-C (Umited Control) 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed College Boulevard Mitigation project consists of the enhancement and preservation of sensitive wetland and riparian habitat, as well as the creation of new wetland, riparian and upland habitat areas adjacent to Agua Hedionda Creek. The proposed project satisfies the biological resources mitigation measures set forth in Environmental Impact Report, EIR 98-02 (Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II, Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4 & Detention Basins, State Clearinghouse No. 99111082), as it relates to the future construction of Detention Basin BJ and College Boulevard Reach A, which represents the missing link between the northern and southern extents of College Boulevard, a major arterial road. The project site, consisting of two privately-owned parcels (APN 209-060-71, 72) totaling 17.44 acres (16.43 net acres), is located north ofthe intersection of College Boulevard and Sunny Creek Road and south of the intersection of Cannon Road and College Boulevard. Access to the site is provided by a dirt road extending from the southern terminus of College Boulevard. The site is also located within the boundaries of the Zone 15 Local Facilities Management Plan. APN 209-060-71, the northern parcel, is 6.49 acres in size (6.02 net acres), and APN 209-060-72, the southern parcel, is 10.95 acres in size (10.41 net acres). Both properties have a split General Plan Land Use designation of Open Space (OS) and Residential Low-Medium (RLM) density and a zoning designation of Umited Control (L-C). The mitigation area comprises 8.6 acres ofthe total project area (5.5 acres of upland mitigation area and 3.1 acres of wetland mitigation area). Agua Hedionda Creek flows from east to west, bisecting the project site. Existing uses consist of an equestrian barn and stables, an equestrian training and ,„„„.i, -1- Initial Study 1^ College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 riding school and a vacant single-family residence. With exception to a few of the stables located at the southeastern corner ofthe project site, all ofthe structures will be demolished to implement the proposed habitat mitigation project. Ultimately, the remaining stables will be demolished in conjunction with the development of College Boulevard Reach A. Grading proposed in conjunction with the creation ofthe mitigation area includes the addition of a contour-graded 2:1 slope adjacent to the northern and southern limits ofthe new wetland area and the widening of the creek bed. A total of 73,300 cubic yards of cut and 470 cubic yards of fill is proposed. As a result, a total of 72,830 cubic yards is proposed to be exported from the site. The applicant has indicated that the exported material will be utilized in conjunction with the development of College Boulevard Reach A. A 100-foot-wide wetland buffer is proposed from the outer limits ofthe newly-created wetland mitigation area. With exception to the bio-retention basin, which is an allowable encroachment, no development will be allowed within this buffer. In addition to the creation ofthe natural habitat/mitigation area, a minor subdivision is proposed to subdivide the existing two (2) legal lots into four (4) legal lots. Parcel A, 1.0 acres in size (gross/net), is proposed as an agricultural open space lot; Parcel B, 1.12 gross acres (0.84 net acres) will exclusively be developed with a bio-retention basin associated with the development of College Boulevard Reach A; Parcel C, 9.23 gross acres (8.81 net acres) consists ofthe mitigation area, which will be permanently preserved as natural open space; and Parcel D, 6.09 gross acres (5.78 net acres) is proposed to be reserved for future residential development. The project involves a General Plan Amendment (GPA 14-02), Zone Change (ZC 14-01), Habitat Management Plan Permit (HMP 14-02), Hillside Development Permit (HDP 14-04), Special Use Permit (SUP 14-03), and Minor Subdivision (MS 14-10). A General Plan Amendment (GPA) is required as part of this application since the future habitat boundaries extend beyond the limit of the existing Open Space (OS) land use designation. The expanded OS area will allow for the natural habitat to be placed in a separate lot (Parcel C) and preserved in perpetuity. In addition, an OS General Plan Land Use designation is proposed for Parcels A (agricultural lot) and B (College Boulevard Reach A detention basin). A Zone Change (ZC) is required to change the zoning designation from Umited Control (L-C) to Open Space to allow for the creation ofthe agricultural lot (Parcel A), the detention basin lot (Parcel B) as well as the natural open space/mitigation lot (Parcel C). Parcel D is proposed to remain as L-C. As part ofthe General Plan Update, the zoning designation of L-C will be changed. No development on Parcel D is proposed in conjunction with the proposed habitat mitigation project. A Hillside Development Permit (HDP) is proposed to allow for grading in an area which has existing slopes which exceed a gradient of 15% and an elevation differential of 15 feet or more. A Special Use Permit (SUP) is proposed for grading in the existing lOO-year floodplain. A Habitat Management Plan (HMP) Permit is required since the existing lots are located within a Standards Area pursuant to the HMP. Consistency Findings are required to be processed for Parcels B and C to remove the parcels from the Standards Area. -2- Initial Study College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 A Minor Subdivision (MS) is proposed to subdivide the two existing lots into four lots. The lot sizes and intended future use are summarized below: Parcel A: 1.0 acres (gross/net), agricultural-future garden; proposed to remain as an HMP Standards Area; Parcel B: 1.12 acres (gross)/0.84 acres (net), bio-retention basin for College Boulevard; to be constructed as part ofthe construction of College Boulevard; proposed to be removed from the HMP Standards Area; Parcel C: 9.23 acres (gross)/8.81 acres (net), wetland and upland habitat mitigation open space lot, to be preserved in perpetuity through a biological conservation easement; proposed to be removed from the HMP Standards Area and converted to an HMP Hardline Area; and Parcel D: 6.09 acres (gross)/5.78 acres (net); future residential development; no development proposed at this time; proposed to remain in HMP Standards Area. 10. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING/SURROUNDING LAND USES: The existing environmental setting ofthe subject properties can be generally characterized as semi- rural. Surrounding land uses include a vacant parcel to the north, a vacant commercially-zoned parcel to the south, the Sunny Creek neighborhood to the southeast consisting of single-family homes and multi-family apartments, and a single-family home and the Rancho Carlsbad golf course to the west. Agua Hedionda Creek, which is currently narrowly incised, flows from east to west through the central portion of the project site. The elevation of the flow line of the creek drops nine feet through the project site, ranging from 60' as it enters on the east side under the College Boulevard right-of-way to 51'above mean sea level (MSL) as it enters the golf course to the west. The southern half of the project site (APN 209-060-72) is generally flat and ranges in elevation from 51' to 75' above MSL. The northern half of the site (APN 209-060-71), steeply climbs in elevation from 51' to 112 above MSL. The central portion ofthe project site is located in the floodway, while a majority ofthe overall project site is currently located in the floodplain. The entire project site is located within a Standards Area pursuant to the HMP. 11. OTHER REQUIRED AGENCY APPROVALS (i.e., permits, flnandng approval or participation agreements): United States Army Corp. of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Game, San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board 12 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: The proposed College Boulevard Mitigation ' project is associated with Final Environmental Impact Report, EIR 98-02, Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II, Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4 and Detention Basins (SCH No. 99111082) as it implements the biological resource mitigation measures for the extension of Detention Basin BJ and College Boulevard Reach A. Initial Study »'-| ,j||ege Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 13. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. • Aesthetics • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Population & Housing • AgricMlture & Forestry Resources Hazards/Hazardous Materials • Public Services • Air Quality • Hydrology/Water Quality • Recreation Biological Resources • Land Use & Planning • Transportation/Traffic M Cultural Resources • Mineral Resources • Utilities & Service Systems Geology/Soils • Noise Kl Mandatory Findings of Significance 14. PREPARATION: The Initial Study forthe subject project was prepared by: Shahnon Werneke, Associate Planner Date -4-Initiai Study >^ tf ^jllege Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 15. DETERMINATION: (to be completed by Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: • I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. M I find that although the proposed project couid have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described herein have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. • I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. • I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described herein. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. • I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. 16. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The initial study for this project has been reviewed and the environmental determination, indicated above, is hereby approved. DON NEU, City Planner Date 17. APPUCANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES: This is to certify that I have reviewed the mitigation measures in the Initial Study and concur with the addition of these measures to the project. x)^ /^i^ V'/'^ Signature Date .5. Initial Study June 2013 -* ^3 College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HMP 14-02/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/MS 14-10 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does' not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not gxpose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account ofthe whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Signiflcant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than signiflcant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Signiflcant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6 Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. The explanation of each issue should identify: a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. .5. Initial Study College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HMP 14-02/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/MS 14-10 1. AESTHETICS entially nificant Impact sthan nificant with t. Incorporated s than nificant Impact Impact Would the project: , Pnt Sigi Les Sigi Mil o z a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? U u • b) Substantially°damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? • • • c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? • • • d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? • • • a) Wo Impact. The existing environmental setting ofthe subject property can generally be characterized as semi-rural A majority of the project site is located at a lower elevation than the adjacent properties, particularly from the north and east, no formally designated state or local scenic vistas exist on the project site. Therefore, no impact is assessed. b) Less Than Significant Impact. A number of equestrian-related buildings on the project site will be demolished in conjunction with the proposed habitat mitigation project; however, none ofthe structures are designated as historic structures. The project site is not located within the view shed of a State scenic highway or any State highway that is designated by the California Department of Transportation as eligible for listing as a scenic highway. The project is implementing biological mitigation measures identified in EIR 98-02, and is associated with the future construction of College Boulevard (Reach A). Sensitive biologic resources located within the project area, including trees, will be removed to create the mitigation area. The existing sycamore trees located adjacent to the creek will be avoided to the maximum extent feasible during grading; it is anticipated that several trees will be removed as part ofthe proposed grading design forthe enhancement of Agua Hedionda Creek. However, these resources will be replaced and enhanced as part ofthe proposed habitat mitigation project. Overall, the scenic value ofthe area will be enhanced with the implementation of this project since it involves the restoration of sensitive riparian and wetland habitat adjacent to Agua Hedionda Creek and the removal ofthe existing structures. Therefore, a less than significant impact is assessed. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed College Boulevard Mitigation project consists of the enhancement and preservation of sensitive wetland and riparian habitat, as well as the creation of new wetland, riparian and upland habitat areas adjacent to Agua Hedionda Creek. The grading design consists of the re-contouring of an existing slope along the northern boundary of the habitat mitigation site (i.e.. Parcel C), as well as the addition of a new variable slope along the southern boundary of Parcel C, which will be contour graded and ultimately planted with sensitive upland habitat species. Short-term construction related impacts would consist primarily of grading activities, including the presence of construction equipment and debris and temporary safety signage. Implementation of the proposed June 2013 Initial Study College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 habitat mitigation project will ultimately enhance the visual character and quality of the site and surroundings. Therefore, a less than significant impact is assessed. d) Wo Impact. The proposed project will not create a new source of substantial light or glare. Any lighting which exists for the existing equestrian buildings will be removed in conjunction with the habitat mitigation project. In addition, lighting will not be allowed in the future native habitat preserve. Therefore, no impact is assessed. II. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES* Would the project: Potentially significant Impact Less than significant with Mit Incorporated Less than significant Impact No Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program ofthe California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? • • • b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? • • • c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? • • • the California Agricultural Lar,d Evaluation and Site Assessnnent Model-1997 prepared by the Cahfornia Departmentof Conservation as an optional model to use In assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determinmg whether impacts to forest resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory afforest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided m Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.) a) No Impact. The project site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (California State Department of Conservation, June 1990). Therefore, no impact is assessed. b) No Impact. The existing project site, APNs 209-060-71 and APN 209-060-72, is not encumbered by a Williamson Act contract. A small portion of APN 209-060-71 is currently used as a garden. As part of the proposed project, the garden area will be removed but is anticipated to be relocated to Parcel A. Beyond the proposed habitat mitigation, no development is proposed in conjunction with the project. Therefore, no impact is assessed. c) No Impact. The project would not conflict with the existing zoning or land uses within the project area or in adjacent areas. The project is not proposed within a forestry or timber zone, nor is any part of the project area used for forestry or timber purposes. As a result, no impacts will occur related to the rezoning of forest land, timberland, ortimberland production. Therefore, no impact is assessed. June 2013 -8-Initial Study College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 III. AIR QUALITY* Would the project; Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation ofthe applicable air quality plan? • • • b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? • • • c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? • • • d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? • • • e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? • • Kl • * Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. a) Wo Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin, which is currently designated as a nonattainment area for the state standard for PMio, PM2.5,1-Hour and 8-Hour ozone, and the Federal 8- Hour Standard for ozone. The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothill areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San Diego Association of Govemments (SANDAG). The RAQS outlines the APCD's plans and regulatory control measures designed to attain state air quality standards for ozone. The RAQS, which was initially adopted in 1991, is updated on a triennial basis with the most recent update occurring in April 2009. The APCD has also developed the SDAB's input into the State Implementation Plan (SIP) which is required under the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) for pollutants that are designated as being in nonattainment of national air quality standards for the air basin. The SIP relies on the same information from SANDAG to develop emission inventories and emission control strategies that are included in the attainment demonstration for the air basin. The proposed project relates to the SIP and/or RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that are incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city's and the County's general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the project presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact. As n Initial Study 1..— inta College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 discussed in Section X (Land Use & Planning) below, the proposed project, which entails a habitat mitigation project and changing the General Plan Land Use and zoning designations for Parcels A-D, is consistent with the General Plan; therefore, the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact. Section 15125(d) of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part ofthe RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan setforth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the following: • Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area? • Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan? The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is being implemented. Given the proposed land use changes from Residential Low-Medium Density and Open Space (OS) to exclusively OS for Parcels A-C, the project will in no way conflict with or obstruct implementation of the regional plan. Therefore, no impact is assessed. b) iess Than Significant. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is at Camp Pendleton and Escondido (E. Valley Parkway). Data available for these monitoring sites from 2009 through 2011, indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded were as follows: the 1-Hour ozone concentration did not exceed the state standard any time during the years 2009 through 2011; the 8-Hour ozone concentration exceeded both the state and federal standard in 2009 and 2010 and the state standard was exceeded twice in 2011; the daily PMxo concentration exceeded the state standard in 2009, but not in 2010 or 2011; and the federal standard for PMioand the federal 24-Hour PMzs standard was not exceeded during the 2009 through 2011 time period. No other violations of any air quality standards have been recorded during the years 2009 through 2011. The project would involve minimal short-term emissions associated with grading the habitat mitigation area Pursuant to the A/r Quo//tyAno/ys/s prepared forthe habitat mitigation project (LSA Associates, Inc., August 2014), and summarized in the table below, the short-term construction-related emissions are not projected to exceed the County of San Diego thresholds, and would be minimized through standard construction measures (Rule 55, SDAPCD requirements) such as the use of properly tuned equipment and watering the site for dust control. .20- Initial Study College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 Short-Term Regional Construction Emissions Total Reeional Pollutant Emissions (Ibs./day ROG NOx CO SOi Fugitive PMio Exhaust PMio Fugitive PM,, Exhaust PM„ COze Site Preparation 5.3 57 44 0.041 8.3 3.1 4.5 2.8 4,300 Grading 4.4 47 34 0.053 4.8 2.3 2 2.1 5,400 Peak Daily 5.3 57 44 0.053 11 7.3 5,400 County of San Diego Thresholds 75 250 550 250 100 55 No Threshold No No No No No No No Threshold Source; LSA Associates, Inc., August 2014. CO = carbon monoxide C02 = carbon dioxide C02e = carbon dioxide equivalent Ibs./day = pounds per day NOx = nitrogen oxides PM2.S = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size PMio = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size ROG = reactive organic compounds SOx = sulfur oxides No long-term emissions would be associated with the project since the proposal only involves grading for the habitat mitigation area. Parcels A-C are proposed to be designated as Open Space. Specifically, Parcel A will be utilized as a garden. Parcel B will be developed with a bio-retention basin for College Boulevard Reach A and Parcel C will be permanently preserved as sensitive habitat. While Parcel D has the potential to be developed with a residential product in the future, no development is proposed at this time. The short-term emissions associated with the project would neither result in the violation of any air quality standard, nor contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact The air basin is currently in a state non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine particulates. The proposed project would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with the proposed project would be minimal and short-term. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the proposed project, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3), the proposed project's incremental contribution to the cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. d) Wo Impact. There are no sensitive receptors located adjacent to the project site. Therefore, no impact is assessed. e) Less Than Significant Impact. During the grading operations to create the habitat mitigation site, the proposed project would generate some fumes from the construction equipment, which may be considered objectionable to some people. Such exposure would be short-term or transient. In addition, the number of people exposed to such transient impacts is not considered substantial. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. Q -11-Initial Study College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse efi^ect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? • • • b) Have a substantial adverse efl^ect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? • m • • c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? • • • d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? • a • e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? • • • f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? • • • a-c, e, f) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated, d) Less than Significant Impact (all sections discussed together below) The City of Carlsbad has an adopted Habitat Management Plan (HMP), which is a comprehensive, citywide program to identify how the City, in cooperation with the federal and state wildlife agencies, can preserve the diversity of habitat and protect sensitive biological resources within the City while allowing for additional development consistent with the City's General Plan and its Growth Management Plan. In doing so the HMP is intended to lead to citywide permits and authorization for the incidental take of sensitive'species in conjunction with private development projects, public projects, and other activities, which are consistent with the HMP. The following is an analysis of the proposed project, and its consistency with the provisions of the City's HMP. In addition. Chapter 21.210 of the city's Zoning Ordinance (Habitat Preservation and Management Requirements) implements the HMP as well as the goals and objectives of the city's Open Space Element ofthe General Plan. As discussed in the subsequent sections, with the incorporation of mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to a less than significant level, the project does not conflict with any provisions of the HMP or Zoning Ordinance. June 2013 -12-Initial Study College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 For some key properties within the city which have not submitted proposed hardline designs for inclusion in the preserve system, the HMP includes conservation goals and standards which will apply to future development proposals. The goals and standards have been arranged according to the Local Facilities Management Zones (LFMZ) to which they apply. The standards only apply to those areas within the LFMZs not already covered by existing and proposed hardline areas, existing take authorizations or areas shown as development areas on the HMP map. Therefore, the standards only apply to those parcels which are designated as "Standards Areas" on the HMP map. If individual properties are proposeJfor development within a zone, the property owner must show how the standards, which include goals and objectives of the HMP will be met. This planning should ensure that viable biological open space will be comprehensively planned for the zone, rather than having open space areas planned piece-meal for each parcel within the zone. The HMP identifies the subject property (APNs 209-060-71, -72) as a Standards Area in Local Facilities Management Zone 15. While the project site is located outside of any core or linkage habitats (pursuant to Figure 4 ofthe HMP), a number of important core and linkage habitats comprise much of Zone 15, including Core Ares 3 and 5, as well as Unk C. The northern portion of Zone 15 includes much of Core Area 3 which is already largely existing and proposed hardline open space. Critical blocks of coastal sage scrub in this area are densely occupied by a critical population of Califomia gnatcatchers and other sensitive species The southeastern portion ofthe Zone, includes Core Area 5 as well as Unk C. Some ofthe natural habitat" patches in the southem portion of the zone, including the subject site, border the southem drainage, Agua Hedionda Creek, and add to its value as a wildlife movement corridor. Agricultura areas north of Agua Hedionda Creek support a mosaic of disturbed coastal sage scrub patches on rocky hills and ridges along with a variety of wetland communities. These remnant natural habitat patches, surrounded by active agricultural fields, comprise part of a stepping stone to Unkage C for gnatcatchers and other species. The proposed College Boulevard Mitigation project consists of the enhancement and preservation of sensitive wetland and riparian habitat, as well as the creation of new wetland, riparian and upland habitat areas adjacent to Agua Hedionda Creek. The creek is currently narrowly incised and flows from east to west through the central portion of the project site. The proposed project satisfles the biological resources mitigation measures set forth in Environmental Impact Report, EIR 98-02 (State Clearinghouse No 99111082) as it relates to the future construction of Detention Basin BJ and College Boulevard Reach A which represents the missing link between the northem and southem extents of College Boulevard, a major arterial road. In conjunction with development of the road, a bridge will be extended over Agua Hedionda Creek. The bridge is adjacent to and immediately east of the project site. The development of College Boulevard, including the bridge, have already been analyzed and approved pursuant to EIR 98-02. The focus ofthe subject application is purely on the implementation ofthe biological habitat mitigation for the development of College Boulevard. In addition, a Minor Subdivision is proposed to create separate lots. The uses for each lot are as follows: Parcel A: 1.0 acres (gross/net), agricultural-future garden; proposed to remain in HMP Standards Area. Parcel B: 1.12 acres (gross)/0.84 acres (net), bio-retention basin for College Boulevard; to be constructed as part ofthe construction of College Boulevard; proposed to be removed from HMP Standards Area. .23- Initial Study } College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 Parcel C (College Boulevard Reach A habitat mitigation parcel): 9.23 acres (gross)/8.81 acres (net), wetland and upland habitat mitigation open space lot and proposed HMP hardline area, to be preserved in perpetuity through a biological conservation easement; and Parcel D: 6.09 acres (gross)/5.78 acres (net); future residential development; no development proposed at this time; proposed to remain in HMP Standards Area. ST. **gro5s acreage includes College Boulevard footprint; net acreage is lot area excluding College Boulevard A Biological Technical Report (BTR), dated March 26, 2015 and Mitigation Plan (dated March 26, 2015) have been prepared for the proposed project by Alden Environmental. For the purposes of analyzing the impacts to biological resources in this section, it is important to note that proposed Parcel C (i.e.. College Boulevard habitat mitigation parcel) is part of two existing properties (APNs 209-050-71, -72) which are commonly referred to as Equestrian Center North (ECN) and Equestrian Center South (ECS) and together as "ECNS" in the BTR. In addition, the BTR incorporates the biological resource impacts associated with the development of Detention Basin BJ and College Boulevard Reach A, as it is necessary to re-conflrm the impacts pursuant to what was approved under EIR 98-02 (Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II, Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4 & Detention Basins, State Clearinghouse No. 99111082). Pursuant to city correspondence dated February 23, 2010, the development of College Boulevard Reach A was found to be consistent with the HMP. All biological resource impacts associated with the development of College Boulevard Reach A and Detention Basin BJ are proposed to be mitigated on proposed Parcel C. Forthe purposes ofthe subject Mitigated Negative Declaration, the complianCe/CEQA analvsis ofthe impacts should focus on the habitat mitigation site as that is the scope ofthe proposed oroiect. However, since the two proiects (i.e., habitat mitigation and the development of College Boulevard) are directiv related to one another, the required mitigation, including the development of Detention Basin BJ and College Boulevard Reach A, is included in the table below and also discussed from a contextual standpoint throughout this Section so it is clear what is reouired to be mitigated on proposed Parcel C. The HMP Findings, however, purely focus on the habitat impacts associated with the implementation of the mitigation measures, namely on proposed Parcels B and C. For a detailed discussion of the impacts related to the development of College Boulevard Reach A and Detention Basin BJ, please see the BTR prepared by Alden. Please also refer to EIR 98-02. •—. • '2 -14- Initial Study June 2013 , -^^ College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 TABLE 1 Existing Conditions, Parcels A-D (gross acreage) VEGETATION COMMUNITY/ WILDUFE HABITAT PARCEL A a- PARCEL B PARCEL C PARCEL D TOTAL Habitat Group A Freshwater Marsh — Riparian (mule fat) scrub — Riparian (southern willow) scrub — 0.72 0.72 Riparian (sycamore) woodland — 1.17 1.17 Southern coast live oak riparian forest - Disturbed wetland (Arundo) -0.04 0.04 HabitatGroup D Coastal sage scrub 0.01 0.05 0.06 Coastal sage (Baccharis) scrub Coastal sage scrub (including disturbed) Habitat Group E Non-native grassland 0.12 0.12 Habitat Group F Agricultural lands 0.02 0.56 0.37 0.95 Eucalyptus woodland 0.53 0.68 0.01 1.22 Disturbed lands 0.98 0.02 5.57 6.07 12.64 Ornamental 0.51 0.01 0.52 Developed TOTAL 1.00 1.12 9.23 6.09 17.44 -15-Initial Study College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 In order to implement the mitigation associated with the development of College Boulevard Reach A, the following impacts are proposed on proposed Parcel C. Please note that any area impacted on Proposed Parcel C which falls within the footprint of College Boulevard Reach A is accounted for in the College Boulevard impacts, not the table below. In addition, as proposed Parcel B is a required bio-retention basin for the development of College Boulevard Reach A, the impacts associated with the development of Parcel B are also included in the impacts for the development of College Boulevard Reach A. Table 2 Habitat Impacts- Parcel C VEGETATION COMMUNITY/ WILDUFE HABITAT PARCEL C Habitat Group A Freshwater Marsh Riparian (mule fat) scrub Riparian (southern willow) scrub Riparian (sycamore) woodland Southern coast live oak riparian forest Disturbed wetland (Arundo) Habitat Group D Coastal sage scrub Coastal sage (Baccharis) scrub Coastal sage scrub (including disturbed) Habitat Group E Non-native grassland 0.03 Habitat Group F Agricultural lands 0.37 Eucalyptus woodland 0.67 Disturbed lands 5.28 Ornamental 0.51 Developed TOTAL 6.86 3f -16-Initial Study College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 Table 3 below (Table 1 in Alden BTR) summarizes the vegetation communities which would be impacted for the development of College Boulevard Reach A and Detention Basin BJ, as well as for the implementation of the mitigation on the proposed Parcel C. The mitigation ratios and the resulting area (in acres) required to mitigate the various impacts are also included. Tables VEGETATION COMMUNITY/ WILDUFE HABITAT COLLEGE REACH A/ BASIN BJ IMPACTS^ PARCEL C, HABITAT MITIGATION IMPACTS MITIGATION RATIO OR ACREAGE REQUIRED MITIGATION Wfitland/Rioarian Community/Wildlife Habitat Habitat Group A Freshwater Marsh 0.09 — 3:1 0.27 Riparian (mule fat) scrub 0.10 — 3:1 0.30 Riparian (southern willow) scrub 0.36 -3:1 1.08 Riparian (sycamore) woodland 0.13 — 3:1 0.39 Disturbed wetland (Arundo) 0.04 — 3:1 0.12 Total Wetland/Riparian Habitat 0.72^ ~ 2.16 Uoland Communities/Habitat HabitatGroup D Coastal sage scrub 0.59 ~ 2:1 1.18 Coastal sage (Baccharis) scrub 0.90 — 2:1 1.80 Coastal sage scrub (including disturbed) 1.12 -2:1 2.24 Habitat Group E Non-native grassland 0.28 0.03 0.5:1 0.16 (fee) Subtotal Upland 2.89 0.03 5.38 (0.16 fee) Other Areas . — HabitatGroup F Agricultural lands 15.71 0.37 16.08 In lieu fee Eucalyptus woodland 1.50 0.67 2.17 In lieu fee Disturbed lands 2.86 5.28 8.14 In lieu fee Ornamental^ -0.51 -No Fee Developed^ 3.45 --No Fee Subtotal Other Areas 23.52 6.83 TOTAL 27.13 6.86 'No habitat group assigned. ,-,„ no ,c-f-u M ^impacts associated with the development of College Boulevard Reach A and Detention Basin BJ, approved pursuant to EIR 98-02 (SCH No 99111082), have been updated to satisfy current stormwater requirements, pursuant to the Alden Biological Technical Report, March 26, 2015. This includes the impacts associated with the additionai bio-retention basins. 3 This includes impacts to wetland Waters ofthe U.S. and State. Impacts would also occur to 0.12 acres of non-wetland Waters of the U.S. and State but since they are related to streambed (not a vegetated wetland/riparian community/habitat), the Impacts are not included in this table. They are addressed below under Direct Impacts, Non-wetland Waters ofthe U.S. and Non-wetland Waters ofthe State. -17-Initial Study 3^ College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 Impacts can be direct, indirect, permanent, or temporary. Direct impacts immediately alter biological resources such that those resources are permanently eliminated, for example through the removal of vegetation and its replacement with a roadway. The removal of vegetation can be temporary, however, when it is revegetated in place following construction. Indirect impacts include actions that affect the surrounding biological resources either as a secondary effect of the direct impacts (e.g., excessive construction noise adversely affects nesting birds) or as the cause of degradation of a biological resource o\fer time (e.g., non-native plant species from new development invade preserved habitat). Direct Impacts Sensitive Wetland/Riparian Habitat (Habitat Group A) Pursuant to the Alden BTR, no direct wetland/riparian impacts are proposed in association with implementing the mitigation measures on the habitat mitigation site (i.e., Parcel C). As identified in Table 3 above, approximately 0.72 acres of wetland/riparian communities/habitat would be directly impacted by the construction of Detention Basin BJ and College Boulevard Reach A and would be mitigated on proposed Parcel C. Within that 0.72 acres of impacted wetland/riparian communities/habitats, 0.12 acres of non-wetland Waters ofthe U.S. and Waters ofthe State (i.e., streambed) overlap with the 0.72 acres of wetland/riparian impacts. The impact to 0.12 acres is a separate jurisdictional issue which requires additional mitigation that occur on proposed Parcel C (see further discussion on non-wetland Waters of the U.S. and non-wetland Waters of the State. As previously discussed, the impacts as it relates to the development of College Boulevard Reach A and Detention Basin BJ have already been analyzed pursuant to EIR 98-02 (SCH No. 99111082) and mitigation measures have been imposed. However, the impacts have been updated in the Alder BTR and reflected in this Section to satisfy the current storm water requirements. The subsequent analysis included below generally focusses on any impacts to Parcel C that would be associated with the implementation of the habitat mitigation project. However, the impacts associated with the development of College Boulevard are also summarized in this section to provide the context for the habitat mitigation project. Mitigation for impacts to 0.72 acres of wetland/riparian communities/habitats is proposed at a 3:1 ratio (i.e., 2.16 acres) and mitigation for impacts to the 0.12 acres of streambed is proposed at a 2:1 ratio (i.e., 0.24 acres) for a total of 2.40 acres of wetland/riparian habitat (and streambed) mitigation. At least 1:1 of these ratios would be met through habitat re-establishment/creation (to maintain no net loss) on proposed Parcel C (also identified as "ECNS" parcels in BTR). The remaining requirement would be met through preservation and enhancement of existing wetland/riparian habitats present on Parcel C (Figures 8 and 9 of BTR). This is further explained below. In addition, as required by the HMP, the habitat mitigation project allows for a 100-foot-wide buffer of riparian and native upland habitat. A portion of a bio-retention basin for Reach A (proposed Parcel B of habitat mitigation project) would be located in the buffer as a passive use (Figures 8 and 9 of BTR). Allowable uses in the buffer include essential roadway, bridges, and culverts approved by the City; essential stormwater control facilities; and approved habitat restoration projects (City 2010). In total, the project would provide 2.40 acres of wetland/riparian mitigation to mitigate the impacts associated with the development of College Boulevard Reach A and Detention Basin BJ. This would include a minimum 0.84 acre of wetland habitat re-establishment/creation to meet the 1:1 no-net loss requirement. The remaining 1.56 acre requirement (1.44 acres of wetland/riparian plus 0.12 acres of -18- Initial Study June 2013 ^° ' 36 College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 streambed) would be met through preservation and enhancement of existing habitat. The wetland/riparian portion ofthe Mitigation Area (Figures 8 and 9 of BTR) is approximately 3.1 acres in size, which will allow for surplus creation and preservation to help ensure overall project success. All of the habitat re-establishment/creation and preservation/enhancement on Parcel C (i.e., the Mitigation Area shown on Figures 8, 9, and 10) shall be subject to a Mitigation Plan that is approved by the City, Corps, and CDFW. The wetland habitat re-establishment/creation is proposed to be accomplished by expanding the width ofthe existing Agua Hedionda Creek channel and creating a second channel to ensure adequate spreading of water (Figures 8 and 9 of BTR). The goal is to create a mosaic of site-appropriate wetland/riparian habitats through the installation of a broad species mix. The habitats which are anticipated to be established include freshwater marsh and riparian scrub and forest. The preservation/enhancement portion ofthe mitigation would be to preserve the existing creek streambed and remove trash, cement, and other materials that have been dumped in and adjacent to the creek. Finally, these areas would be planted with site-appropriate wetland/riparian plant species. With the incorporation of mitigation measures, the direct impacts to the wetland/riparian communities/habitat are considered to be less than significant Upland Habitat (Habitat Groups D and E) Approximately 2.92 acres of sensitive upland habitat (Group D: 2.61 acres of unoccupied Diegan coastal sage scrub; Group E: 0.31 acres of non-native grassland) would be directly impacted by the construction of Detention Basin BJ and College Boulevard Reach A, as well as from the grading associated with the creation of the a habitat mitigation project site (Parcel C). Impacts to upland vegetation communities would be significant according to Significance Criteria 1 and 2. The proposed habitat mitigation project will allow for the mitigation for impacts to CSS (2.61 acres) at a 2:1 ratio (i.e., 5.22 acres) through habitat creation on the habitat mitigation site (Parcel C). Specifically, the minimum total coastal sage scrub creation area on Parcel C (5.22 acres) is proposed to occur in the protective habitat buffer for wetland/riparian communities/habitats described below and shown on Figures 8, 9, and 10 ofthe Alden Biological Report dated March 26, 2015. Impacts to non-native grassland (0.31 acres) will be mitigated at a 0.5:1 ratio (i.e., 0.16 acres) through payment of a mitigafion fee pursuant to the HMP. With the incorporation of mitigation measures, the direct impacts to the sensitive upland habitat are considered to be less than significant Other Areas (Habitat Group F) Approximately 30.35 acres of "other" areas would be directly impacted by the construction of College Boulevard (Reach A), Detention Basin BJ and the grading for the habitat mitigation site. Ofthe 30.35 acres of impact, a total of 6.83 acres is located on the habitat mitigation site. Impacts to agricultural lands, eucalyptus woodlands and disturbed lands would be significant according to Significance Criterion 6 in that they would require mitigation (payment of an in-lieu fee) in accordance with the HMP. Impacts to ornamental plantings and developed area do not require mitigation. With the incorporation of mitigation measures, the direct impacts to the "Other Areas" are considered to be less than significant -19- Initial Study College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 Sensitive Plant Species A total of 10 southwestern spiny rush (Rare Plant, Rank 4.2, CNPS) are located within the Agua Hedionda Creek channel on proposed Parcel C ofthe habitat mitigation site. Impacts to this plant species would be avoided on Parcel C. As discussed in the BTR, impacts to four southwestern spiny rush (out of 32) and 13 individual of California adolphia (out of 58) located within the College Boulevard/Basin BJ footprint would be impacte^d; no mitigation is required as the removal does not meet any criteria for significance. Therefore, the impacts are considered less than significant. Sensitive Wildlife Species Pursuant to the Alden BTR, while both the habitat mitigation site and the footprint for College Boulevard Reach A are not occupied by the coastal California gnatcatcher, the species is known to occur to the east in HMP Core #3. Due to the presence of CSS within the footprint of College Boulevard, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to reduce the potential direct and indirect impacts to these species, if present. Specifically, the measures include removing vegetation that is critical to these species outside of the breeding season to avoid direct impact to nests and establishing a protocol of surveying and monitoring to avoid indirect impacts to nests within 500 feet of construction activity. Previous focused surveys for the Least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus; Merkel 2010a) identified two use areas just east of the previously-approved College Boulevard bridge over Agua Hedionda Creek (EIR 98- 02) and the subject habitat mitigation site, which is adjacent to and west of the bridge. The other was along an unnamed tributary to the creek. A third use area was identified further east in the tributary. It is assumed herein that those use areas are nesting territories. A portion of one least Bell's vireo use area (assumed herein to be a nesting territory) along Agua Hedionda Creek would be directly impacted by construction of Reach A through habitat removal. For purposes of this analysis, all riparian habitat in Agua Hedionda Creek and its tributary in the study area (including Parcel C) is considered occupied by the least Bell's vireo. This subspecies is an HMP Covered Species due to 100 percent conservation of its habitats in the HMP preserve system (i.e., HMP Conservation Area) and the no net loss of wetlands policies. The HMP requires restrictions in vireo-occupied habitat during its breeding season (March 15 to September 15), which includes a prohibition on habitat clearing. Construction ofthe project (habitat mifigafion site as well as College Boulevard Reach A/Detention Basin BJ) must adhere to this restriction or have a significant, direct impact to the subspecies according to Significance Criteria 1 and 6. With the incorporation of mitigation measures, the direct impacts to the sensitive species are considered to be less than signiflcant. While locations where the yellow warbler and yellow-breasted chat were observed in the area, the species would not be directly impacted by the project. However, similar to the least Bell's vireo, the species could ufilize riparian habitat in the impact footprint for Reach A. For the purposes of this analysis, all riparian habitat in Agua Hedionda Creek, including the habitat mitigation site, and its tributary in the study area is considered utilized by the these species. Impacts to these species would be significant if the removal occurred during the breeding season (February 15 to September 15) according to Signiflcance Criterion 1 for both species and Signiflcance Criterion 6 for the yellow-breasted chat. According to the HMP, human activities must be restricted in yellow-breasted chat-occupied habitat during the breeding season for this HMP Covered Species. With the incorporation of mitigafion measures, the direct impacts to the sensitive species are considered to be less than significant. Four sensitive species of raptors (Cooper's hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, northern harrier, and white-tailed kite) were observed during wildlife surveys. While none of the sensitive species was observed in the June2013 "20- Initial Study College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 project impact footprint, each has potenfial to use the footprint as foraging habitat, and the Cooper's hawk and white-tailed kite have potential to nest in woodland habitat in the study area; however, no nesting by these species was observed in 2006 and 2009 (Merkel 2010a). Three other non-sensitive raptors were also observed during surveys forthe Project and include red-tailed hawk (Buteojamaicensis), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), and American kestrel (Faico sparverius). No burrowing owls or evidence of burrowing owls were detected during the 2009 survey. In addition, no nesfing or wintering burrowing owls have been documented in the study area or within the vicinity of the study area (Unitt 2004 in Merkel 2010a). Direct removal of wetland/riparian, upland, and agricultural land foraging habitat may have a substantial effect on sensitive species of raptors and, therefore, would be significant according to Significance Criterion 1, and mitigation would be required. Direct removal of potenfial raptor nesting habitat (or active nest sites) would also be significant according to Significance Criterion 1. With the incorporation of mitigation measures, the direct impacts to the sensitive species are considered to be less than significant. Waters of U.S. (WUS) and Waters of the State (WS) Pursuant to the BTR, WUS and WS on the ECNS parcels (proposed Parcel C) would be avoided with the implementation ofthe habitat mitigafion. As discussed in the BTR, direct impacts to WUS and WS would occur as a result ofthe development of College Boulevard Reach A and Detenfion Basin BJ. The discussion below is for reference onlv since CEQA Analvsis (EIR 98-02) was completed for College Boulevard Reach A and Detention Basin BJ. As noted in the Table above, the overall impacts have been updated to satisfy current stormwater requirements. Wetland Waters of the U.S. A total of approximately 0.19 acre of Corps jurisdictional wetland is present within the development footprint for College Boulevard Reach A and Basin BJ and would be directly impacted. (Table 2; Figure 4 of BTR). Impacts to wetland WUS would be significant according to Significance Criteria 2 and 3; mitigation would be required to reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. In addition, permitting would be required. Non-wetland Waters of the U.S. A total of approximately 0.12 acre of Corps jurisdictional non-wetland WUS is present within the development footprint for Reach A and Basin BJ and would be directly impacted (Table 2; Figure 4 of BTR). Impacts to non-wetland WUS would be significant according to Significance Criterion 3; mitigation would be required to reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. In addifion, permitting would be required. Wetland Waters of the State A total of approximately 0.72 acre of CDFW jurisdictional wetland WS are present within the development footprint for Reach A and Basin BJ and would be directly impacted (Table 3; Figure 5 ofthe BTR). Impacts to wetland WS would be significant according to Significance Criterion 2; mitigafion would be required to reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. In addition, permitting would be required. Non-wetland Waters of the State A total of approximately 0.12 acre of CDFW jurisdictional non-wetland WS are present within the deyelopment footprint for Reach A and Basin BJ and would be directly impacted (Table 3; Figure 5 of the BTR). Impacts to non-wetland WS would be significant according to Significance Criterion 2; mitigation -21-Initial Study College Boulevard Mifigafion GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 would be required to reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. In addition, permitfing would be required. Indirect Impacts In order to prevent negative effects of preserve lands on development and vice versa, HMP Adjacency Standards must be addressed in the planning of any development/habitat interface. The Project is adjacent to HMP Conservafion Areas (Figure 7); therefore, the following Adjacency Standards are addressed: • Fire Management • Erosion Control • Landscaping Restrictions • Fencing, Signs, and Lighfing • Predator and Exotic Species Control There are other indirect impacts that may negatively affect sensitive habitats and species that are adjacent to a property that is being, or has been, developed. For example, noise and dust from construction could temporarily affect nearby nesting birds. Other potenfial indirect effects on sensitive habitats and species could occur from drainage and toxics. These issues are also addressed below. Fire Management The habitat mitigation project, as well as the footprint of College Boulevard Reach A, largely pass through agricultural lands and wetland/riparian habitats. As no development is proposed in conjunction with the habitat mitigation project which would require a buffer from the proposed sensitive upland habitat mitigation area, no mitigation is required. Erosion Control City Municipal Code Section 15.16 (Grading and Erosion Control) requires that a permittee enter into a secured grading and erosion control agreement with the City to guarantee peri^ormance of the grading work in compliance with the grading permit. BMPs would be implemented as required pursuant to the HMP. Therefore, the potenfial impacts associated with the grading for the habitat mitigation site would be minimized to less than significant levels. No mitigafion is required. Landscaping Restrictions Since the proposed project entails the creation of hardline/permanent HMP Conservation Areas adjacent to Agua Hedionda Creek (Figure 7 of BTR), the habitat mitigation project has the potential to substantially affect sensitive species (Significance Criterion 1), riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities (Significance Criterion 2), and wetlands (Significance Criterion 3). No landscaping is proposed adjacent to the proposed HMP hardline preserve (i.e., Parcel C). Proposed Parcel C/habitat mifigation parcel shall be landscaped with native landscape stock. All stock which is introduced into the preserve shall be propagated from material collected in the vicinity, to the maximum extent feasible. Mifigation is required to reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. -22- Initial Study College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 Fencing, Signs, and Lighting Unauthorized public access into HMP Conservation Areas can result in impacts such as the creation of trails or illegal dumping, which can be significant according to Significance Criteria 1, 2, and 3. The proposed habitat mitigation project is not expected to promote public access to adjacent HMP Conservation Areas (Figure 7). However, to reduce impacts to a less than significant level, fencing around the proposed HMP preserve (i.e.. Parcel C) will be required as mitigation. The design and location ofthe fence shall not impede wildlife movement. In addition, temporary orange construction fencing will be required to restrict access to the re-establishment/enhancement areas Artificial night lighting exposes wildlife to an unnatural light regime that may adversely affect foraging patterns, increase predation risk, cause biological clock disrupfions, and result in a loss of species diversity. Artificial night lighting adversely impacts habitat value of preserves, particularly for nocturnal species. While no permanent lighfing is proposed, the College Boulevard habitat mitigafion project has the potenfial to significantly impact sensitive species during construction (Significance Criterion 1), and mitigation would be required. In addition, signs will be required around the HMP preserve to limit access, and educate the public. The signs shall also indicate that pets and use of firearms within the preserve are prohibited. Temporary signs during construction shall indicate that a habitat restoration project is underway. With the incorporation of mitigation measures, the impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level. Predator and Exotic Species Control Native animal species may be at a disadvantage if exotic species or predators (e.g., domesfic cats) are introduced to an area. Since the habitat mifigation project does not include residenfial development or related public facilifies (e.g., a park), it is not anticipated that there would be any exofic species or predators introduced by the Project or impacts from predators. Noise Construction-related noise from such sources as clearing, grading, and construction vehicular traffic could be a temporary impact to wildlife, particularly sensitive nesfing birds, according to Significance Criterion 1. The only sensitive species suspected, or potenfially suspected, of nesting within potenfially affected areas would be the least Bell's vireo, yellow-breasted chat, and yellow warbler along Agua Hedionda Creek, although some potenfial exists for white-tailed kite. Cooper's hawk, and Nuttall's woodpecker to nest there, as well. The Guidelines also require a prohibition on construction activifies within 300 feet of an active nest (500 feet for listed species' active nests), which would include all species protected by the MBTA and CFGC including the yellow warbler, white-tailed kite. Cooper's hawk, and Nuttall's woodpecker. Construction of the Project must adhere to these restricfions or have a significant impact according to Significance Criteria 1 and 6. Mitigation would be required to reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. Dust Fugitive dust may create an environment for plants unsuitable as habitat for insects and birds and could adversely affect breeding. Fugitive dust created during construcfion has the potential to be significant according to Significance Criteria 1,2, and 3. All projects within the City, however, are subject to the City's Grading Ordinance and must implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce impacts from fugitive dust. These BMPs include, but are not limited to, sprinkling water or other dust control agents -23- Initial Study Line 3013 ' College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 acceptable to the San Diego Air Pollution Control District during dust-generafing activities and covering trucks hauling dirt and debris to reduce windblown dust. With implementafion of required Grading Ordinance dust control measures, impacts from fugitive dust would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Drainage and Toxics Construction activifies (e.g., maintenance of equipment) could result in the release of toxins, chemicals, and petroleum products, for example, that might degrade or harm the natural environment or ecosystems processes, parficularly if they enter waterways such as Agua Hedionda Creek. This potential impact could be significant in accordance with Significance Criteria 1, 2, and 3. In order to reduce the risk of contamination of storm water, the habitat mitigation project would be required to implement a construcfion Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan in compliance with City standards (Chapters 15.12 and 15.16 of City Municipal Code [Grading and Erosion Control]), which would require implementafion of BMPs to prevent pollutants from entering storm water. Water quality protections for construction would also be required with the Section 401 Certification that must be obtained for the project. Therefore, the potenfial construction-related impacts would be minimized to less than significant levels, and no mitigation is proposed. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The HMP was designed to compensate for the loss of biological resources throughout Carlsbad; therefore, projects that conform to the HMP would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact. As discussed above as well as in the HMP findings, the direct and indirect impacts resulfing from the habitat mitigafion project would not be cumulatively considerable since the mitigation measures are in conformance with the HMP. No mitigation is proposed as it relates to cumulative impacts. HMP CONSISTENCY FINDINGS COLLEGE BOULEVARD HABITAT MITIGATION PROJECT (GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10) The HMP identifies the subject properties (APNs 209-060-71, -72) as Standards Areas in Zone 15. Pursuant to Secfion E-3 ofthe HMP, the habitat conservation planning for any properties located in the Standards Area ofthe HMP and the conversion of these properties to Proposed Hardline Areas, requires a Minor Amendment to the HMP through the preparafion of Consistency Findings. The Consistency Findings require concurrence from the Wildlife Agencies. While the project site is located outside of any core or linkage habitats (pursuant to Figure 4 of the HMP), a number of important core and linkage habitats comprise much of Zone 15, including Core Ares 3 and 5, as well as Unk C. The northern portion of Zone 15 includes much of Core Area 3, which is northeast of the project site. Core Area 3 is already largely existing and proposed hardline open space. Critical blocks of coastal sage scrub in this area are densely occupied by a critical population of California gnatcatchers and other sensitive species. The southeastern porfion ofthe Zone, includes Core Area 5 (southeast of project site). Some ofthe natural habitat patches in the southern portion ofthe zone, including the subject site, border the southern drainage, Agua Hedionda Creek, and add to its value as a wildlife movement corridor. Agricultural areas north of Agua Hedionda Creek support a mosaic of disturbed coastal sage scrub patches on rocky hills and ridges, along with a variety of wetland communifies. These remnant natural habitat -24- Initial Study College Boulevard Mifigafion GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 patches, surrounded by active agricultural flelds, comprise part of a stepping stone to Unkage C for gnatcatchers and other species. The HMP Conservation Goals for projects located with the boundaries of Zone 15 include the establishment, enhancement, and maintenance of a viable habitat linkage across Unkage Area C to ensure connectivity for gnatcatchers and other HMP species between Core Areas 3 and 5. In addifion, a goal has been established to conserve the majority of sensitive habitats in or contiguous to the biological core and linkage areas, including no net loss of wetland habitats and coastal sage scrub within Core Area 3 and Linkage Area C. The Planning Standards for Zone 15 include the preservation of riparian habitats onsite, the prohibifion of fill or development within the existing floodplain except where required for Circulation Element roads. Drainage Master Plan facilities, or other essenfial infrastructure. In addition, when conversion of agricultural lands to other uses is proposed, development should be setback at least 100 feet from exisfing wefiand habitats and habitat restoration or enhancement shall be required in the riparian and buffer areas. The proposed College Boulevard Mitigafion project consists of the enhancement and preservation of sensitive wetland and riparian habitat, as well as the creation of new wetland, riparian and upland habitat areas adjacent to Agua Hedionda Creek. The creek is currently narrowly incised and flows from east to west through the central portion of the project site. The proposed project safisfies the biological resources mifigation measures set forth in Environmental Impact Report, EIR 98-02 (State Clearinghouse No. 99111082), as it relates to the future construcfion of Detention Basin BJ and College Boulevard Reach A, which represents the missing link between the northern and southern extents of College Boulevard, a major arterial road. In conjunction with development ofthe road, a bridge will be extended over Agua Hedionda Creek. The bridge is adjacent to and immediately east ofthe project site. The development of College Boulevard, including the bridge, have already been analyzed and approved pursuant to EIR 98-02. The focus ofthe subject applicafion is purely on the implementafion ofthe biological habitat mitigation for the development of College Boulevard Reach A and Detention Basin BJ. In addifion, a Minor Subdivision is proposed to create separate lots. The uses for each lot are as follows: Parcel A: 1.0 acres (gross/net), agricultural-future garden; proposed to remain in HMP Standards Area. Parcel B: 1.12 acres (gross)/0.84 acres (net), bio-retenfion basin for College Boulevard; to be constructed as partof the construction of College Boulevard; proposed to be removed from HMP Standards Area. Parcel C (College Boulevard Reach A habitat mifigafion parcel): 9.23 acres (gross)/8.81 acres (net), wefiand and upland habitat mitigation open space lot and proposed HMP hardline area, to be preserved in perpetuity through a biological conservafion easement; and Parcel D: 6.09 acres (gross)/5.78 acres (net); future residential development; no development proposed at this fime; proposed to remain in HMP Standards Area. **Gross acreage includes College Boulevard footprint; net acreage is lot area excluding College Boulevard .25- Initial Study June 2013 College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 This section below summarizes the HMP requirements and how the proposed project is consistent with each ofthe applicable components and standards ofthe HMP. Please note that the findings onlv applv to proposed Parcels B and C since Parcels A and D will remain as HMP Standards Areas. HMP Standards Area Goals (HMP. pg. D-73) 67% of coastal sage scrub shall be conserved overall (emphasis added) within the Standards Areas, as well as 75% of gnatcatchers. Some zones may conserve more or less than these percentages due to parcel size, location, resources, or long-term conservation potentiaL No coastal sage scrub is located within proposed Parcels B or C. Ulfimately, a portion of proposed Parcel C will be enhanced with 5.22 acres of coastal sage scrub to mitigate the impacts (2:1 rafio, per HMP) associated with the development of College Boulevard Reach A. Therefore, the project is consistent with this Standards Area Goal. Planning Standards in Zone 15 (HMP. pg. D-79) Enhance and maintain a habitat /in/foge ocross Lini<age Area C and adjoining portions of Core Areas 3 and 5 that average between 500 and 1,000feet wide, with a minimum width of no less than 500 feet. Emphasis should be on improving gnatcatcher habitat within the linkage. This standard is not applicable to the proposed habitat mitigation project as the parcels are not located within Unkage Area C nor Core Areas 3 or 5. In addition, pursuant to the Biological Technical Report, no gnatcatchers were found during protocol surveys that were performed in 2000,2006 and 2009. With the implementafion of the proposed project, an additional 9.23 acres (gross) will be added to the HMP hardline preserve and the wildlife corridor will be improved. Therefore, the project is consistent with this Standard. Areos of upland habitat outside of the designated Linltage Area C may be taken in exchange for restoration and enhancement inside the linkage, as long as the result is no net loss of coastal sage scrub and the associated gnatcatcher population within the southern portion ofthe zone. Creation of linkage should utilize patches of existing habitat to the maximum extent practicable. Creation of the linkage must utilize patches of existing habitat within the identified linkage alignment. No coastal sage scrub is located on proposed Parcels B or C. In addition, the site is not occupied by the gnatcatcher. The removal of non-native grassland (Habitat Group D, 0.03 acres) and "Other" areas (Habitat Group F, 6.83 acres) will be mitigated through" the payment of an in-lieu fee as required by the HMP. Ulfimately, proposed Parcel C will include 5.22 acres of coastal sage scrub to mitigate the impacts associated with the development of College Boulevard Reach A. Although the project site is not located within Unkage Area C, the creation of coastal sage scrub within Parcel C would act as a buffer to exisfing wetland/riparian habitats associated with Agua Hedionda Creek (and as a buffer to wetland/riparian habitats that would be created as mitigation for the project), thus improving wildlife habitat quality and quantity in the southwest portion of Zone 15 (i.e., Proposed Hardline; Figure 7). In addition, the long term preservation of proposed Parcel C and conversion to a Hardline Area would reduce the linear separation between HMP Core Area 5 to the southeast and the project site. Further, the proposed Hardline Area would be contiguous to the Hardline Area/CSS habitat in the future (project approved; easement has not -26- Initial Study Vc 0- College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 recorded yet) Dos Colinas Biological Conservation Easement (preserves sensitive upland habitat, including California adolphia) to the north. Therefore, the project is consistent with this HMP flnding. Maintain and enhance the wildlife movement potential between core areas using sensitive design of any road or utility crossings of Linkage C. or The College Boulevard Mitigation Project is not located within Linkage C; however, Core Area 5 lies southeast ofthe project site and Core Area 3 is located northeast ofthe project site. These two core areas are connected by Unkage C to the east (Figure 6 of BTR; Figure 4 of HMP). The project study area has a long-standing history of agricultural use coupled with urban development to the west, which has eliminated much ofthe habitat that would allow for regional wildlife movement across the study area. Where habitat remains adjacent to Agua Hedionda Creek, it occurs as narrow ribbons through the project site and extending to the west. Therefore, wildlife movement from upstream areas outside the Project area along Agua Hedionda Creek (Core Area 5), flowing towards Agua Hedionda Lagoon (i.e.. Core Area 4) is highly constrained. These narrow ribbons of habitat may be used for movement by more development- tolerant species such as coyote but are not expected to provide suitable conditions for movement of more sensitive species. While the corridor function is limited, this confinuity of habitat may still provide some benefit for population maintenance or recolonization following local exfirpations within remaining habitat fragments. In addition, the preservation/enhancement and creation of wetland/riparian habitats, including a coastal sage scrub protective buffer along Agua Hedionda Creek on proposed Parcel C as mitigafion for the development of College Boulevard Reach A would maintain and enhance this habitat function and reduce the linear distance/gap between the project site and the western extent of Core Area 5. Therefore, the project is consistent with this HMP finding. Conserve all riparian habitats on-site, and prohibit fill or development within the existing floodplain except where required for Circulation Element roads. Drainage Master Plan facilities, or other essential infrastructure. The proposed College Boulevard Mitigation project consists of the enhancement and preservation of sensitive wetland and riparian habitat in the floodplain, as well as the creation of new wetland, riparian and upland habitat areas adjacent to Agua Hedionda Creek. The creek is currently narrowly incised and flows from east to west through the central portion of proposed Parcel C. The project satisfies the biological resources mifigation measures set forth in Environmental Impact Report, EIR 98-02 (State Clearinghouse No. 99111082), as it relates to the future construction of Detenfion Basin BJ and College Boulevard Reach A, which represents the missing link between the northern and southern extents of College Boulevard, a major arterial road. In conjunction with development ofthe road, a bridge will be extended over Agua Hedionda Creek. The bridge is adjacent to and immediately east of the project site. The development of College Boulevard, including the bridge, have already been analyzed and approved pursuant to EIR 98-02. The focus of the subject application is purely on the implementation of the biological habitat mitigation for the development of College Boulevard Reach A and Detention Basin BJ. Pursuant to the Alden BTR, no direct wetland/riparian impacts are proposed in association with the existing habitat on the bio-retention basin Parcel B or the habitat mitigation site (i.e.. Parcel C). Approximately 0.72 acres of wetland/riparian communities/habitat (which includes 0.12 acres of non- wetland riparian habitat, i.e., streambed) would be directly impacted by the construction of Detenfion Basin BJ and College Boulevard Reach A and would be mitigated on Proposed Parcel C. As previously discussed, the impacts as it relates to the development of College Boulevard Reach A and Detention Basin June2013 -27- Initial Study College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 BJ have already been analyzed pursuant to EIR 98-02 (SCH No. 99111082) and mitigafion measures have been imposed. However, the impacts have been updated in the Alden BTR and reflected in this Section to safisfy the current storm water requirements. The subsequent analysis included below generally focusses on any impacts to Parcel C that would be associated with the implementafion of the habitat mitigation project. However, the impacts associated with the development of College Boulevard are also summarized in this secfion to provide the context for the habitat mitigation project. Mifigation for wetland/riparian communifies/habitats is proposed at a 3:1 ratio for wefiand habitat and 2:1 for non-wetland riparian habitat (streambed). At least 1:1 of this ratio would be met through habitat re-establishment/creafion (to maintain no net loss) on proposed Parcel C. The remaining requirement would be met through preservation and enhancement of existing wetland/riparian habitats present on Parcel C (Figures 8 and 9 of BTR). In addition, as required by the HMP, the habitat mitigation project allows for a 100-foot-wide buffer of riparian and native upland habitat. A portion of a bio-retention basin for Reach A (proposed Parcel B of habitat mitigation project) would be located in the buffer as a passive use (Figures 8 and 9 of BTR). Allowable uses in the buffer include essential roadway, bridges, and culverts approved by the City; essential stormwater control facilities; and approved habitat restoration projects. In total, the project would provide 2.40 acres of wefiand/riparian mitigafion to mitigate the impacts associated with the development of College Boulevard Reach A and Detention Basin BJ. This would include a minimum 0.84 acre of wetland habitat re-establishment/creation to meet the 1:1 no-net loss requirement. The remaining 1.56 acre requirement (1.44 acres of wetland/riparian plus 0.12 acres of streambed) would be met through preservation and enhancement of exisfing habitat. The wetland/riparian portion ofthe Mitigation Area (Figures 8 and 9 of BTR) is approximately 3.1 acres in size, which will allow for surplus creation and preservation to help ensure overall project success. All of the habitat re-establishment/creation and preservation/enhancement on Parcel C (i.e., the Mitigation Area shown on Figures 8, 9, and 10) shall be subject to a Mitigation Plan that is approved by the City, Corps, and CDFW. The wetland habitat re-establishment/creation is proposed to be accomplished by expanding the width ofthe existing Agua Hedionda Creek channel and creafing a second channel to ensure adequate spreading of water (Figures 8 and 9 of BTR). The goal is to create a mosaic of site-appropriate wefiand/riparian habitats through the installation of a broad species mix. The habitats which are anficipated to be established include freshwater marsh and riparian scrub and forest. The preservafion/enhancement portion ofthe mitigafion would be to preserve the existing creek streambed and remove trash, cement, and other materials that have been dumped in and adjacent to the creek. Finally, these areas would be planted with site-appropriate wetland/riparian plant species. With exception to proposed Parcel A and a small portion of Parcel B, a majority ofthe project site is located within the floodplain. Asa result of grading to increase the width and volume of Agua Hedionda Creek as it flows through Parcel C (from east to west, for wetland enhancement/restorafion), the boundaries of the floodplain will be adjusted to primarily follow the limits of proposed Parcel C. As a result, proposed Parcels B and D will be removed from the limits ofthe floodplain. As stated in the project description, no development is proposed on Parcels A and D and it will remain in a Standards Area. When development is proposed for Parcels A or D, separate HMP Consistency Findings will be required. The grading proposed in the floodplain is acceptable since it is associated with a habitat mitigation project which will improve the overall biological value of Agua Hedionda Creek in this area. In addifion, the proposed project implements mitigation measures associated with the development of College Boulevard Reach A (i.e., -28- Initial Study fe College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 Circulafion Element roadway) and Detention Basin BJ (i.e., Drainage Master Plan facility), both of which are considered to be essential infrastructure facilities. Given the above justifications, the proposed habitat mitigafion project is consistent with this HMP finding. Conserve any narrow endemic plan populations identified during planning. st Pursuant to the Alden BTR, no narrow endemic plant populafions were identified during site surveys. Furthermore, the report has stated that existing site conditions result in a low potential for the area to support sensitive plants species. Therefore, the project is consistent with this HMP finding. When conversion of agricultural lands to other uses is proposed, set back ail development impacts at least 100 feet from existing wetland habitats and require habitat restoration or enhancement in the riparian and buffer areas. While a majority ofthe project site is currently ufilized as an equestrian facility, a small portion ofthe site is currently used as agriculture. As a component of the proposed habitat mitigation project on Parcel C and, as required by the HMP, the project proposes a 100-foot-wide buffer of riparian and native upland habitat. A portion ofthe bio-retenfion basin for Reach A (proposed Parcel B of habitat mitigation project) would be located in the buffer as a passive use (Figures 8 and 9 of BTR). Allowable uses in the buffer include essential roadway, bridges, and culverts approved by the City and essenfial storm water control facilities, which included detention basins. Therefore, the project is consistent with this HMP finding. Zone-Level Recommendations for Zone 15 (HMP. pg. F-27) Manage preserve areas for habitat value for Caiifornia gnatcatchers. Restore or enhance coastal sage scrub to improve connectivity and gnatcatcher nesting habitat within Linkage Area C. The habitat mifigation site is not located within Unkage C. No gnatcatchers were found during surveys forthe project. The habitat mitigafion project includes implementing mitigation which would create 5.22 acres of coastal sage scrub that would connect with coastal sage scrub off site in the Dos Colinas Biological Conservation Easement to the north. Proposed Parcel C would be converted to Hardline Conservation Area, the management of which would include coastal sage scrub that could potenfially support the gnatcatcher. In addition, the proposed Hardline Area for Parcel C would close the sensitive upland habitat gap between the project site and Core Area 5 to the southeast. Therefore, the project is consistent with this Standard. Restrict fuel reduction for fire management to areas immediateiy adjacent to housing, and minimize removal of conserved habitats to the extent feasible, given safety concerns. No housing is proposed in conjunction with the proposed habitat mitigation project; therefore, no fuel management zones are required. As a result, this finding is not applicable. Remove exotic species, including eucalyptus trees and pampas grass, from within natural habitat areas and linkages. -29- Initial Study College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 The project site is not located within a linkage area. The proposed habitat mitigation project on Parcel C includes preserving/enhancing exisfing wetland/riparian habitats and re-establishing/creating wetland/riparian habitats which support Agua Hedionda Creek, a natural habitat area. As part of the habitat creation effort, eucalyptus woodland and ornamental planfings would be removed, as would agricultural lands and disturbed lands. As part of the habitat enhancement effort, non-native, invasive plant species would be removed from the mitigation area. Therefore, the project is consistent with this Standard. Adiacencv Standards (HMP. pg. F-16 through F-22) The proposed project site is located adjacent to and south of an existing HMP Hardline Preserve Area (Dos Colinas). In order to prevent negative effects of preserve lands on development and vice versa, HMP Adjacency Standards must be addressed in the planning of development/habitat interface. This includes the following topics: fire management, erosion control, landscaping, fencing, signs and lighfing, and predator and exotic species control. Fire Management The habitat mitigation project, as well as the footprint of College Boulevard Reach A, largely pass through agricultural lands and wefiand/riparian habitats. As no development is proposed in conjunction with the habitat mitigation project which would require a buffer from the proposed sensitive upland habitat mitigafion area, no mitigation is required. Erosion Controi City Municipal Code Secfion 15.16 (Grading and Erosion Control) requires that a permittee enter into a secured grading and erosion control agreement with the City to guarantee performance of the grading work in compliance with the grading permit. BMPs would be implemented as required pursuant to the HMP. Therefore, the potenfial impacts associated with the grading for the habitat mitigation site would be minimized to less than significant levels. No mitigafion is required. Landscaping Restrictions Since the proposed project entails the creation of hardline/permanent HMP Conservation Areas adjacent to Agua Hedionda Creek (Figure 7 of BTR), the habitat mitigafion project has the potenfial to substantially affect sensitive species (Significance Criterion 1), riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communifies (Significance Criterion 2), and wetlands (Significance Criterion 3). No landscaping is proposed adjacent to the proposed HMP hardline preserve (i.e.. Parcel C). Proposed Parcel C/habitat mitigation parcel shall be landscaped with native landscape stock. All stock which is introduced into the preserve shall be propagated from material collected in the vicinity, to the maximum extent feasible. With the incorporafion of mitigafion measures, the habitat mitigafion project is consistent with this finding. Fencing, Signs, and Lighting Unauthorized public access into HMP Conservation Areas can result in impacts such as the creafion of trails or illegal dumping, which can be significant according to Significance Criteria 1, 2, and 3. The proposed habitat mitigation project is not expected to promote public access to adjacent HMP Conservation Areas (Figure 7). However, to reduce impacts to a less than significant level, fencing around the proposed HMP preserve (i.e.. Parcel C) will be required as mitigation. The design and locafion ofthe fence shall not impede wildlife movement. In addition, temporary orange construction fencing will be required to restrict access to the re-establishment/enhancement areas June 2013 "30- Initial Study College Boulevard Mifigafion GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 Artificial night lighting exposes wildlife to an unnatural light regime that may adversely affect foraging patterns, increase predation risk, cause biological clock disruptions, and result in a loss of species diversity. Artificial night lighting adversely impacts habitat value of preserves, particularly for nocturnal species. While no permanent lighfing is proposed, the College Boulevard habitat mitigafion project has the potential to significantly impact sensitive species during construction (Significance Criterion 1), and mitigation would be required. In addition, signs will be required around the HMP preserve to limit access and educate the public. The signs shall also indicate that pets and use of firearms within the preserve are prohibited. Temporary signs during construcfion shall indicate that a habitat restorafion project is underway. With the incorporafion of mifigation measures, the habitat mitigafion project is consistent with this finding. Predator and Exotic Species Control Native animal species may be at a disadvantage if exotic species or predators (e.g., domestic cats) are introduced to an area. Since the habitat mitigafion project does not include residential development or related public facilifies (e.g., a park), it is not anticipated that there would be any exotic species or predators introduced by the Project or impacts from predators. Measures to Minimize Impact on HMP Species and Mitigation Requirements (HMP. pg. D-90 through D- 921 // the land is within the proposed preserve system, 100% conservation of the narrow endemic population(s) is required. If the land is outside of the proposed preserve system, at least 80% conservation ofthe narrow endemic population is required. Pursuant to the Alden BTR, no narrow endemic plant populations were identified during site surveys. Furthermore, the report has stated that existing site condifions result in a low potenfial for the area to support sensitive plants species. Therefore, the project is consistent with this HMP finding. Projects that affect wetlands must demonstrate that the impacts (pg. D-90): o Cannot be avoided by a feasible alternative. o Have been minimized.to the maximum extent possible. o Would be mitigated in ways that assure no net loss of habitat value and function. A determination of consistency with the HMP's wetlands requirements would require coordination and consultation between the Project proponent and the City. Pursuant to the Alden BTR, no direct wetland/riparian impacts are proposed in association with the implementation of biological resource mitigation on proposed Parcel C. The proposed College Boulevard Mitigafion project consists of the enhancement and preservation of sensitive wetland and riparian habitat, as well as the creafion of new wefiand, riparian and upland habitat areas adjacent to Agua Hedionda Creek on proposed Parcel C. The project satisfles the biological resources mifigation measures set forth in Environmental Impact Report, EIR 98-02 (State Clearinghouse No. 99111082), as it relates to the future construction of Detention Basin BJ and College Boulevard Reach A, which represents the missing link between the northern and southern extents of College Boulevard, a major arterial road. As the impacts to College Boulevard Reach A and Detention Basin BJ have been previously analyzed and the proposed habitat mitigation project does not impact any wetlands, the project is consistent with this HMP finding. -31- Initial Study College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 All future projects shall mitigate impacts to habitat based on mitigation requirements provided in Tabie 11 of the HMP. Implementation ofthe proposed habitat mitigation project on Parcel C results in the following impacts: Habitat Group E: Non-native grassland, 0.03 acres Habitat Group F: Agricultural Lands, 0.37 acres Eucalyptus Woodland, 0.67 acres Disturbed Lands. 5.28 acres Total: 6.32 Impacts to Habitat Group E, 0.03 acres of non-native grassland, will be mitigated at a 0.5:1 rafio through the payment of an in-lieu fee. Impacts to Habitat Group F, totaling 6.32 acres, will be mifigated through the payment of an in-lieu fee. Please note that the habitat impacts associated with the bio-retention basin on Parcel B are included in the impact footprint for the development of College Boulevard Reach A. Therefore, the project is consistent with this HMP finding. Measures for HMP-Covered Species The Cooper's hawk, yellow-breasted chat, and least Bell's vireo were found within wetland/riparian habitats during surveys for the project. Since these species were all found in wetland/riparian habitats, specific mitigation measures for the vireo would provide protecfion for these species and mitigate for their habitats. These measures summarily include timing restrictions on vegetation clearing, prohibitions on construction activities within 500 feet of a vireo nest (300 feet of any non-listed species' nest), and noise level restricfions. With the implementation of mitigation measures, the project is consistent with the HMP. MITIGATION The biological mifigafion measures outlined herein will reduce project impacts to a less than significant level. For the sake of clarity (so they are contained in one document), the biological resource mitigafion measures included in this section apply to both the development of College Boulevard Reach A, Detention BJ and the habitat mifigation site. The mitigafion measures are proposed in conformance with the certified EIR (EIR 98-02, State Clearinghouse No. 99111082) and the Habitat Management Plan to mifigate for those direct and indirect impacts that were idenfified as significant, or potentially significant. Successful implementation of the mitigation measures in this section would reduce each of these impacts to a less than significant level. Addifionally, Standard Mifigation Measures (Appendix A of the Guidelines) are required forall projects in the City. It is anticipated that some of the Standard Mitigation Measures will be addressed in the grading and erosion control agreement. Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan, and 401 Water Quality Certification. -32- Initial Study 50 College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 The following mitigation measures will reduce impacts to biological resources to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures: BIO-1: Mitigafion for California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) jurisdictional habitats shall be as follows: a. Direct impacts to 0.72 acre of wetland/riparian communifies/habitats shall be mifigated at a rafio of 3:1 through on-site preservation, enhancement, and re-establishment/creation of 2.16 acres of wetland habitat within proposed Parcel C (i.e., the Equestrian Center North/South/ECNS Mitigation Site). At least 0.72 acre of this shall be met through habitat re- establishment/creafion to maintain no net loss. b. Direct impacts to 0.12 acre of non-wetland riparian habitat shall be mifigated at a ratio of 2:1 through on-site preservation, enhancement, and re-establishment/creation of 0.24 acre of wetland habitat within the ECNS Mitigation Site. At least 0.12 acre of this shall be met through habitat re-establishment/creafion to maintain no net loss. BIO-2: Mitigation for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) jurisdictional habitats shall be as follows: a. Direct impacts to 0.19 acre of wetland/riparian communifies/habitats shall be mitigated at a ratio of 3:1 through the on-site preservation, enhancement, and re-establishment/creation of 0.57 acre of wetland habitat within proposed Parcel C (i.e., ECNS Mitigation Site). At least 0.19 acre of this shall be met through habitat re-establishment/creation to maintain no net loss. These impacts overlap with those for CDFW jurisdicfional habitats in BIO-1. Therefore, this mitigation is safisfied through the implementation of BIO-1. b. Direct impacts to 0.12 acre of non-wetland riparian habitat shall be mitigated at a rafio of 2:1 through on-site preservafion, enhancement, and re-establishment/creafion of 0.24 acre of wetland habitat within proposed Parcel C (i.e., ECNS Mitigation Site). At least 0.12 acre of this will be met through habitat re-establishment/creafion to maintain no net loss. These impacts overlap with those for CDFW jurisdictional habitats in BIO-1. Therefore, this mitigation is satisfied through the implementafion of BIO-1. BIO-3: Direct impacts to 2.61 acres of unoccupied coastal sage scrub, coastal sage scrub (Baccharis), and coastal sage scrub-disturbed shall be mitigated at a ratio of 2:1 through on-site re-establishment/creation of 5.22 acres of coastal sage scrub within proposed Parcel C (i.e., ECNS habitat mitigation site). BIO-4: Direct impacts to 0.31 acre of non-native grassland (Habitat Group E. 0.28 acres associated with College Boulevard and 0.03 associated with Parcel C) shall be mitigated at a rafio of 0.5:1 through payment of an in lieu fee (i.e., 0.16 acres). -33- Initial Study College Boulevard Mitigafion GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 BIO-5: Direct impacts to 26.39 acres of "Other Areas" (Habitat Group F) shall be mitigated through the payment of an in-lieu fee. If the grading and/or clearing/gmbbing permits are not issued at the same time for the development of College Boulevard and proposed parcel C, the following informafion shall be used forthe calculation ofthe in-lieu fee: College Boulevard Reach A/Basin BJ Agricultural lands: 15.71 acres Eucalyptus woodland: 1.50 acres Disturbed lands: 2.86 acres TOTAL: 20.07 ACRES Parcel C/Habitat Mitigation Site Agricultural lands: 0.37 acres Eucalyptus woodland: 0.67 acres Disturbed lands: 5.28 acres TOTAL: 6.32 ACRES BIO 6: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, and/or the clearing of any habitat on-site, a final wetlands/riparian restoration plan shall be approved by the City Planner (with concurrence by the USFWS, USACE, and CDFW) to mitigate for the above impacts. BIO-7: Impacts to USACE (Jurisdictional Wetlands and Non-Wefiand Waters of the U.S.) and CDFW (Riparian and Streambed) jurisdictional areas shall require a Section 404 permit from the USACE, a 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFW, and a 401 State Water Quality Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, which shall be obtained prior to the issuance of a grading permit and/or the clearing of any habitat on-site. BIO-8: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, and/or the clearing of any habitat on-site, whichever occurs first, the Applicant shall take the following actions to the safisfaction ofthe City Planner in relation to proposed Parcel C, which is being conserved for natural habitat in conformance with the City's Habitat Management Plan: a. Select a conservation entity, subject to approval by the City, that possesses qualifications to manage the open space lot(s) for conservation purposes; b. Prepare a Property Analysis Record (PAR) or other method acceptable to the City for esfimating the costs of management and monitoring ofthe open space lot(s) in perpetuity in accordance with the requirements ofthe North County Multiple Habitats Conservation Plan and the City's Open Space Management Plan; c. Based on the results of the PAR, provide a non-wasting endowment or other financial mechanism acceptable to the Planning Director and conservafion entity, if any, in an amount sufficient for management and monitoring ofthe open space lot(s) in perpetuity; d. Record a Conservation Easement or Restrictive Covenant over the open space lot(s); and e. Prepare a Preserve Management Plan which will ensure adequate management of the open space lot(s) in perpetuity. BIO-9 To avoid any impacts to potentially active raptor nests, trees shall be removed outside of the breeding season (September T' to January 3r*) of local raptor species. If it is determined that trees must be removed during the breeding season (February 1^ to August 30*^), a raptor nest -34-Initial Study College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to the removal of any trees to determine if raptor nests are present. If active nests are discovered, a 500 foot minimum buffer shall be established around the tree unfil the young are independent of the nest site. No construcfion activity shall be allowed to occur within the buffer area unfil a qualified biologist has determined that the fledglings are independent ofthe nest. BIO-10: Erosion Control - A Storm Water Pollufion Prevention Plan shall be developed that describes sediment and hazardous materials control, dewatering or diversion structures, fueling and equipment management practices, and other factors deemed necessary by the City and applicable regulatory agencies. Erosion control measures shall be monitored on a regularly scheduled basis, particularly during times of heavy rainfall. Corrective measures shall be implemented in the event erosion control strategies are inadequate. Sediment/erosion control measures shall be confinued unfil such fime as the mitigation efforts are successful at soil stabilization. BIO-11: Fencing and Signs - Prior to and during implementafion of the mitigafion effort, a temporary orange construcfion fence shall be installed along the northern edge of proposed Parcels A and C to restrict access and protect the sensitive upland habitat on the Dos Colinas property to the north (HMP hardline area and future biological conservation easement). Permanent fences shall be constructed along the boundaries between the site and adjacent development preventing off-road vehicle and pedestrian access. Steel signs shall be attached to the fences to provide notice, in both English and Spanish, that the area is an ecological preserve and that trespassing is prohibited. BIO-12: Irrigation - A temporary, above ground irrigafion system shall be installed within both the wetland and upland mitigafion areas. The system shall provide head to head coverage to ensure adequate irrigafion of both the installed seed mix and container stock species. The system shall include timers and ground moisture sensors to help prevent over-watering. The fimers shall be set to emulate a normal rainfall year in the event that actual rainfall does not reach normal levels. The system shall be removed at the direction of the restoration specialist. BIO-13: Wetland Habitat Installation a. Wetland seeding shall take place within the wetland mitigation area along Agua Hedionda Creek and shall contain a native, wetland seed mix sourced from as close to the Parcel C/ECNS Mitigation Site as possible. The seed mix shall be derived from the list of species in Table 8 (Wetland Seed Mix) in the College Boulevard—Reach A and Basin BJ Project Mitigation Plan. A hydroseed slurry shall be evenly applied in two stages such that an even, homogenous distribufion is made in each area. Hand seeding may be conducted in focused areas and shall be conducted in any area where hydroseed slurry does not reach. b. Native, wetland container stock shall be planted in the mitigafion area to supplement the wetland seeding. The container stock shall be sourced from as close to the Parcel C/ECNS Mitigation Site as possible, and the source(s) of all container stock shall be provided. All container stock shall be inspected and approved by the restorafion specialist prior to being installed to ensure that the correct number, size, and species ordered were delivered, and that the plants are healthy, showing no signs of disease, and are in a state suitable for -35- Initial Study S College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 planting. The container stock used shall be derived from the list provided in Table 10 (Wefiand Container Stock) in the College Boulevard—Reach A and Basin BJ Project Mitigation Plan. c. Container stock shall be planted in such a way as to mimic a natural species distribution. The restoration specialist shall specify the locafions for all planting. d. The installafion contractor shall be responsible for planting all container stock within four days following delivery. Container stock staged on site shall be placed in a protected area and watered regularly priorto planfing. BIO-14: Upland Habitat Installafion a. Upland seeding for coastal sage scrub shall take place on the Parcel C/ECNS Mitigation Site adjacent to the wetland mitigafion area. The native seed mix shall be derived from the list of species in Table 11 (Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Seed Mix) from the College Boulevard—Reach A and Basin BJ Project Mitigation Plan and sourced from as close to the site as possible. The seed shall be applied as described above forthe wetland seeding. b. Native, coastal sage scrub container stock shall be planted within the seeded upland area. The stock shall be sourced from as close to the Parcel C/ECNS Mitigation Site as possible, and the source(s) of all container stock shall be provided. As with the wetland container stock, all will be inspected and approved by the restorafion specialist prior to installafion. c. Container stock shall be planted in such a way as to mimic a natural species distribufion. The restoration specialist shall specify the locations for all planfing. d. The installation contractor shall be responsible for planting all container stock within four days following delivery. Container stock staged on site shall be placed in a protected area and watered regularly priorto planfing. BIO-15: Small Animal Shelters - As an aid to wildlife establishment within the mitigation area, shelters for small animal species shall be created. a. Twenty, half-inch thick plywood boards measuring 2X4 feet, and hand-created, low shrub and brush piles approximately 4 to 6 feet in diameter and 2 to 3 feet in height shall be created and placed throughout the mitigafion area. b. To help facilitate the presence of pollinator species, a total of 10 bee blocks (Sarver 2007, Xerces 2012) shall be prepared and scattered throughout the upland mitigafion area. The bee blocks shall be oriented east to southeast. c. A total of 6 sand pits shall be installed within the upland mitigation area to support ground- nesting bees. Each pit shall be approximately 2 feet deep and 4 feet in diameter and shall be filled with a mix of sand, native soil, and organic material. -36- Initial Study College Boulevard Mitigafion GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 BIO 16: Projects that cannot be conducted without placing equipment or personnel in or adjacent to sensitive habitats shall be fimed to ensure that habitat is removed priorto the initiation ofthe breeding season (February 15 to September 15). Specifically, clearing, grubbing, and tree removal shall be prohibited during the breeding season for HMP Covered Species (e.g., least Bell's vireo, yellow-breasted chat, and Cooper's hawk). This prohibifion would also protect the yellow warbler, Nuttall's woodpecker, white-tailed kite^ and other MBTA and CFGC protected species. a. All construction activities are prohibited within 300 feet of an active bird nest and within 500 feet of an active listed species' bird nest (e.g., least Bell's vireo), which would also protect all species protected by the MBTA and CFGC. b. Clearing and grubbing of all wetland/riparian and upland vegetation communities/wildlife habitats shall be conducted outside the February 15 to September 15 breeding season. Clearing and grubbing of other areas (e.g., agricultural lands) shall be conducted outside the breeding season unless it is demonstrated that no avian nesting is occurring in those other areas (or within 300 or 500 feet of those other areas). c. For clearing and grubbing in other areas during the breeding season, a pre-construction survey for avian nesting shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within seven calendar days prior to construction. The survey shall cover 300 feet beyond the impact footprint and up to 500 feet beyond the footprint where sensitive species may occur (e.g., coastal California gnatcatcher off site to the east in Core #3). It no nests are found, construction may proceed. If nests are found, the biologist shall conspicuously mark the 300- or 500-foot buffer so that construction does not encroach into the buffer until the nest is no longer active (i.e., the nestlings fledge, the nest fails, or the nest is abandoned, as determined by the qualified biologist BIO-17: The following construcfion measures shall be implemented: a. The qualified Project biologist shall review grading plans (e.g., all access routes and staging areas) and monitor construction activifies throughout the duration of the Project to ensure that all practicable measures are being employed to avoid incidental disturbance of habitat and any target species of concern outside the Project footprint. b. Construction monitoring reports shall be completed and provided to the City summarizing how the Project is in compliance with applicable conditions. The Project biologist shall be empowered to halt work activity, if necessary, and to confer with City staff to ensure the proper implementafion of species and habitat protecfion measures. c. Any habitat destroyed that is not in the identified Project footprint shall be disclosed immediately to the City, USFWS, and CDFW and shall be compensated at a minimum ratio of 5:1. d. Access to and from the Project shall be located along existing access routes or disturbed areas to the greatest extent possible. All access routes outside of exisfing roads or construction areas shall be clearly marked. -37- Initial Study P?..,!*- College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 g- Construction employees shall limit their activifies, vehicles, equipment, and construcfion materials to the fenced Project footprint. Equipment storage, fueling, and staging areas shall be located on disturbed upland sites with minimal risk of direct drainage into riparian areas or other sensitive habitats, and at least 100 feet from WUS. These designated areas shall be located in such a manner as to prevent any runoff from entering sensitive habitat. All necessary precautions shall be taken to prevent the release of cement or other toxic substances into surface waters. All Project-related spills of hazardous materials shall be reported to the City and shall be cleaned up immediately and contaminated soils removed to approved disposal areas. When stream flows must be diverted, the diversions shall be conducted using sandbags or other methods requiring minimal in-stream impacts. Silt fencing or other sediment trapping materials shall be installed at the downstream end of construction activity to minimize the transport of sediments offsite. Settling ponds, where sediment is collected, shall be cleaned out in a manner that prevents the sediment from re-entering the stream. Care shall be exercised when removing silt fences, as feasible, to prevent debris or sediment from returning to the stream. h. Erodible fill material shall not be deposited into water courses. Brush, loose soils, or other similar debris material shall not be stockpiled within the stream channel or on its banks. i. Construction through sensitive areas shall be scheduled to minimize potenfial impacts to biological resources. Construcfion adjacent to drainages should occur during periods of minimum flow (i.e., summer through the flrst signiflcant rain of fall) to avoid excessive sedimentation and erosion and to avoid impacts to drainage-dependent species. Construcfion near riparian areas or other sensitive habitats shall also be scheduled to avoid the breeding season (February 15 to September 15) and potenfial impacts to breeding bird species. j. If dead or injured listed species are located, inifial notification must be made within three working days, in writing, to the USFWS Division of Law Enforcement in Torrance, California and by telephone and in writing to the applicable jurisdicfion, Carlsbad Field Office of the USFWS, and CDFW. k. 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 site. I. The City shall have the right to access and inspect any sites of approved projects including any restoration/enhancement area for compliance with Project approval condifions. The USFWS and CDFW may accompany City representatives during this inspecfion. -38-Initial Study College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 BIO-18: Construction-related noise associated with sources including clearing, grading, and construction vehicular traffic shall comply with the following measures: a. Construcfion activifies shall be limited during the breeding season (February 15 to September 15) to those that will not produce significant noise impacts (i.e., noise levels greaterthan 60 dB Leq [decibels, equivalent sound level]) at the edge of habitats of concern. Habitats of concem iff this case include those in Agua Hedionda Creek and its tributary. b. Noise levels inside the Conservation Areas shall not exceed 60 dBA Leq during the period February 15 to September 15. For the least Bell's vireo, specifically, construcfion noise levels at the riparian canopy edge shall be kept below 60 dBA Leq (Measured as Equivalent Sound Level) from 5 a.m. to 11 a.m. during the peak nesting period of March 15 to July 15. For the balance ofthe day/season, the noise levels shall not exceed 60 decibels, averaged over a one- hour period on an A-weighted decibel (dBA; i.e., one hour Leq/dBA). Noise levels shall be monitored and monitoring reports shall be provided to the City, USFWS, and CDFW. Noise levels in excess of this threshold shall require written concurrence from USFWS and CDFW and may require additional minimizafion/mitigation measures. BIO-19: Lighting in or adjacent to Parcel C (habitat mitigafion site) shall not be used except where essential for roadway, facility use, and safety. If night time construction lights are necessary, all lighting adjacent to natural habitat shall be shielded and/or directed away from habitat. Post- construction lighting adjacent to Conservation Areas shall be reduced (low pressure sodium lighfing) and/or shielded. BIO 20: The use of non-native or invasive plant species in landscaping adjacent to proposed Parcel C (i.e., proposed HMP Hardline) is prohibited. Irrigafion runoff shall be prevented from entering into Conservation Areas from adjacent landscaping to reduce nitrogen, pesticides, and excess moisture. Only native or compatible, non-invasive, drought-tolerant plant species shall be used in landscaping, and no species on the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) "Invasive Plant Inventory" list shall be used in landscaping or any erosion control plan. None ofthe species on the HMP's list of invasive plant species occurring, or potenfially occurring, in the City shall be included in landscaping or erosion control. -39- Initial Study June 2013 ' 51 College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 V. CULTUftAL/PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No impact " a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? • m • • b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? • • • c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? • • • d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? • • • a, b 8i d) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. A Cultural Resources Survey Report for the subject site was conducted by Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. and detailed in a report dated July 1, 2014. The results ofthe survey indicate that there was one previously recorded cultural resource (SDl-14,809) within the project boundaries and 79 addifional sites located within a 1.0 mile radius ofthe project site. A total of 58 previous studies have been completed within a 1.0 mile radius of the project, including three within the current project area (RECON Environmental, Inc. 1983, Gross and Alter 1998; Stropes and Smith 2010). Site SDl-14,809 was originally recorded by Alter (Gross and Alter 1998). This is the one site recorded within the current project boundaries, and was recorded as a multi-component site including a prehistoric shell scatter and a historic artifact scatter measuring 30 by 20 feet in surface area. This site was tested for significance by Gross and Alter in 1998 and found to be not significant in accordance with CEQA. The records search and literature review performed during the Cultural Resources investigation suggests that there is a moderate to high potenfial for both historic and prehistoric sites to be contained within the boundaries of the property. An archaeological survey was performed on June 11, 2014 and did not result in the identification of any new historic or prehistoric cultural resources within the project boundaries. Furthermore, the recorded location of SDl-14,809 was revisited during the archaeological survey, and no cultural elements of SDI 14,809 could be identified. The Cultural Resources Survey Report concluded that any surface evidence of the cultural resource has likely been removed in the past 15 years as a result of agricultural activity and general weed abatement. Given the dense scattering of prehistoric sites in the area and the project's location near the Agua Hedionda Lagoon and Agua Hedionda Creek, there is the potenfial for the identificafion of additional historical sites. In order to reduce these potential impacts to a less than significant level, a mitigation program, which involves monitoring by a qualified archaeologist and a Native American monitor, is required to be completed. Through implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Cultural Resources Survey Report, impacts to cultural resources are reduced to a less than significant level. -40-Initial Study College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 Mitigation Measures: CULTURAL-1: The following archaeological resource mifigafion measures shall be implemented: a. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide written verificafion that a qualified archaeologist has been retained to implement the monitoring program. The verification shall be presented in a letter from the project archaeologist to the lead agency. b. The qualified archaeologist/historian shall attend the pre-grading meefing with the contractors to explain and coordinate the requirements of the monitoring program. c. During the original cutting of previously undisturbed deposits, the archaeological monitor(s) shall be on-site full-fime to perform periodic inspections ofthe excavafions. The frequency of inspecfions will depend upon the rate of excavation, the materials excavated, and the presence and abundance of artifacts and features. d. Isolates and clearly non-significant deposits will be minimally documented in the field and the monitored grading can proceed. e. In the event that previously unidentified cultural resources are discovered, the archaeologist shall have the authority to divert or temporarily halt ground disturbance operafion in the area of discovery to allow evaluation of potenfially significant cultural resources. The archaeologist shall contact the lead agency at the time of discovery. The archaeologist, in consultation with the lead agency and the Native American monitor, shall determine the significance ofthe discovered resources. The lead agency must concur with the evaluafion before construction activities will be allowed to resume in the affected area. For significant cultural resources, a Research Design and Data Recovery Program to mitigate impacts shall be prepared by the consulfing archaeologist, approved by the lead agency, and carried out using professional archaeological methods. If any human bones are discovered, the county coroner and lead agency shall be contacted. In the event that the remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Most Likely Descendant, as identified by the NAHC, shall be contacted in order to determine proper treatment and disposifion ofthe remains. f. Before construction activities are allowed to resume in the affected area, the artifacts shall be recovered and features recorded using professional archaeological methods. The archaeological monitor(s) shall determine the amount of material to be recovered for an adequate artifact sample for analysis. g. All cultural material collected during the grading monitoring program shall be processed and curated according to the current professional repository standards. The collecfions and ' associated records shall be transferred, including title, to an appropriate curafion facility to be accompanied by payment ofthe fees necessary for permanent curafion. h. A report documenfing the field and analysis results and interpreting the artifact and research data within the research context shall be completed and submitted to the safisfacfion ofthe lead agency prior to the issuance of any building permits. T CULTURAL-2: The following cultural resource mitigafion measures shall be implemented: .42- Initial Study 5^ . c. College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the owner/developer shall enter into a pre- excavafion agreement with a representative of the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians. Verification shall be documented by a letter from the property owner/developer and the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians to the City of Carlsbad City Planner. The purpose of this agreement will be to establish the requirement of tribal monitoring and to formalize procedures for the treatment of Native American human remains and burial, ceremonial, or cultural items that may be uncovered during any ground disturbance activifies; Prior to commencement of grading, the Native American Monitor and/or representative of the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians shall be present at the pre-construcfion meefing to consult with the grading and excavation contractors; In the event that any cultural resources, concentrafion of artifacts, or culturally modified soil deposits are discovered within the project area at any time during brushing, grading, and/or construction activities, the archeologist, in coordinafion with the Native American Monitor, shall be empowered to suspend work in the immediate area ofthe discovery unfil such time as a data recovery plan can be developed and implemented; d. The discovery of any resource shall be reported to the City of Carlsbad City Planner prior to any evaluation tesfing; and e. If any deposits are evaluated as significant under CEQA, addifional mifigafion may be required as recommended by the archeologist, in coordinafion with the Native American Monitor. c) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. A Geologic Reconnaissance Report (dated October 13, 2014) was conducted by Leighton and Associates, Inc. for the proposed project. In order to prepare the report, a site reconnaissance was performed on October 8, 2014 by a California Certified Engineering Geologist (CEG). Pursuant to the Report, Pleistocene-aged Terrace Deposits exist on the lower hilltops on the northern portion ofthe site. The deposits are present at an elevafion of 75' above MSL. The soil comprising the Terrace Deposits is generally composed of course sand to a sandy cobble conglomerate. In addifion, the Report notes that the enfire site and northern slope area is underlain at depth by bedrock material consisfing of the Sanfiago Formafion which is composed of course sand to a dandy cobble conglomerate. As both the Pleistocene-aged Terrace Deposits and the Sanfiago Formation have a high potential to yield fossils, the implementafion of Mitigation Measure Paleo-1 is required to reduce the impacts associated with the grading to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure: Paleo-1 a. Priorto issuance of the grading permit, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to carry out an appropriate mifigafion program. A qualified paleontologist is defined as an individual with an M.S. or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology who is familiar with paleontology procedures and techniques; June 2013 .42- Initial Study College Boulevard Mitigafion GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 b. The qualified paleontologist shall be present at the pre-construcfion meefing to consult with grading and excavation contractors concerning excavation schedules, paleontological field techniques, and safety issues; c. A paleontological monitor shall be onsite on a full-time basis during the original cuffing of previously undisturbed deposits of high paleontological resource potential (Pleistocene Terrace Deposits and Sanfiago Formation) to inspect exposures for contained fossils. A paleontological monitor is defined as an individual who has experience in the collection and salvage of fossil materials. The paleontological monitor should work under the direction of a qualified paleontologist; d. When fossils are discovered the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall recover them. In most cases, this fossil salvage can be completed in a short period of time. However, some fossil specimens (such as a complete large mammal skeleton) may require an extended salvage period. In these instances, the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall be allowed to temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil remains in a fimely manner. Because of the potenfial 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; e. Fossil remains collected during the monitoring and salvage portion of the paleontological mitigation program shall be cleaned, repaired, sorted, and cataloged; f. Prepared fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos, and maps, shall be deposited (as a donation) in a scientific institufion with permanent paleontological collections such as the San Diego Natural History Museum. Donation ofthe fossils shall be accompanied by financial support for inifial specimen storage; and g. A final paleontological monitoring and recovery (if applicable) summary report shall be completed that outlines the results of the mitigation program. This report shall include discussions of the methods used, stratigraphic section(s) exposed, fossils collected, and significance of recovered fossils. June 2013 .43. Initial Study College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Itlally leant Impact Less than Significant with Mit Incorporated :han icant Impact tj ra a. e Would the project: Poter Signif Less than Significant with Mit Incorporated Lesst Slgnif c o Z a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: j. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of • • m • Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? • • • iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? • • • iv. Landslides? • • • b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? • K • • c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result ofthe project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? • • Kl • d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Section 1802.3.2 ofthe California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to life or property? • • • e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? • • • K a.i.-a.iii. and c) Less Than Significant Impact. A Geologic Reconnaissance Report (dated October 13, 2014) was conducted by Leighton and Associates, Inc. for the proposed project in order to provide subsurface information and geotechnical recommendafions specific to the proposed habitat mitigation project. Pursuant to the Report, the subject site is not located within any Earthquake Fault Zones as created by the Alquist-Priolo Act, nor are there any known major or acfive faults on, or within the immediate vicinity of the site. Because of the lack of active faults on the site, the potential for surface rupture at the site is considered remote. While considered remote, the main seismic hazard that may affect the site is ground shaking from an active regional fault. The Rose Canyon fault is the closest mapped active fault, and is located approximately 7 miles west ofthe site. In addifion, there is a potential for liquefaction and lateral spread due to liquefaction at the site within the saturate alluvium; however, as the proposed project consists of habitat mitigation with var/ing gradual cut and fill slopes, and no structures are proposed, the impacts are considered less than significant. a.iv.) Potentially Significant Uniess Mitigation Incorporated. According to the Geologic Reconnaissance Report (dated October 13, 2014) conducted by Leighton and Associates, Inc. forthe project, there are no known or suspected ancient landslides located on the site. Furthermore, the field reconnaissance June 2013 -44-Initial Study College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 performed by Leighton and Associates, Inc., and local geological maps indicate that the site contains a favorable oriented geologic structure and the potenfial for significant landslides or large scale slope instability is considered low. However, local portions of the site underlain by less favorable geologic materials may be present; therefore, geologic mapping should be performed during site grading. With the implementafion ofthe mitigation measure, impacts are considered less than significant. Mitigation Measure: GEOLOGY-1: Geological mapping shall be performed by a licensed civil engineer during site grading to alleviate the potenfial for significant landslides or large scale slope instability. b) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The near surface soils within the proposed habitat mifigation area are potentially erodible alluvial deposits and subject to scour when subjected to concentrated and high velocity fiows. Therefore, a hydrogeology study and scour analysis shall be performed by the project civil engineer prior to grading. If needed, the design of scour countermeasures should be developed and implemented during site grading. With the implementafion ofthe mitigation measure, impacts are considered less than signiflcant. Mitigation Measure: GEOLOGY-2: Preparation of a hydrogeology study and scour analysis shall be performed by a licensed civil engineer prior to grading. If needed, the design of scour countermeasures should be developed and implemented during site grading. d) Wo Impact. All exisfing undocumented fills, topsoil and alluvium are considered potenfially compressible and unsuitable in their present state for structural support. However, structural improvements and/or structural fill are not being proposed as part of the proposed habitat mitigation project. Therefore, no impact is assessed. e) Wo Impact. The habitat mitigation project does not propose any septic tanks. Therefore, no impact is assessed. VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Itlally Icant Impact han icant with ncorporated lhan leant Impact No Impact Would the project: Poter Signif Lesst Signif MitI Lesst Signil No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? • • K • b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? • • K! • a-b) Less than Significant Impact Neither California nor the SDAPCD has adopted emission-based thresholds for GHG emissions under CEQA. OPR's Technical Advisory titled CEQA and Climate Change: June 2013 -45-Initial Study College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 Addressing Climate Change through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review states that "public agencies are encouraged but not required to adopt thresholds of significance for environmental impacts. Even in the absence of clearly defined thresholds for GHG emissions, the law requires that such emissions from CEQA projects must be disclosed and mitigated to the extent feasible whenever the lead agency determines that the project contributes to a significant, cumulative climate change impact" (OPR 2008, p. 4). Furthermore, the advisory document indicates in the third bullet item on page 6 that "in the absence of regulatory standards for GHG emissions or other scientific data to clearly define what constitutes a 'significant impact,' individual lead agencies may undertake a project-by-project analysis, consistent with available guidance and current CEQA practice." In March 2014, the City of Carlsbad published a Draft Climate Action Plan (CAP) establishing a "bright line" threshold of 2,500 metric tons (MT) of C02e/year; projects equal to or exceeding this threshold would be subject to CAP measures. This 2,500 MT/year recommendafion has been used as a guideline forthe project analysis. Construcfion activities produce combustion emissions from various sources such as site grading, ufility engines, on-site heavy-duty construction vehicles, equipment hauling materials to and from the site, and motor vehicles transporting the construcfion crew. Exhaust emissions from on-site construction activities would vary daily as construction activity levels change. Pursuant to the Climate Change Analysis prepared for the project (LSA Associates, Inc., March, 2015), the construction GHG emission estimates were calculated using the California Emissions Esfimator Model (CalEEMod). The table below provides the habitat mitigafion project's construcfion-related GHG emissions. GHG Construction Emissions Construction Phase Total Regional Pollutant Emissions fMT/vr» Construction Phase COz CH4 NzO C02e Site Preparation 128 0.03705 0 128 Grading 586 0.104 0 588 Peak Year (2016) 629 Total (2015-2018) 914 Source: LSA Associates, Inc., August 2014. CH4 = methane CO2 = carbon dioxide 0026 = carbon dioxide equivalent GHG = greenhouse gas MT = metric tons MT/yr = metric tons per year N2O = nitrous oxide Based on the modeling conducted for the construction analysis (Attachment A of Climate Change Analysis), it is estimated that the project construction would generate 914 metric tons (MT) of CO2 e/year during the 2015-2018 construcfion schedule. The peak year for construction activity is 2016, with 629 MT of C02e/year. The project's GHG emissions would not exceed the city's threshold of 2,500 MT of CO2 e/year. Therefore, the project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, nor will it conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulafion adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. The project would not result in a cumulatively signiflcant global climate change impact. As a result, a less than significant impact is assessed. June 2013 -46-Initiai Study College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 Vlll. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ntially ificant Impact than ificantwith Incorporated than ificant Impact pedui Would the project: Pote Sign! Less Signi Mit. Less signi o z a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? • K or • • b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? • K • • c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? • • • m d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment? • • • K! e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? • • • K f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? • • • g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? • • • h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? • • • a-b) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigafion Incorporated. The proposed project consists of the demolition of a majority ofthe exisfing equestrian-related structures on-site (i.e., storage sheds, hay barn) and a vacant single family home, as well as grading for habitat mifigafion adjacent to Agua Hedionda Creek. In order to create the expanded wetland area, a total of 73,770 cubic yards of grading is proposed. Specifically, a total of 73,300 cubic yards of cut and 73,300 cubic yards of fill is required, which results in an export of 72,830 cubic yards. Given the existing equestrian uses, as well as the use of portions of the property as agriculture, a Phase I Environmental Assessment was prepared to analyze the potential impacts the construction phase of the project may have as it relates to hazardous materials (Rincon Consultants, Inc., May 22, 2014). Pursuant to the Phase I Environmental Assessment, a records review indicates that the northern portion of the property (i.e., APN 209-060-71) was vacant land from at least 1901 to 1953, developed with one or June 2013 -47-Initial Study College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 two residential buildings from 1963 to 1964 and in use as an equestrian facility since at least 1974. The southern portion of the project site, APN 209-060-72, appears to have been vacant land from 1901 to 1968, and in use as an equestrian facility from 1974 to present. It is noted that due to the age of the structures, lead-based paint and asbestos may have been utilized in the construction. Based on a reconnaissance ofthe site, small quantities of various hazardous substances and petroleum products were observed around the exisfing storage building, including smafl quantifies of diesel fuel, gasoline for tractors and lawnmowers, as well as miscellaneous maintenance supplies (i.e., motor oils). A release to the wood flooring was observed in the storage building, which likely extends to the soil beneath; hydrocarbon odors were noted. In addition, battery storage was observed at the exterior areas outside of the workshop. Pursuant to the recommendations ofthe Phase I Environmental Assessment, a Phase //was recommended to study whether the property had been impacted by stained soil and battery storage. The Phase I Assessment also indicated that if the existing structures located on the site are proposed to be demolished, an asbestos and lead-based paint survey should be performed. Further, if asbestos and lead based paint materials are determined to be present, the materials should be handled properly. A mitigafion measure has been included to reduce the potential impact to a less than significant level. A number of soil samples were taken forthe Phase II Analysis and compared to the EPA Regional Screening Levels (RSL) for residential soil, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board's (LA RWQCB's) Maximum Soil Screen Levels for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) where groundwater is located less than 20 feet below grade, and the California Human Health Screening Level for lead in residenfial soil. TPH-Diesel (TPH-D) was detected in 5 soil samples collected in the material storage area ofthe hay barn from 7 to 31 mg/kg. However, TPH-D did not exceed the LA RWQCB's Maximum Soil Screening Level of 100 mg/kg or the EPA Regional Screening Level for residential soil of 100 mg/kg in any soil sample or the EPA RSL for residential soil of 96 mg/kg in any soil sample. In addition, TPH- Oil Range and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) were not detected above the laboratory reporting limits in any soil sample. Various concentrations of metals were detected in all eleven soil samples. Arsenic was the only metal to exceed the soil screening levels. Arsenic exceeded the EPA RSL for residential soil, 0.67 mg/kg, in ten soil samples with concentrations ranging from 0.15 mg/kg to 3.89 mg/kg. However, as the highest concentrafion, 3.89 mg/kg is below the naturally occurring background concentrafions of arsenic in California, which is up to 11 mg/kg (Kearney, 1996), no mitigation is required. Pursuant to the results ofthe Phase II Assessment, if soil is anticipated to be exported from the site, the soil may be reused within San Diego region in accordance with the RWQCB Condifional Waiver No. 8, with the excepfion ofthe material storage area ofthe hay barn which had detectable concentrations of TPH. This area should be excavated to a depth of approximately 1 foot and disposed of offsite at an appropriate landfill. With the incorporation of mitigation, the impacts are deemed to be less than signiflcant. -48- Initial Study College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 Mitigation Measures: HAZ MAT-1: Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for the existing, vacant, single-family home, an asbestos and lead-based paint survey shall be completed. If asbestos and lead-based paint are found to be present, the materials shall be disposed of by a licensed professional. HAZ MAT-2: The soil proposed to be exported in the"material storage area ofthe hay barn shall be excavated at a depth of approximately one foot and disposed of at an appropriate landfill. c & d) No Impact. The site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. In addifion, the project site is not identified on the list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, no impact is assessed. e) No Impact. The subject site is located approximately one mile north ofthe McClellan-Palomar Airport and is located within Zone 6 or the Traffic Pattern Zone of the McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compafibility Plan. As the proposed project entails habitat mitigafion and no structures are proposed in conjunction with the request, no impact is assessed. f) No Impact. The project site is not in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, no impact is assessed. g) No Impact. The proposed habitat mitigation project will not impact the ability to provide emergency services to the project site, nor will it physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, no impact is assessed. h) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed habitat mitigation project includes the enhancement of existing wetland and riparian habitat adjacent to Agua Hedionda Creek, as well as the addifion of an upland habitat mitigafion area. The proposed upland habitat, primarily consisting of Diegan coastal sage scrub, is proposed to be located at the southern perimeter of proposed Parcel C. While no structures are proposed in conjunction with the project, specifically as it relates to proposed Parcel D, any future structures will be required to appropriately setback from the upland habitat area, to the satisfaction of the Fire Department. Therefore, a less than significant impact is assessed. -49- Initial Study College Boulevard Mifigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards waste discharge requirements? • • Kl • b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering ofthe local ground water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? • • • Kl c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? • • K • d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern ofthe site or area, including through the alteration ofthe course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? • • K • e) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? • • • S f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? namo g) Place housing within a lOO-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? n o n m h) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? • • • K 1) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? • • • s j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? • • • K a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed habitat mitigafion project is required by law to comply with all federal, state and local water quality regulations, including the Clean Water Act, California Administrative Code Title 23, specific basin plan objectives identified in the "Water Quality Control Plan for San Diego Basin" (WQCP), and the City's Standard Urban Storm Water Management Plan (SUSMP). THE WQCP contains specific objectives for the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit, which includes the requirement to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs). Construction activities for the project are covered under state-wide construction permit -50-Initial Study College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 Order No. 2009-009-DWQ, or latest, as issued by the State Water Resource Control Board Permit. The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, and impacts are therefore considered to be less than significant. b) No Impact. The proposed habitat mifigafion project does not propose to directly draw any groundwater or impact any aquifers. Therefore, no impact is assessed. 03: c-d) Less Than Signiflcant Impact. A Hydraulic Analysis was prepared for the proposed project by Lyle Engineering (January, 2015). The Analysis concluded that the grading associated with the proposed habitat mitigation project will increase fiow conveyance volume in the floodplain areas and will signiflcantly reduce the 100-year starting water surface elevafion (WSEL). This reduction will occur west of the College Boulevard bridge, which will be constructed as part of the College Boulevard (Reach A) expansion project (EIR 98-02). Specifically, a majority of proposed Parcels A and D will be located outside of the floodplain as a result of the project due to the proposal to widen the channel. In addition, results from the Hydraulic Analysis indicate that flow velocities post project will be lower or equal to pre-project condifions within the proposed narrowing ofthe low-flow channel. Flow velocities are signiflcantly reduced because ofthe shallower depths spread across the channel bottom. Therefore, impacts are considered to be less than signiflcant. e) No Impact. The proposed habitat mitigafion project will not create or contribute runoff water that will exceed the capacity of existing storm water drainage systems, nor will it create polluted runoff. Therefore, no impact is assessed. f) Less Than Significant Impact. Construction ofthe proposed project is required by law to comply with all federal, state and local water quality regulations, including the Clean Water Act and associated NPDES regulations. The habitat mitigafion project will not result in permanent or long term degradation of water quality. Temporary impacts associated with construction ofthe proposed project will be mitigated to a less than significant level. g-h) No Impact. As Agua Hedionda Creek bisects the site, a large portion ofthe site is located within a lOO-year flood hazard area. However, the project does not include the construction of residences or other structures. Therefore, no impact is assessed. i) No Impact. According to the Citv of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analvsis and Mapping Studv, Catastrophic Dam Failure Inundation, Tsunami, and Seiche Hazard Zone Maps (September 1992), the project site is located within a Catastrophic Dam Failure Inundafion Zone for Squires Dam and Reservoir. However, the project does not include the construction of residences or other structures. Therefore, no impact is assessed. j) No Impact. According to the Citv of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analvsis and Mapping Studv, Catastrophic Dam Failure Inundation, Tsunami, and Seiche Hazard Zone Maps (September 1992), the project site is not located within a Tsunami and Seiche Hazard Zone. Therefore the project would not be impacted or inundated by seiche, tsunami or mudflow. Therefore, no impact is assessed. -51-Initial Study College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 X. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project; a E = ** is ra 43 u C IB S "E O BO CL i/i *» ra ^ I <: £ o it — IA C M tf) 2 ti ra a E *• tf) G .3 tf) tJ n a E o Z a) Physically divide an established community? • • • b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? • • • c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? • • • a) No Impact. Development of the proposed habitat mitigation project will not physically divide an established community. Therefore, no impact is assessed. b-c) Less than Significant Impact. The existing environmental setting ofthe subject properties (APN 209- 060-71, -72), can be generally characterized as semi- rural. Surrounding land uses include a vacant parcel to the north, a vacant commercially-zoned parcel to the south, the Sunny Creek neighborhood to the southeast consisfing of single-family homes and multi-family apartments, and a single-family home and the Rancho Carlsbad golf course to the west. Agua Hedionda Creek, which is currently narrowly incised, fiows from east to west through the central portion ofthe project site. The elevation ofthe fiow line of the creek drops nine feet through the project site, ranging from 60' as it enters on the east side under the College Boulevard right-of-way to Sl'above mean sea level (MSL) as it enters the golf course to the west. The southern half ofthe project site (APN 209-060-72) is generally fiat and ranges in elevation from 51' to 75' above MSL. The northern half ofthe site (APN 209-060-71), steeply climbs in elevation from 51' to 112 above MSL. The central portion ofthe project site is located in the floodway, while a majority ofthe overall project site is currently located in the floodplain. The entire project site is located within a Standards Area pursuant to the HMP. The proposed College Boulevard Mitigafion project consists of the enhancement and preservation of sensitive wetland and riparian habitat, as well as the creafion of new wetland, riparian and upland habitat areas adjacent to Agua Hedionda Creek. The proposed project safisfies the biological resources mifigafion measures set forth in Environmental Impact Report, EIR 98-02 (State Clearinghouse No. 99111082), as it relates to the future construction of College Boulevard Reach A, which represents the missing link between the northern and southern extents of College Boulevard, a major arterial road. The project site, consisting of two privately-owned parcels (APN 209-060-71, 72) totaling 17.44 acres (16.43 net acres), is located north of the intersection of College Boulevard and Sunny Creek Road and south ofthe intersection of Cannon Road and College Boulevard. Access to the site is provided by a dirt road extending from the southern terminus of College Boulevard. The site is also located within the boundaries ofthe Zone 15 Local Facilities Management Plan. -52-Initial Study 1 ^ College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 APN 209-060-71, the northern parcel, is 6.49 acres in size (6.02 net acres), and APN 209-060-72, the southern parcel, is 10.95 acres in size (10.41 net acres). Both properties have a split General Plan Land Use designation of Open Space (OS) and Residenfial Low-Medium (RLM) density and a zoning designation of Umited Control (L-C). Overall, a total of 11.21 acres is designated RLM and 5.22 acres is designated OS. The mitigation area comprises 8.6 acres ofthe total project area (5.5 acres of upland mifigation area and 3.1 acres of wetland mitigation area). Existing uses consist of an equestrian barn and stables, an equestrian training and riding school and a vacant single-family residence. With exception to a few ofthe stables located at the southeastern corner of the project site, all ofthe structures will be demolished to implement the proposed habitat mitigation project. Ultimately, the remaining stables will be demolished in conjunction with the development of College Boulevard Reach A. Grading proposed in conjuncfion with the creation of the mitigation area includes the addition of a contour-graded 2:1 slope adjacent to the northern and southern limits ofthe new wefiand area and the widening of the creek bed. A total of 73,300 cubic yards of cut and 470 cubic yards of fill is proposed. As a result, a total of 72,830 cubic yards is proposed to be exported from the site. The applicant has indicated that the exported material will be utilized in conjuncfion with the development of College Boulevard Reach A. A 100-foot-wide wetland buffer is proposed from the outer limits ofthe newly-created wetland mitigation area. With exception to the bio-retention basin, which is an allowable encroachment, no development will be allowed within this buffer. Applications associated with the proposed project include a General Plan Amendment (GPA 14-02), Zone Change (ZC 14-01), Habitat Management Plan Permit (HMP 14-02), Hillside Development Permit (HDP 14- 04), Special Use Permit (SUP 14-03), as well as a Minor Subdivision (MS 14-10). A General Plan Amendment (GPA) is required as part of this application since the future habitat boundaries extend beyond the limit ofthe existing Open Space (OS) land use designation. The expanded OS area will allow for the natural habitat to be placed in a separate lot (Parcel C) and preserved in perpetuity. In addifion, an OS General Plan Land Use designation is proposed for Parcels A (agricultural lot) and B (College Boulevard Reach A detention basin). Based on the current environmental constraints for the overall project area, the current residenfial unit yield is 23 units. As part of the proposed request to change the General Plan Land Use designation from RLM to OS to accommodate the project, the resulting development yield is 18.50 dwelling units. Therefore, a total of 4.5 dwelling units will be deposited into the city's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. Overall, as the proposed project increases the area of designated open space, the project is consistent with the Land Use and Open Space Elements of the General Plan. A Zone Change (ZC) is required to change the zoning designation from Umited Control (L-C) to Open Space to allow for the creafion ofthe agricultural lot (Parcel A), the detention basin lot (Parcel B) as well as the natural open space/mitigation lot (Parcel C). Parcel D is proposed to be remain as L-C until a development applicafion is received. A Hillside Development Permit (HDP) is proposed to allow for grading in an area which has existing slopes which exceed a gradient of 15% and an elevation differential of 15 feet or more. The grading design is consistent with the intent ofthe Hillside Ordinance, Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) Chapter 21.95 since June 2013 -53- Initial Study College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 the proposal involves habitat restoration and the proposed 2:1 (minimum) slopes will be contour graded. In addifion, the slopes do not exceed a height of 40 feet and the proposed quantity of grading, 7,595 cubic yards per acre, falls within the "acceptable" range, 0-7,999 cubic yards per acre. A Special Use Permit (SUP) is proposed for grading in the existing lOO-year fioodplain. As part of the proposed project, the exisfing fioodplain limits will be modified as a result of the grading proposed in conjunction with the habitat mitigation area. The project is consistent with CMC Chapter 21.110 in that the proposal will improve the existing setting as it relates to flood hazards and it does not adversely affect properties upstream or downstream ofthe project area. A Habitat Management Plan (HMP) Permit is required since the existing lots area located within a Standards Area pursuant to the HMP. Consistency Findings are required to be processed. As discussed in Section IV of this document (Biological Resources), the project is compafible with the City's Habitat Management Plan. A Minor Subdivision (MS) is proposed to subdivide the two exisfing lots into four lots. The lot sizes and intended future use are summarized below: Parcel A: 1.0 acres (gross/net), agricultural-future garden (OS/OS) Parcel B: 1.23 acres (gross)/0.84 acres (net), bio-retention basin for College Boulevard (OS/OS); Parcel C: 9.23 acres (gross)/8.81 acres (net), wetland and upland habitat mifigation open space lot, to be preserved in perpetuity through a biological conservafion easement (OS/OS); and Parcel D: 6.09 acres (gross)/5.78 acres (net); future residential development; no development proposed at this fime (RLM/L-C). In addition, the project is in compliance with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (see Secfion Vlll, Hazards and Hazardous Materials). Therefore, impacts associated with Land Use and Planning are considered to be less than signiflcant. XI. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents ofthe State? • • • b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? • • • -54-Initial Study College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 a-b) No Impact. Carlsbad is devoid of non-renewable energy resources. Mineral resources within the City are no longer being ufilized and extracted as exploitable natural resources. Therefore, no mineral resource impacts will occur as a result of any project. (MEIR 93-01, page 5.13-1) XII. NOISE entlally nificant Impact sthan nificant with :. Incorporated s than nificant Impact Impact Would the project result in: Pot Sigi Les Sigi Mil ai .SP Ji V) o Z a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? • • • Kl b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? • • m • c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? • • • K d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? • • • e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? • • • f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? • • • K a) No Impact. The project will not result in the exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the General Plan or the City of Carlsbad Noise Guidelines Manual as the proposed project will only preserve, enhance and create wetland habitat. Therefore, no impact is assessed. b 8( d) Less than Significant Impact. The anticipated grading operations associated with the proposed project will result in a temporary and minor increase in groundbourne vibration and ambient noise levels. Following the completion of grading, ambient noise level and vibrafions are expected to improve when compared to exisfing noise levels since the equestrian-related land use will be removed from the site and a large portion ofthe project site will be permanently preserved as open space. Therefore, impacts are considered to be less than significant. c) No Impact. The College Boulevard Mitigation project consists of the preservafion, enhancement and creation of wetland habitat associated with impacts resulting from the future construction of College Boulevard (Reach A). The proposed project will increase the amount of open space in the area, and will not result in sustained ambient noise levels. Therefore, no impact is assessed. June 2013 -55-Initial Study College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 e-f) No Impact. The project site is located approximately one mile north ofthe McClellan-Palomar Airport and is located within Zone 6 ofthe McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compafibility Plan (ALUCP). The proposed habitat mitigation project is consistent with the ALUCP. In addition, the project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Furthermore, the proposed project does not include the construction of new residences. Therefore, no project impact is assessed. XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING ntially ficant Impact than ficant with Incorporated than ficant Impact t! ra a. E Would the project: Pote Signi Less Signi Mit Less Signi o Z a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? • • • K b) Displace substanfial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? • • • Kl c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? • • • a) No Impact. The proposed habitat mitigation is associated with the implementafion of mitigation measures for the construction of College Boulevard (Reach A), which has been previously analyzed as a component of EIR 98-02 (State Clearinghouse No. 99111082). In addifion to the habitat mitigation, a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change are proposed, which will reduce the overall development potenfial of the site since additional area will be permanently designated as Open Space. Therefore, no impact is assessed. b-c) No Impact. Exisfing land uses on the site include a commercial horse boarding and training facility as well as riparian/wetland habitats. One exisfing vacant house is located on the project site. As the house is vacant, no people will be displaced from their homes as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, no impact is assessed. -56-Initial Study College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 r Impact with jorated Impact XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES Itiallv Ficant than Rcant neon than Hcant No Impact Would the project: Potei Signil Less! Signil Mit 1 Lessi Signi' No Impact a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any ofthe public services: i. Fire protection? • • • K ii. Police protection? • • • m iii. Schools? • • • Kl iv. Parks? • • • Kl V. Other public facilities? • • • Kl a.i-a.v) No Impact. The nature ofthe proposed project (habitat mitigation) will not affect the provision and availability of public facilities (fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, libraries, etc.). Furthermore, the proposed project shall be subject to the conditions and facility service level requirements within the Local Facilifies Management Plan for Zones 15. As a result, no impact is assessed to public services. XV. RECREATION intlaiiy Ificant Impact than Ificantwith Incorporated than ificant Impact No Impact Pote Signi Less Sign Mit Less Jig.! No Impact a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreafional facilities such that substantial physical deterioration ofthe facility would occur or be accelerated? • • • b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? • • • a-b) No Impact. A portion of the existing site currently accommodates a private equestrian center, which provides for the boarding of horses as well as equestrian training. As part ofthe proposed habitat mifigation project, the equestrian uses and related accessory structures will be removed from the project site. Given the proposed open space designation to preserve the sensitive habitat, the project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood parks. No recreational facilifies are proposed in -57-Initial Study College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 conjunction with the proposed project. Further, because the proposed project is not considered to be residenfial or commercial development, an in-lieu park fee is not required. Therefore, no impact is assessed. XVl.TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Would the project: 1! Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components ofthe circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? • • K • b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? • • • 13 c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? • • • Kl d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? • • • Kl e) Result in inadequate emergency access? • • • Kl f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? • • • 13 a) Less than Significant Impact. The habitat mitigation project will not generate any Average Daily Trips (ADT) after the construction phase ofthe project is complete. The trips associated with the construction phase ofthe project are minimal and will not cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity ofthe street system. Therefore, impacts from the proposed project are considered to be less than significant. b) Wo Impact. As the proposed project will only generate trips in the short term during the construction phase, there will be no conflict with the applicable Congestion Management Program. Therefore, no impact is assessed. c) Wo Impact. The proposed habitat mitigation project will not have any impact on air traffic patterns. Therefore, no impact is assessed. -58-Initial Study College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 d & e) Wo Impact. No circulation improvements are proposed nor is emergency access required as part of the habitat mitigation project. Therefore, no impact is assessed. f) Wo Impact. The proposed habitat mitigation project does not involve the construction of transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities. Therefore, no impact is assessed. — — ; BT XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit Incorporated less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements ofthe applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? • • • m b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? • • • K c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? • • • m d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? • • • Kl e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? • • • K f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? • • • g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? • • • Kl a-b) Wo Impact. The proposed project will not generate any wastewater. Therefore, no impact is assessed. c) Wo Impact. The proposed project does not include the construction of new storm water drainage facilifies or the expansion of exisfing facilities. The EC North Water Quality Basin has been shown on many ofthe project exhibits, as it is required as part ofthe development of College Boulevard, however it is not part of this project. Therefore, no project impact is assessed. d) Wo Impact. Existing water supplies are sufficient to serve the proposed project. Therefore, no impact is assessed. -59-Initial Study 11 College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 e) Wo Impact. No residences are proposed in conjunction with the habitat mitigation project; therefore, no additional wastewater demand is anficipated as a result of this project. No impact is assessed. f) Wo Impact. As the proposed project entails habitat mitigation and no solid waste will be generated, this threshold is not applicable. Therefore, no impact is assessed. g) Wo Impact. As the proposed project entails habitat mitigation and no solid waste will be generated, this threshold is not applicable. Therefore, no impact is assessed. XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Would the project: Potentially Signiflcant Impact Less than Significant with Mit Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) • • K • c) Doesthe project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? • • • 13 a) iess than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As outlined in the Biological Resources section of this report, the project's required mitigation reduces impacts to sensitive native habitat and wildlife species to a less than significant level. In addition, the project is consistent with the city's Habitat Management Plan (HMP). Further, the implementation ofthe HMP provides mitigation for cumulative biological impacts as it allows for the adopfion of a long-term biological preserve system throughout the City. Therefore, there will be no cumulative impacts to sensitive habitat or wildlife communities. In addition, project mitigation outlined in the Cultural Resources secfion of this report, ensures that there will be no loss of culturally significant artifacts that are important examples of California's history. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projects regional growth for the greater San Diego area, and local General Plan Land Use policies are incorporated into SANDAG projections. Based upon those projecfions, region-wide standards, including storm water quality control, air quality standards, habitat conservation, congestion management standards, etc., are -60-Initial Study College Boulevard Mifigafion GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 established to reduce the cumulative impacts of development in the region. All ofthe City's development standards and regulations are consistent with the region wide standards. They City's standards and regulations, including grading standards, water quality and drainage standards, traffic standards, habitat and cultural resource protection regulations, and public facility standards, ensure that development within the City will not result in a cumulatively considerable impact. There are two regional Tssues that development within the City of Carlsbad has the potential to have a cumulatively considerable impact on. Those issues are air quality and regional circulation. The project would contribute to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin, however, these emissions only have the potential to be present through the construction phase of the project and the cumulative impacts are less than significant. SANDAG acfing as the County Congestion Management Agency has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Road, El Camino Real, and Palomar Airport Road) and one highway segment in Carlsbad as part ofthe regional circulation system. Based on the design capacifies ofthe designated roads and highway, and the fact that the proposed project will only generate trips in the short term during the construction phase, there will be no confiict with the applicable Congestion Management Program, and cumulative impacts are less than significant. c) Wo Impact. The proposed habitat mifigation project implements mifigation measures identified forthe construcfion of the College Boulevard (Reach A) extension. The project will not result in any direct or indirect substanfial adverse environmental effects on human beings. Therefore, no impact is assessed. June 2013 -61- Initial Study { College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 EARUER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the fiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Secfion 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) "Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant with Mitigafion Incorporated," describe the mitigafion measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. EARUER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Division located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008. 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01), City of Carlsbad Planning Division, March 1994. 2. Carlsbad General Plan, City of Carlsbad Planning Division, dated March 1994, as updated. 3. City of Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC), Title 21 Zoning, City of Carlsbad Planning Division, as updated. 4. Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad (HMP), City of Carlsbad Planning Division, November, 2004. 5. Dos Colinas Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR 09-01), City of Carlsbad, September, 2011. 6. San Diego Regional Airport Authority/San Diego County Airport Land Use Commission. McClellan- Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). Amended December 1, 2011. 1. Air Quality and Climate Change Analysis for the Zone 15 Habitat Mitigation Project, LSA Associates, Inc., March 12, 2015. 8. Biological Technical Report, College Boulevard- Reach A and Bosin BJ Project, Alden Environmental, March 26, 2015. 9. College Boulevard- Reach A and Basin BJ Project Mitigation Plan, College Boulevard- Reach A and Basin BJ Project, Alden Environmental, March 26, 2015. -62- Initial Study College Boulevard Mifigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 10. Geologic Reconnaissance Report, Proposed College Boulevard Habitat Mitigation Site, Leighton and Associates, Inc., October 13, 2014. 11. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Rincon Consultants, Inc., May 22, 2014. 12. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, Equestrian Facility, Rincon Consultants, Inc., March 19, 2015. 13. Agua Hedionda Creek Hydraulic Analysis for College Boulevard Wetland Mitigation Site, Lyle Engineering, Inc., January, 2015. 14. Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Dos Colinas/College Boulevard Mitigation Project, Brian F. Smith 8e Associates, July 1, 2014. -63-Initial Study College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES BIO-1: Mitigation for California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) jurisdictional habitats shall be as follows: a. Direct impacts to 0.72 acre of wefiand/riparian communities/habitats shall be mitigated at a ratio of 3:1 through on-site preservation, enhancement, and re-establishment/creatibn of 2.16 acres of wetland habitat within proposed Parcel C (i.e., the Equestrian Center North/South/ECNS Mitigafion Site). At least 0.72 acre of this shall be met through habitat re-establishment/creation to maintain no net loss. b. Direct impacts to 0.12 acre of non-wetland riparian habitat shall be mitigated at a ratio of 2:1 through on-site preservafion, enhancement, and re-establishment/creafion of 0.24 acre of wetland habitat within the ECNS Mitigafion Site. At least 0.12 acre of this shall be met through habitat re-establishment/creafion to maintain no net loss. BIO-2: Mifigafion for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) jurisdictional habitats shall be as follows: a. Direct impacts to 0.19 acre of wetland/riparian communities/habitats shall be mifigated at a ratio of 3:1 through the on-site preservation, enhancement, and re-establishment/creafion of 0.57 acre of wetland habitat within proposed Parcel C (i.e., ECNS Mitigation Site). At least 0.19 acre of this shall be met through habitat re-establishment/creafion to maintain no net loss. These impacts overlap with those for CDFW jurisdicfional habitats in BIO-1. Therefore, this mitigafion is safisfied through the implementation of BIO-1. b. Direct impacts to 0.12 acre of non-wefiand riparian habitat shall be mitigated at a ratio of 2:1 through on-site preservation, enhancement, and re-establishment/creation of 0.24 acre of wetland habitat within proposed Parcel C (i.e., ECNS Mitigation Site). At least 0.12 acre of this will be met through habitat re-establishment/creafion to maintain no net loss. These impacts overlap with those for CDFW jurisdictional habitats in BIO-1. Therefore, this mitigation is safisfied through the implementation of BIO-1. BIO-3: Direct impacts to 2.61 acres of unoccupied coastal sage scrub, coastal sage scrub (Baccharis), and coastal sage scrub-disturbed shall be mitigated at a ratio of 2:1 through on-site re- establishment/creafion of 5.22 acres of coastal sage scrub within proposed Parcel C (i.e., ECNS habitat mitigation site). BIO-4: Direct impacts to 0.31 acre of non-native grassland (Habitat Group E, 0.28 acres associated with College Boulevard and 0.03 associated with Parcel C) shall be mifigated at a ratio of 0.5:1 through payment of an in lieu fee (i.e., 0.16 acres). -54- Initial Study 1 College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 BIO-5: Direct impacts to 26.39 acres of "Other Areas" (Habitat Group F) shall be mitigated through the payment of an in-lieu fee. If the grading and/or clearing/grubbing permits are not issued at the same time for the development of College Boulevard and proposed parcel C, the following information shall be used forthe calculafion ofthe in-lieu fee: College Boulevard Reach A/Basin BJ Agricultural lands: 15.71 acres Eucalyptus woodland: 1.50 acres Disturbed lands: 2.86 acres TOTAL: 20.07 ACRES Parcel C/Habitat Mitigation Site Agricultural lands: 0.37 acres Eucalyptus woodland: 0.67 acres Disturbed lands: 5.28 acres TOTAL: 6.32 ACRES BIO 6: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, and/or the clearing of any habitat on-site, a final wefiands/riparian restorafion plan shall be approved by the City Planner (with concurrence by the USFWS, USACE, and CDFW) to mitigate for the above impacts. BIO-7: Impacts to USACE (Jurisdicfional Wetlands and Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S.) and CDFW (Riparian and Streambed) jurisdictional areas shall require a Section 404 permit from the USACE, a 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFW, and a 401 State Water Quality Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, which shall be obtained prior to the issuance of a grading permit and/or the clearing of any habitat on-site. BIO-8: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, and/or the clearing of any habitat on-site, whichever occurs flrst, the Applicant shall take the following actions to the satisfaction of the City Planner in relation to proposed Parcel C, which is being conserved for natural habitat in conformance with the City's Habitat Management Plan: a. Select a conservation entity, subject to approval by the City, that possesses qualificafions to manage the open space lot(s) for conservation purposes; b. Prepare a Property Analysis Record (PAR) or other method acceptable to the City for esfimafing the costs of management and monitoring ofthe open space lot(s) in perpetuity in accordance with the requirements of the North County Multiple Habitats Conservafion Plan and the City's Open Space Management Plan; c. Based on the results ofthe PAR, provide a non-wasting endowment or other financial mechanism acceptable to the Planning Director and conservation entity, if any, in an amount sufficient for management and monitoring ofthe open space lot(s) in perpetuity; d. Record a Conservation Easement or Restrictive Covenant over the open space lot(s); and e. Prepare a Preserve Management Plan which will ensure adequate management ofthe open space lot(s) in perpetuity. BIO-9: To avoid any impacts to potentially active raptor nests, trees shall be removed outside ofthe breeding season (September 1"^ to January 31^') of local raptor species. If it is determined that trees must be removed during the breeding season (February to August 30**^), a raptor nest survey shall June 2013 -65-Initial Study College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to the removal of any trees to determine if raptor nests are present. If active nests are discovered, a 500 foot minimum buffer shall be established around the tree unfil the young are independent of the nest site. No construction activity shall be allowed to occur within the buffer area until a qualified biologist has determined that the fiedglings are independent of the nest. BIO-10: Erosion Control-A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan shall be developed that describes sediment and hazardous materials control, dewatering or diversion structures, fueling and equipment management practices, and other factors deemed necessary by the City and applicable regulatory agencies. Erosion control measures shall be monitored on a regularly scheduled basis, particularly during times of heavy rainfall. Corrective measures shall be implemented in the event erosion control strategies are inadequate. Sediment/erosion control measures shall be confinued unfil such time as the mitigation efforts are successful at soil stabilization. BIO-11: Fencing and Signs - Prior to and during implementafion ofthe mitigation effort, a temporary orange construction fence shall be installed along the northern edge of proposed Parcels A and C to restrict access and protect the sensitive upland habitat on the Dos Colinas property to the north (HMP hardline area and future biological conservafion easement). Permanent fences shall be constructed along the boundaries between the site and adjacent development preventing off-road vehicle and pedestrian access. Steel signs shall be attached to the fences to provide notice, in both English and Spanish, that the area is an ecological preserve and that trespassing is prohibited. BIO-12: Irrigation - A temporary, above ground irrigation system shall be installed within both the wefiand and upland mitigation areas. The system shall provide head to head coverage to ensure adequate irrigation of both the installed seed mix and container stock species. The system shall include timers and ground moisture sensors to help prevent over-watering. The fimers shall be set to emulate a normal rainfall year in the event that actual rainfall does not reach normal levels. The system shall be removed at the direction ofthe restoration specialist. BIO-13: Wetland Habitat Installafion a. Wetland seeding shall take place within the wetland mitigafion area along Agua Hedionda Creek and shall contain a native, wetland seed mix sourced from as close to the Parcel C/ECNS Mitigation Site as possible. The seed mix shall be derived from the list of species in Table 8 (Wetland Seed Mix) in the College Boulevard—Reach A and Basin BJ Project Mitigafion Plan. A hydroseed slurry shall be evenly applied in two stages such that an even, homogenous distribufion is made in each area. Hand seeding may be conducted in focused areas and shall be conducted in any area where hydroseed slurry does not reach. b. Native, wetland container stock shall be planted in the mitigafion area to supplement the wetland seeding. The container stock shall be sourced from as close to the Parcel C/ECNS Mitigafion Site as possible, and the source(s) of all container stock shall be provided. All container stock shall be inspected and approved by the restoration specialist prior to being installed to ensure that the correct number, size, and species ordered were delivered, and that the plants are healthy, showing no signs of disease, and are in a state suitable for planting. The container stock used shall be derived from the list provided in Table 10 (Wetland Container Stock) in the College Boulevard- Reach A and Basin BJ Project Mitigafion Plan. -66- Initial Study College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 c. Container stock shall be planted in such a way as to mimic a natural species distribution. The restoration specialist shall specify the locafions for all planfing. d. The installation contractor shall be responsible for planfing all container stock within four days following delivery. Container stock staged on site shall be placed in a protected area and watered regularly priorto planfing. BIO-14: Upland Habitat Installafion a. Upland seeding for coastal sage scrub shall take place on the Parcel C/ECNS Mitigation Site adjacent to the wetland mitigafion area. The native seed mix shall be derived fr6m the list of species in Table 11 (Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Seed Mix) from the College Boulevard—Reach A and Basin BJ Project Mitigation Plan and sourced from as close to the site as possible. The seed shall be applied as described above for the wetland seeding. b. Native, coastal sage scrub container stock shall be planted within the seeded upland area. The stock shall be sourced from as close to the Parcel C/ECNS Mifigafion Site as possible, and the source(s) of all container stock shall be provided. As with the wetland container stock, all will be inspected and approved by the restoration specialist prior to installafion. c. Container stock shall be planted in such a way as to mimic a natural species distribution. The restoration specialist shall specify the locations for all planting. d. The installation contractor shall be responsible for planfing all container stock within four days following delivery. Container stock staged on site shall be placed in a protected area and watered regularly priorto planfing. BIO-15: Small Animal Shelters - As an aid to wildlife establishment within the mitigafion area, shelters for small animal species shall be created. a. Twenty, half-inch thick plywood boards measuring 2X4 feet, and hand-created, low shrub and brush piles approximately 4 to 6 feet in diameter and 2 to 3 feet in height shall be created and placed throughout the mitigation area. b. To help facilitate the presence of pollinator species, a total of 10 bee blocks (Sarver 2007, Xerces 2012) shall be prepared and scattered throughout the upland mitigation area. The bee blocks shall be oriented east to southeast. c. A total of 6 sand pits shall be installed within the upland mifigation area to support ground-nesting bees. Each pit shall be approximately 2 feet deep and 4 feet in diameter and shall be filled with a mix of sand, native soil, and organic material. BIO 16: Projects that cannot be conducted without placing equipment or personnel in or adjacent to sensitive habitats shall be timed to ensure that habitat is removed prior to the initiation of the breeding season (February 15 to September 15). Specifically, clearing, grubbing, and tree removal shall be prohibited during the breeding season for HMP Covered Species (e.g., least Bell's vireo, yellow-breasted chat, and Cooper's hawk). This prohibition would also protect the yellow warbler, Nuttall's woodpecker, white-tailed kite, and other MBTA and CFGC protected species. 2013 -67- Initial Study College Boulevard Mitigafion GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 c. All construction activities are prohibited within 300 feet of an active bird nest and within 500 feet of an active listed species' bird nest (e.g., least Bell's vireo), which would also protect all species protected by the MBTA and CFGC. b. Clearing and grubbing of all wetland/riparian and upland vegetation communities/wildlife habitats shall be conducted outside the February 15 to September 15 breeding season. Clearing and grubbing of other areas (e.g., agricultural lands) shall be conducted outside the breeding season unless it is demonstrated that no avian nesfing is occurring in those other areas (or within 300 or 500 feet of those other areas). c. For clearing and grubbing in other areas during the breeding season, a pre-construcfion survey for avian nesfing shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within seven calendar days prior to construction. The survey shall cover 300 feet beyond the impact footprint and up to 500 feet beyond the footprint where sensitive species may occur (e.g., coastal California gnatcatcher off site to the east in Core #3). It no nests are found, construction may proceed. If nests are found, the biologist shall conspicuously mark the 300- or 500-foot buffer so that construction does not encroach into the buffer until the nest is no longer active (i.e., the nestlings fledge, the nest fails, or the nest is abandoned, as determined by the qualifled biologist BIO-17: The following construcfion measures shall be implemented: a. The qualified Project biologist shall review grading plans (e.g., all access routes and staging areas) and monitor construction activities throughout the duration of the Project to ensure that all practicable measures are being employed to avoid incidental disturbance of habitat and any target species of concern outside the Project footprint. b. Construction monitoring reports shall be completed and provided to the City summarizing how the Project is in compliance with applicable condifions. The Project biologist shall be empowered to halt work activity, if necessary, and to confer with City staff to ensure the proper implementation of species and habitat protection measures. c. Any habitat destroyed that is not in the identified Project footprint shall be disclosed immediately to the City, USFWS, and CDFW and shall be compensated at a minimum ratio of 5:1. d. Access to and from the Project shall be located along existing access routes or disturbed areas to the greatest extent possible. All access routes outside of existing roads or construction areas shall be clearly marked. e. Construcfion employees shall limit their activities, vehicles, equipment, and construction materials to the fenced Project footprint. f. Equipment storage, fueling, and staging areas shall be located on disturbed upland sites with minimal risk of direct drainage into riparian areas or other sensitive habitats, and at least 100 feet from WUS. These designated areas shall be located in such a manner as to prevent any runoff from entering sensitive habitat. All necessary precautions shall be taken to prevent the release of cement or other toxic substances into surface waters. All Project-related spills of hazardous materials shall be reported to the City and shall be cleaned up immediately and contaminated soils removed to approved disposal areas. -68-Initial Study College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 g. When stream flows must be diverted, the diversions shall be conducted using sandbags or other methods requiring minimal in-stream impacts. Silt fencing or other sediment trapping materials shall be installed at the downstream end of construction activity to minimize the transport of sediments off site. Settling ponds, where sediment is collected, shall be cleaned out in a manner that prevents the sediment from re-entering the stream. Care shall be exercised when removing silt fences, as feasible, to prevent debris or sediment from returning to the stream. h. Erodible flII material shall not be deposited into water courses. Brush, loose soils, or other similar debris material shall not be stockpiled within the stream channel or on its banks. i. Construction through sensitive areas shall be scheduled to minimize potential impacts to biological resources. Construction adjacent to drainages should occur during periods of minimum flow (i.e., summer through the first significant rain of fall) to avoid excessive sedimentafion and erosion and to avoid impacts to drainage-dependent species. Construction near riparian areas or other sensitive habitats shall also be scheduled to avoid the breeding season (February 15 to September 15) and potenfial impacts to breeding bird species. j. If dead or injured listed species are located, initial notification must be made within three working days, in writing, to the USFWS Division of Law Enforcement in Torrance, California and by telephone and in wrifing to the applicable jurisdiction, Carlsbad Field Office of the USFWS, and CDFW. k. 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 site. I. The City shall have the right to access and inspect any sites of approved projects including any restorafion/enhancement area for compliance with Project approval condifions. The USFWS and CDFW may accompany City representatives during this inspection. BIO-18: Construction-related noise associated with sources including clearing, grading, and construcfion vehicular traffic shall comply with the following measures: a. Construction activities shall be limited during the breeding season (February 15 to September 15) to those that will not produce significant noise impacts (i.e., noise levels greater than 60 dB Leq [decibels, equivalent sound level]) at the edge of habitats of concern. Habitats of concern in this case include those in Agua Hedionda Creek and its tributary. b. Noise levels inside the Conservafion Areas shall not exceed 60 dBA Leq during the period February 15 to September 15. For the least Bell's vireo, specifically, construcfion noise levels at the riparian canopy edge shall be kept below 60 dBA Leq (Measured as Equivalent Sound Level) from 5 a.m. to 11 a.m. during the peak nesting period of March 15 to July 15. Forthe balance ofthe day/season, the noise levels shall not exceed 60 decibels, averaged over a one-hour period on an A-weighted decibel (dBA; i.e., one hour Leq/dBA). Noise levels shall be monitored and monitoring reports shall be provided to the City, USFWS, and CDFW. Noise levels in excess of this threshold shall require written concurrence from USFWS and CDFW and may require addifional minimization/mitigafion measures. -69- Initial Study <^ College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 BIO-19: Lighting in or adjacent to Parcel C (habitat mitigafion site) shall not be used except where essential for roadway, facility use, and safety. If night time construction lights are necessary, all lighting adjacent to natural habitat shall be shielded and/or directed away from habitat. Post-construcfion lighting adjacent to Conservation Areas shall be reduced (low pressure sodium lighfing) and/or shielded. BIO 20: The use of non-native or invasive plant species in landscaping adjacent to proposed Parcel C (i.e., proposed HMP Hardline) is prohibited. Irrigafion runoff shall be prevented from entering into Conservation Areas from adjacent landscaping to reduce nitrogen, pesticides, and excess moisture. Only native or compatible, non-invasive, drought-tolerant plant species shall be used in landscaping, and no species on the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) "Invasive Plant Inventory" list shall be used in landscaping or any erosion control plan. None of the species on the HMP's list of invasive plant species occurring, or potenfially occurring, in the City shall be included in landscaping or erosion control. CULTURAL-1: The following archaeological resource mitigation measures shall be implemented: a. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide written verification that a qualified archaeologist has been retained to implement the monitoring program. The verification shall be presented in a letter from the project archaeologist to the lead agency. b. The qualified archaeologist/historian shall attend the pre-grading meefing with the contractors to explain and coordinate the requirements of the monitoring program. c. During the original cutting of previously undisturbed deposits, the archaeological monitor(s) shall be on-site full-time to perform periodic inspecfions ofthe excavations. The frequency of inspections will depend upon the rate of excavafion, the materials excavated, and the presence and abundance of artifacts and features. d. Isolates and clearly non-significant deposits will be minimally documented in the field and the monitored grading can proceed. e. In the event that previously unidentified cultural resources are discovered, the archaeologist shall have the authority to divert or temporarily halt ground disturbance operation in the area of discovery to allow evaluation of potentially significant cultural resources. The archaeologist shall contact the lead agency at the time of discovery. The archaeologist, in consultafion with the lead agency, shall determine the significance of the discovered resources. The archaeologist, in consultation with the lead agency and the Native American monitor, shall determine the significance of the discovered resources. For significant cultural resources, a Research Design and Data Recovery Program to mitigate impacts shall be prepared by the consulting archaeologist, approved by the lead agency, and carried out using professional archaeological methods. If any human bones are discovered, the county coroner and lead agency shall be contacted. In the event that the remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Most Likely Descendant, as identified by the NAHC, shall be contacted in order to determine proper treatment and disposition of the remains. -70- Initial Study College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 f. Before construction activities are allowed to resume in the affected area, the artifacts shall be recovered and features recorded using professional archaeological methods. The archaeological monitor(s) shall determine the amount of material to be recovered for an adequate artifact sample for analysis. g. All cultural material collected during the grading monitoring program shall be processed and curated according to the current professional repository sfandards. The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title, to an appropriate curafion facility to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curafion. h. A report documenting the field and analysis results and interpreting the artifact and research data within the research context shall be completed and submitted to the safisfacfion of the lead agency prior to the issuance of any building permits. CULTURAL-2: The following cultural resource mitigation measures shall be implemented: a. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the owner/developer shall enter into a pre-excavation agreement with a representative ofthe San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians. Verification shall be documented by a letter from the property owner/developer and the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians to the City of Carlsbad City Planner. The purpose of this agreement will be to establish the requirement of tribal monitoring and to formalize procedures for the treatment of Native American human remains and burial, cerernonial, or cultural items that may be uncovered during any ground disturbance activifies; b. Prior to commencement of grading, the Native American Monitor and/or representative of the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians shall be present at the pre-construction meefing to consult with the grading and excavafion contractors; c. In the event that any cultural resources, concentration of artifacts, or culturally modified soil deposits are discovered within the project area at any time during brushing, grading, and/or construcfion activifies, the archeologist, in coordination with the Native American Monitor, shall be empowered to suspend work in the immediate area of the discovery unfil such time as a data recovery plan can be developed and implemented; d. The discovery of any resource shall be reported to the City of Carlsbad City Planner prior to any evaluation tesfing; and e. If any deposits are evaluated as significant under CEQA, addifional mitigation may be required as recommended by the archeologist, in coordination with the Native American Monitor. Paleo-1: The following paleontological mitigation measures shall be implemented: a. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to carry out an appropriate mitigation program. A qualified paleontologist is defined as an individual with an M.S. or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology who is familiar with paleontology procedures and techniques; -71-Initial Study College Boulevard Mitigafion GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 b. The qualified paleontologist shall be present at the pre-construction meefing to consult with grading and excavation contractors concerning excavation schedules, paleontological fleld techniques, and safety issues; c. A paleontological monitor shall be onsite on a full-time basis during the original cutting of previously undisturbed deposits of high paleontolo|ical resource potential (Pleistocene Terrace Deposits and Santiago Formafion) to inspect exposures for contained fossils. A paleontological monitor is defined as an individual who has experience in the collecfion and salvage of fossil materials. The paleontological monitor should work under the direction of a qualified paleontologist; d. When fossils are discovered the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall recover them. In most cases, this fossil salvage can be completed in a short period of time. However, some fossil specimens (such as a complete large mammal skeleton) may require an extended salvage period. In these instances, the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall be allowed to temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely manner. Because ofthe 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; e. Fossil remains collected during the monitonng and salvage portion of the paleontological mitigation program shall be cleaned, repaired, sorted, and cataloged; f. Prepared fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos, and maps, shall be deposited (as a donation) in a scientific institufion with permanent paleontological collections such as the San Diego Natural History Museum. Donafion ofthe fossils shall be accompanied by financial support for initial specimen storage; and g. A final paleontological monitoring and recovery (if applicable) summary report shall be completed that outlines the results of the mitigation program. This report shall include discussions of the methods used, stratigraphic section(s) exposed, fossils collected, and significance of recovered fossils. GEOLOGY-1: Geological mapping shall be performed by a licensed civil engineer during site grading to alleviate the potential for significant landslides or large slope scale instability. GEOLOGY-2; Preparation of a hydrogeology study and scour analysis shall be performed by a licensed civil engineer prior to grading. If needed, design of scour countermeasures should be developed and implemented during site grading. HAZ MAT-1: Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for the exisfing, vacant, single-family home, an asbestos and lead-based paint survey shall be completed. If asbestos and lead-based paint are found to be present, the materials shall be disposed of by a licensed professional. HAZ MAT-2: The soil proposed to be exported in the material storage area of the hay barn shall be excavated at a depth of approximately one foot and disposed of at an appropriate landfill. -72- Initial Study ^0 College Boulevard Mifigation GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 APPUCANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature -73- Initial Study o r-l I in O I rH OL. PO O Q. (JO O 4 JiL a. •E > ro o 1 u 01 rM 00 O o u < z UJ o cc a. < a. d z oe UJ CO Z Z g I- _j O LO < a _i o O. O. < •a cu 01 01 ro OJ tf) L. O tf) E: o c 01 ;g 01 +-> ro ao !?„ 01 0 Z> +J .— —> i- 4-» -—' f IS •— QJ = 01 .= >. 2 "2 I 'si 3 tf) tf) <r ro ^ i_ O) o vg £ •75 = " > .2 2 m S < ^ > o > tf) ro j3 C Ql .2 >- 0) E 5 U 01 O t3 .E Cl •g :^ o " Q. -O i: 01 3 00 c _Q1 Q. £ o o < OJ QJ Q, ro 2 QJ .y c op O tf) ro DO E % 01 ro — c o £ tf) u 01 sz •a c ro •a" OJ c OJ £ QJ Q- £ o c QJ £ c o 11 (U — 00 fo .£ ^ 1 ^ 1 § T3 C ro tf) •D 01 OJ "Q. U3 £ 0) £- ^ .2 > tf) U c ro 01 01 .c: LO s)|jeuiati uo|}e)U3uia|dui) paiiUBA sueid uo umoqs I ti g tf) O ro I ^ 00 tf. '-^ s >- O S Q. tuauipedaa 3u!JOi!U0)/\) adAx 3u!J0}!U0)M /Suiuiii LU OC 3 LO <t LU QJ C 1-ro 01 3 CL o ^ O 00 Q. O Q .01 c ro £ :2 ro ro °- 01 m O £= »- OJ Q ro 1 ^ TI ro 15 O .Q ro I- Sl •2 -s ro ~ 2 .1, c JC ro 00 'C 3 ro o QL .c *c: 4-> r-j an prj etI M- o g ro I— o ro ro icre T3 icre ate ro .SP 4-> E rM 01 C5 S3 "ro x: o tf) +-I tf) ro +.» tf) !Q tJ ro ro x: Q. tf) £ QJ 'E 3 U £ (1> i_ £ Q CO ro ^ 0) 01 LJ c ^ 01 01 o ro tf) D. 5 "a ro (u 0) u oo (u •g .E ro ^ E U S3 c ro ro j= ro fM c 01 o O 4-1 — 4-* tf) ea ha ro tf) OJ 4-, — ro c 4-J < OJ "oj" hm ha 4-* tf) c •|7) ro UO! ro 4-» tf) par ro 01 tig 01 nd i tat itia NS m we /EC hhi on-sz 00 c 4-» 3 3 O o O OJ LO SZ-OJ 4-1 (J 4-" ro rM rH ort me OSS ro rM rH z OJ 4-> c> i-. 01 OJ c O 4-> c 4-' c ro o tf) 01 .c c: 4-* u tf) u u tf) c ro tz tria Z 4-' M-inta ILU! ues o 01 t— ma reet o-o • — LU ro 4-J trt 01 00 ro a. > b tu c '5b C 4-' O 01 4-1 > ro 14- £ o QJ tf) tf) 01 QJ L. Q. ro OJ -P o o tt-o QJ o 4-" g u 01 ro UO! ro k. rM UO! £ u ro •H 4-* ro OJ c5 01 res rM east c. u Q. CJ east c 01 +^ 4- o Atl mei 'ui 1 t— c oj tf) O fio Sit abl ra uo; 4-" .c 00 OJ t— uo; es 3 u *-> ra 0) thro enf itigi k- 4-" ro E 4-> r-j sz tf) {/) ab (N z JC (N ro o LU .c M— 4-» OJ 00 O tf) OJ 3 01 Sl o o 1 QJ nt hn 4-' +-» ro u. T3 ith •4-» tfi tf) ro an 5 £ _g ro 4-* 01 4-* ro 01 0) 4-> 4-* 4-' J3 c ro 73 men habi hall 1 no QJ 01 tf) k- 4-1 ro o c lam tf) 'fC 4-* 00 ro lam jc c miti enh wet 4-' M— o mai o CQ ii c S c .2 E o .12 Q. .2 o •> Q j; -Q .£ Q C = ii ™ m 3 O. _l CO Z p T3 -a c ra •a _aj i-s c - 0) .-HI till E 1 o £ e 3 -D-1 ™ c <u " E c o c -^^ o -~ E o M— -2 o I o o ra a, g- 1/) 01 tU) c 1/1 o 01 ro ra u_ So s>)jeuiai) uo!;e)uauia)dui) paUIJaA suejd uo UMoqs c ^ OJ .2 tf) 'o" ID OL -S* c 01 c "I iS luauqjedaa 3ujjo)!UO)/v adAi 3uuo;!uo)A) /Sujuiu. < g It3 5 = ° S .2 •h; 4-1 O ro > O S Q- 01 •£ C i- ro 01 3 Q- 00 c T3 ro tf) 00 ro c g +-< T3 tf) Q. O U QJ 01 C 00 c Q) E .ro Si '-2 t; rop > 01 S3 -D rH o o ro t3 4-1 c ro ro .t; .Q ro o a. — E J: J2 *l tf) > 4-1 > o ro 00 ro Sl tf) ro £ 01 ro t-l 01 — i_ Q. S3 ro c o 00 5 ro JC LO o z = 01 L. -Q ro ro DO •-P ja V= ro QJ OJ ro ro 00 CD rH 01 d ^ 75 O "5 +- tf) 4-1 ro tJ ro ro Q-E .3J — m. 'E 3 t3 E - i 5 8 ro C 4-> Ql 01 ro M— .c o c 01 01 u ro Ql M- —:. XI Si 2 Cn S § a? ro Q. C I 2 S > c o 01 tf) c Si g ro 01 i_ u QJ "^5- tf) QJ i E 0 Sl 01 .!S 4-1 tf) - - 4-, o ro Q. .a ro in z U 00 01 UJ 3 ^ r 2 QJ JC . ._: 4-> tf) •—• tf) u -2 £ g CD 01 QJ S3 -a = QJ ro tf) sz O tf) O) Q-5 E .= O 5 -g c « .2 5 c g a; M-E o 01 01 •p. b E ro •— rM QJ rH ^ d .E O UD 3 tf) 2 " h ro £ Q. •a c 01 — .— 4.1 •4- O 4-1 1- ro '/^ tf) LJ xi ro -C OJ 00 ^ 3 " O +3- ^ s £ O tf) 01 O 01 4-1 ro _ V- -a c ro ro ro c 01 Si S ro c 00 ro •+3 JC E S x: 00 O 3 LU O 1_ ^ Sl 01 4-1 ~, 4-1 01 - ^ QJ 01 U X3 ro = T3 01 S2 O 4-1 °- H- 2 o Q. rH S L.) ' g ro O 4-' CL ro g CO ^ 01 £ tf) 01 OJ 4-1 -TT x: ro 2- Wl ro Ql O 4-1 ^ ro x: •£ c op C O 3 o .y i — QJ ro tc •5 5 c = Q §^2 4-1 Ql ro tf) QJ o 4-.1 C Sl 01 .-t: £ 5 c o ro 00 01 .52 Q. £ i5 01 01 tf) > x: QJ o h- (M I g CO 01 c u E c l-ro 01 3 o. ,2 ^ o ^ r 2 o 00 - M- Q. O 01 C LO XJ O Z _ U — ro LU ro QJ -C „\ tf) u 01 •° c = 1 2 tf) .iO ro ro ^ Ul ro O u -a 01 •L 3 U U o c 3 ro .Q 43 •h" 3 tf) i_ 01 LJ 1 tf) 01 00 *i _ c ro o QJ tf) tf) o Q. o Q. c tf) x: ^ ro 00 o 3 3 " P h 01 00 ro (M tfl tf) O •2 1:; ro 01 ro Sl u o ro CQ tf) ro O o +-o tf) ro QJ +j o c ro L_ ro 4_, tf) op 4-; J3 3 -o U h o> ro y 4-1 rvi -1=1 OJ .^[x So -ti to ro c tf) c O CO I g ca 01 c g I ro OJ 3 Q. 00 c O 00 — ^4- Q. O o -o (T) 4-1 ^ ro c ro ro 'u o •2 ro ro 1§ - _ro T3 tfl C 4-1 tf) ro £ -D 00 ^ ro 01 > > c 01 E >• ro Q. x: 00 3 o _0) 3 c ° 5 01 2 00 C 01 o o QJ ^ PO "3 ^ OJ U tf) ro ro tf) 01 L-o ro If) d o o QJ "S 01 ro £: op Ll 4^ ro ^ d Q. E OJ 00 b d I g 00 " 0) u tSi •Q3 3 O QJ ^ ro !Z Q. .E IN »4-o IM 01 DO ro a. E ro DO O DD C o a. 01 ce •a c ro DO c o ro DO c o .2 ^ ro 3 00 •43 to " o ro A > 5^ QJ rH 3 Q-O 3 DQ LO OJ ^ a. Q X rM" O s>)jeuiai) u6|^e)uauia|dui) paijMSA suejd uo umoqs luauiijedaa Suijoijuot/M o rH U M CM"" O rH < adAi 3u!JO^!uov\) UJ 3 LO 01 Q. DO C T3 ro 00 = 00 Ql ttS C .0 Sl ^ "2 . ro 3 « 2 - IS Qj 1 ^ .gj 'tf) ~^ ro .E 2 c < ro 1- 14- 01 o QJ . ' E u .E oj OJ OJ u -5 C ro M-ro Q. O QJ 5 .E OJ .2 •fc « 4-1 4.1 O ro ro Q- x: - £ > 1= ra QJ P s 0 >-tf) ro QJ Q. u OJ ro Sl cn PO x: ID °l •^J .c tf) 4J -D ro 01 c ™ E op it: 01 c: .h QJ Q .0 m g CQ •o 2 .9 gjQ.ro tf) c •4-1 ro -£ o -o >- C i_ o '01 ro ^ tf) 3 £ EQ Qj S}, Q. §? 00 = c o S u J2 3 01 tf) 3 QJ J2 OQ tf) n CD tf) QJ u ro 01 ro LO 0) LO 00 00 OJ .E £ ro ro £ 1- oe T3 ra > OJ tf) ro •a c _ro -a o O ro tf) 01 .ii ro 4-1 o — 00 c o .. = OJ O 01 3 m 3 5 C 01 1— u ro <J3 d X 2 re op Q. < •a c _ro LO •D o tfl |1 > ro 3 -D Q- J3 >• 1— ro = u 3 tf) LU O (JJ 01 tfl Ql ,2 Q. O DO 4-1 C Q. DO >. 01 ro tf) c _ro Q. C o LO LO 13 QJ QJ .— Si 4-1 x: 01 u C OJ u ro Q. o OJ c 4-1 C. C 3 u c o u £ ^ Q- tf) 00 "c .E ro ro 01 DO ^ ro "ro <*- .E o >*- (U ro u o (U = -E tf) 0) .a Q. o 00 4-1 C •si a. 00 tf) 01 4-1 ro 5 H OJ L. ^ 01 01 ^ ro ro .- ^ o "o r. OJ x: tf) T3 ro Ql QJ .5 ^ ro £ > ro S ro ° ^ .2 S OJ 7^ ^ c 3 ro ° jz; Lu Z t3 U "a S c -Q ro E ^ tf) ro OJ "O 01 c 4-1 iS LO E T3 O c > ro "TO E £ c .ro 2 o m • x: 01 ^ u x: ro IE t! 0) i- C 4-1 ro ro ro o 4-1 ^ ^ E 01 4-1. ro 4-1 LO 2 QJ DO tf) C ~ O O 4j O X3 'L. ro a. Sl (O >-.a T3 > o I— Q. a. ro *— 01 £. u. LU (_1 U •O (/) 5 ro ro Q, rH U .i= O T3 .P" ro -1^ ro 00 ^ 3 ro ro ^ O ^ I— g S i. re c Q § ro <-> r S 01 ro E DO 4-1 0 01 o £ oc +5 4-1 QJ C Sl 01 4-1 QJ 2 01 o ro 4-1 B ^. U QJ S J= Q. 4-> S o I g OQ 00 _ 1.2-o H ° •4:: i3 OJ ro iC S3 ro >- c ro ro 4-1 ro ^ QJ t: "T;; 4J in ro .= QJ < U tf) 00 c «M o PO 01 DO ro a. DO O a. DO c o Q. 01 CC •o c ro 00 c c o c o 6 o rH I ro DO ' ' fc. o ro JL 01 rH 3 O. O Z) CQ 1/1 01 §f 9 Q X PN? o PM O < Q. sjjjeuiau uoi)e}Uauiajduj) paUuaA sueid uo umoqs ;uauiviedaa 3u|jo}!ub)/y adAx 3u!J0)!U0)/4 UJ C£. 3 LO < LU z g (9 01 = -E oo .2 I Q. OO >- O) c x: ro QJ ro O c c o o --P DO c OJ ro ro QJ — tf) " 4-OJ c .c ro Q. . £2. -o < ro OJ c ro •— k_ 1- 3 01 4-1 i S ro i_ QJ ro o 4-1 4-1 u ° « 01 tr ro >- Q. tf) •a o x: 01 £ ro S3 u 01 £ tt ^ 01 .— Q. 00 c ro ro c 2 ^ D. o ro .c o 4-1 4_, QJ tt DO QJ ro ¥| tf) c C 01 01 >- 4-1 D. .t; "5 LO e-1 SL S. § o o C ^ tf) - £ > .2 01 01 c 01 £ 0) 00 ro c 01 ro 4-1 C O >4- ^ ° O tf) 4-1 tf) < " DO OJ C JC ro il ^ O -Q c ro 2 £ OJ U ro Q. tf) c QJ •L O Q. ro 0) o o ro u 01 ro Z3 X Lrt .« 4-1 .a « oo s-™ QJ ro 5: OJ QJ LJ ^ I ro > 3 tf) 01 u) -t; 51 +^ o O 4-1 O X3 'C ro ex. x: tf) (/) *j ro Sl tf) tt ^ I 2 u tf) — C 01 .2 2 ao "o c O) .- tf) 5 2 :2 g- 2 ^ tf) >c U o OJ '+J x: ro tf) c o ro u ^ V m 01 tf) c o o tf) 01 I! !^? tt - +-• >•• 01 01 o *^ Sl 01 O M- ro o c C 01 QJ p §•1 •a c ro c ro QJ 01 LO O Q. _gj .Q OJ ro .-1-4-1 01 ro Q. tf) Q- 01 C 01 u o >- u uD.ro ro h Q-3 O" ,- ^= 2 p ^ .g 5 *^ c 00 -C 01 C 4-' "1 ° 01 o c ^ (-1 ^ 01 •g 1 .1 Q. c ro < 01 E JI .ro 4-1 o c ro o c tf) 01 ra ro o 4— ~ cm o c .-ti Ql c = P .2 ^ ro £ ^ 01 U) QJ > O 4-1 c ro c QJ > O u 01 > tf) QJ CC tti f~ tv ro ~ ro •° 8 1 euro ro ro X •5 5 ?i P 01 _ro Q. 01 4-1 .c c 01 1 o ro T3 c OJ ro c o u •o c c OJ £ 01 00 c 01 £ o tf) ro c CQ 01 ro ro ° P 4-' c OJ 1- .!= O c 01 £ QJ tf) ro LU c o ro £ 3 QJ 4-1 tfl 01 C Q. O U 01 k- 3 tf) >. C -ii QJ — QJ 1 t Q. |2 ^ 4-1 O ro <1J Q- ro Q. 4_i tf) C c OJ 01 £ s- 01 o 00 01 ro JZ ro 5 O 00 c •E OJ c 'u P Q. tf) QJ Q. ro •- "2 2 8 .2 cc -a c ro 01 QJ E OJ 2 ro ro tf) ro c o S. cr ^ 2 -S 4-1 Q- ro CO I g CQ PO Psi 4- o 01 DO ro E ro DO O 00 c o CL 01 CC T3 c ro DO c c o c o ro c o .2 ro 3 DO " •43 LO "O "1 vl O ro A > 3 01 rH "3 CL O 13 CO LO 01 =5 3 ^ Q. Q X rvT O I rH U M tM O ss|jeuia}i uoi;e)U3Uia|dui) pa»|jaA suejd UCI umoqs luauivedaa Sujjoi!uo)/\) adAi 3uuot!UO)/u < a. 15 00 c o DO I c O £• ro 3 c ro UJ CC LO < < tf) 1-4-> 01 tfl S g E 1- 01 B ^ Q. OJ ro LO L- '—- 01 c > o ^ tf) u ro ro QJ >. = 00 ro c '•g ''° B 2 01 tf) 4-1 <4- o o g. OJ g ° 2 -g o > > o O 01 01 ro XI ^ 4-- g PO ^ tf) ^ 2 ^ o < o . ro +j 4-1 S: 01 ja tf) 01 0= L- —^ ro OJ ^ .E ro £ E QJ QJ ro 3 o-ro >- -Q = .l O C 4-1 .— °- £ ro 01 4-1 u QJ •° c -a tf) o tf) .ti ro tf) .E u .2 "3 01 0 01 .£5 01 QJ S-.^ ro 0) C "E L- OJ 4-1 OJ •a 01 C OJ 0 ? ro OJ U "O •a u OJ c o ^ OJ •— 1 2 E QJ _ T3 -a OJ .E I 2J o r: =: tfl ro ro ro OJ 3 -° tt o = :^ ro o l.i' OJ "D •p ro W) DO C O Q. 5g O. LU Ql E U 1- ro Q. 3 hO tf) c tf) ._ ~ -a O (o 4-1 lr t_ ClO .2 QJ 00 OJ tf) •D 01 i_ 01 > o o _ g +-1 >- X3 > "a •43 QJ u ~ ro OJ 01 tf) >-•5. QJ DO > 2 .E I ro 3 12 -2 73 QJ M_ 0) o > i; 00 « C C!. '-J 01 ro PO v. i- ra OJ -— tf) -a c 3 o C g tt 3 k- 4-J tf) c o u ra 3 cr c 01 T3 C 01 C3. QJ T5 _C 01 ro > o E 2 % 01 4-1 •= 5^ 4-1 ro •o OJ I- ro .B a= J.2 tf) 01 tt OJ OJ C 1= tf) 00 00 •a 01 6 CQ 01 S3 01 4-1 Q. X3 ro •-' 3 22 cr ro 01 tf) ~ tf) ^ •§ ro "O E-r ro — Si u ro 5 01 3 tf) c = m . £r ro O 3 ™ g? 3 w 00 ni 2 c ro i_ •ti 0 .2 o ro 4-1 (— 4-1 o •= P 3 -= ~ -p = - OJ .E OJ i: 4-1 S3 ro Sl tfl tf) OJ tf) "00 QJ 01 3 tf) ro 01 c o o 01 S3 ^ ro 2 .p tf) o 3 01 £ -f^ fc tf) •a. OJ tf) tf) OJ tf) •a c ro tf) 01 01 Ll tf) "O 01 T3 OJ > +-1 o 01 i— k_ o u "ro _c 'ra c o 'in O w 01 tf) OJ 1_ 3 tf) ro 01 i: DO QJ ^ C c QJ -r E 01 c o u c o 'tf) o tf) tfl OJ o u 3 tf) 01 1_ ro tf) t; QJ c o o 2 s, i •53 2 g ™ = > ? ro ro OJ QJ c S -c -a "3 c (_) tf) > ro OJ JC M— o tf) E Ql _ -C U 4-1 4-1 LO c .QJ QJ J3- OJ 5 E ro .op "4-1 E 01 g CQ fO PM 4— o in 01 DO E ro \— DO O 00 c o Q-01 cc 00 c c o c o ro 00 c o .2 ^ ro 3 00 •4= -o (^ c. o ro A > 3 01 rH 3 CL O 3 CQ LO Q' ^ c^ Q X pvT o sijjeuiaii uo!)e)uauia|dui) paiijjaA suejd uo umoqs luauiuedaa 3ujjo}!U0|/y) O M r\l O < C3L L3 adAx 3u\ioi\uovi CC Z> «/) <£ UJ 5 l.l' 01 -a "3 ro 00 c c ro O Q. 3g a. LU 01 = -E tf) 01 ,!2 Q. O 00 +•' c .2 1 OJ 01 C S3 c 0 01 •43 " ro E g = £ o 01 4-1 12 .= 4-1 tfl .5 u B S C 4-1 c < o Q3 B 2 5 ro ro CL -c OJ 01 3 ^ C OJ u ro i: ^ tf) ro tfl "D QJ c u ro 8 ro .E c - ro = QJ (11 ro u SJ 'C '-5 C. ti 0) 01 01 3 T3 •a c ro 2: ro T3 -D 01 c tf) ro I- 01 Q- > C 01 Q; .C C 4-1 4-1 O 01 ^ -O OJ 01 -g "2 g c ro P Ql •= Qi §i Q. B 5 01 ^ . J3 Q. •> O k. Q. Si, oj 01 01 ™ C 4J tf) 01 i £ t: o 3= OJ c g •+j ro 00 QJ u 1 2 C Ci. QJ "O ^ IS P QJ ro Ll c 01 £ -S 01 ^ •T3 c ro ^ QJ •^ QJ > "D OJ ro sz o •^^ V o ° ^ 00 ro ra u cib o u OJ c ra ro 01 ra QJ sz 2 ^ 1 fc fc ra "3 0) P tt t; ro £ 01 c o U T3 ro 4.. = tt 0) ro > OJ QJ .Q Q. = ro £ .E ro >-4-5 t^ !<1 c QJ r-, QJ Q- 4-1 ro Ll tf) .2 3 ro DO H c o tt c o u O .ii U JC2 C tfi E 2 a. .op O tf) X5 LO 1 ° ro Q. LO T3 C ra 'tf) 1" S .V: g CO CO IN H- o VD 01 00 ro a. I a .1 -Oro i .SP 4-1 01 c: ^ Q. LU 01 = -E g i u) 01 !2 Q. O 00 4-1 c Q. 00 01 01 S3 Sl -2 SS £ fe QJ c tf) p ro c DO o 'E ro c: DO -D .h g •g g- 2 = ab ro § = o -2 ro a « ±i- ro ro .2 QJ £ ro o 01 p C QJ QJ c 0 ro 01 p 00 (-> 2 -o QJ E > ro o X u .- TJ ro o. ra ro Q> £ ^ c o 1.1 ^% tt g =5 tfl o c ro 01 4-1 _ro 3 E 01 o OJ 01 .£3 •a c 3 p ro c -o 01 ro 01 01 J= 01 01 T3 01 •o ro 01 5 >^ 01 2 5 O .C °- tt E o X2 QJ _ E < ic _ 00 tf) •a w 3 ™ g ^ tf) E ro I— -r-. 4-1 01 £ > o E QJ QJ tf) C QJ ol :o .C > O JC 1- 4-1 Q. O X} ro fc t: 4-4 I— 4-* x: — ro ro •a _oi h rt "TO Ol 4-1 tf) c ™ P tf) c OJ ro 4-1 oo ^'E tf) .— 01 1 ^ C OJ — 4-1 = ra s I E i 01 o 4-1 4-1 tfT QJ 01 Z Sl ll H £2. c 01 > QJ E 01 4-1 tf) >• •i > ro OJ u OJ Q. tf) c _g '4-1 2 o 4-1 tf) O) fM 6 CO E ro k_ DO o k. Q. DO C o C2-01 CC 73 C ro DO c c o c o ro DO c o .2 ^ ro S -a ^ il o ro _i. > 2 01 rH o 3 OQ LO QJ g?9 =5 3 ^ Q. Q X pvT o >* rH s>|jeuiaa: uoi^etuauiajdui) paUIJaA suejd uo umoqs Tuauiviedaa 3u|JO}!uoj/v CD 4 U Nl PM O < L3 adAx 3u!J0)|uo|/\) 5 4- c ° S .2 tf) O ro i c ffi c I JS > O ^ Q- I 00 c 'o DO C o o a: •n -B <J JS, ro ii" LO UJ cc 3 < g ro c ro ra c o u 01 •a c _ro 4-1 01 5 QJ ro O .c x: •^ tf) 01 = - s u tfl ro 01 01 < .c oo 4-1 01 £ 1 = P u JS kt Q. •o .g c •S _ .5P 0, >< .ti 2 2 ro-g I ro u 5 ro 01 ro DO ^ ro ^ 4-" X tf) ra o c OJ .a .5^ 01 U 4-1 o .c c ro QJ QJ _ ^ 2 £ iS u o Q- kfc ^ -S -a ro = ^ 4-1 O ™ -o tt .>< (5i 2 T5 C —. 01 ro CQ 01 4-1 _ tf) 01 c 01 > 'tf) .c 2. ro H OQ Qj °° X. = -a ro 01 ao ro c " 2 C J3 ^ 3 O tf) >< £ a < -o 01 ^ OJ 01 00 OJ tf> c o .2 E .— — ro s ^ < tf) E u ro ro 01 tf) QJ 4^ 01 oc 4-1 c Q^ .E T3 •° P 2 ^ ^ .!2 °- c " -2 4-1 C 3 OJ J2 > 01 4-1 QJ ^ T3 S ro ro 4-1 ro 01 01 5 fe 00 u .2 S- fe 4-1 !i a o s ^ = CQ tfl ^ g >• ao h o = £ tf) o Xi -= 01 01 c IA 01 o > •fe ^ >• c x: ro -g o c c ™ tf) . QJ -g 2 |. ro -a ^ QJ tf) tf) "O 3 OJ n Q^ c -a — >- "S 2 tt QJ ^1 01 c c o u QJ x: c o LO z u OJ >~ X5 ja T3 QJ > P tt c o u 01 S3 ro 01 k-ro >-c ro ro .E £ -D 01 00 tt .E 3 -D -3 01 C 01 o tf) u g" 8 1 s. ni ^ a. Q. ro •3 c ro •3 QJ tt QJ ca. tf) c OJ T3 .c c •^•' ro 4-1 ra ...r JC ^ fc OJ 2 ^ 3 .2 tf> -^t O 01 4-1 1- -3 I "ro "3 4-1 0) tf) ll C 01 QJ QJ Jr. ro ^ E "g .g ro tf) § S = "g tf) ro XJ U 4-1 O 01 'tt -i^ > tf) >- '—• C QJ — 00 c 'tf) 'ro 01 tf) •s c ro tf) 01 j= 4-1 OJ 01 tfl 5 01 _g o 10 ^ ro 4- £ = P I J= "3 .2 OJ O- 3 = S 0 O) 4-1 J3 ro = 01 ro ro QJ o = ro OJ O L) o •—• .c o S tf) tt 4-1 4-1 ra P 4-1 tf) OJ c Q? 5 xi o 12 Q. > O tf) i-ro Q. E o QJ u, -Q 01 'D . QJ ^ o- 0 tf) -•g 4-1 _K ro ro oT *L) INl 01 'tn ^ k.^ •2 -g tt = 2 = o = ^ tt 2 ^ .g o 4-1 L) _QJ X) ro = o on <-> C 01 I - . x: 00 01 E "P lu _ ca. c. •3 ca. k. .p tf) 01 -1- 01 OJ ro 5 lis iS w p O- OJ 4= QJ .... ^ ro T3 •fc •K QJ ^ tf) > ro "c: c Q' .E -3 ro 4-1 U ro 0) u 'o" 1— "E a. mi •—1 CO 0 c 4-1 asi as OQ >» pu wa ro ro ro ro < Sl Sl u L) 3 ro to —Re _C •0 •3 OJ i_ 4-1 ro c > ro QJ Q. 3 O 0) CO xa OJ = DO ra 01 JC tf) Co d. ck OJ ro 0 OJ 4-1 .c Q. tf) 4-1 c i_ E o Ol '^ c ro .op 'ro Ll '4-1 c O 4-J LO 2 Co ro 'o QJ ca. c _g "4-1 2 o 4-1 tf) 01 00 c .2 •tf) c o a. tfl 01 c o u •3 c ro ro 01 k-ro i2 c tf) 2 :r -ti "2 ob 01 ob S3 E "43 zz c ro ro .c tf) CL tf) 1- —• p ro 4-1 u B tra CO c c 0 g u '+-1 ro c u .g P '4-1 _ro 01 JC "ro 4-1 4-1 SU! u QJ QJ QJ Q. Sl tf) \- •a £• - •5 2 X3 ca. DO ro c 5 -2 ^ I -S QJ C J3 ro fe = Q- O ro o tf) QJ 'tf) C P fc X! tt 0) DO Si ro 4-1 -3 tf) OJ 2 -g 01 5 O ro O 4-1 > U tf) > PO rH I g CO sifjeuiau U0!}E)u3UiajdUij paiiuaA suejd-uo umoqs luauqjedaa Su|joi)uo)/v ^.1 O ro k- 00 CL •— c 4-1 iz adAx 3ui.jo)!UOj/u CC 3 LO <t LU < (9 DO c o 00 c O Ul 01 'u ro OJ c o 01 -a DO c OJ ro ro •3 4-1 tf) ca. C take ro 01 take wet mth — OJ o ro JC t— Sl 4-1 tf) xa tto ived 3 t— U en er tf) u 01 00 idja be ro ro -~ tf) OJ ro -M x: "ro LO tf) 4-1 tf) C X oa g 'E u 4-1 ro •3 1-op 01 £ •+4 01 tf) 00 tive _E LO tive XI z ro 01 u c 01 tf) TD IC/E The C 01 . ro u ro ca. ro OJ 1. Z) Q. ro 4-' C o ~ E 2 2 ro fc 00 01 S3 ro Sl tfl T3 01 OJ tf) 01 XI tj OJ OJ QJ LO g S3 a. 3 U CO (/) QJ .E DO tf) ro ro LO 00 B -a tf) c ro ro 3 < ro LJ op ro gj 01 IT ^ > .Q QJ .E 00 •3 OJ L) 1-3 o tf) x: •3 01 4-1 c _ro ob °- C 01 '•B QJ = 01 ro tf) Sl -a c 5 o 01 tt 5 fe .g .E 4-1 ro £1 01 <-> > xa ~ 3 k- u o xa ra •3 01 jQ OJ DO ra tf) u — tf) ro QJ •3 tf) ro "tfT T3 01 "tfT c -C 01 ro 4-< ourc wetl Aq hes the ved 4-1 0 •3 JC 1-e, an 4-1 Q. e, an wi ap e, an < pu •tf) tf) ro o •3 "3 01 4-1 ca. 01 "3 01 4-1 tfl •3 "3 01 4-1 ro •> u OJ 0 pe 4-1 1.. pe 'l/l ca. tfl c c 01 — _g S3 01 '^J ro zzz xa .op ha — •4-1 tf) !M !M 00 u 1—, z Ll 4-1 ro u tf) -if LU 1--if 01 u (J E 0 "oi 'fO tf) ro ro u Sl £ tf) !LU list 0 ro 4-1 'u tf) ro spe ro c tio ro ro ro Sl P •UO! sucl rest 4-1 _ro E OJ tai -a Th tf) 01 c 4-1 c DO E '^ c JZ ca. -tfi -° tf) c o Q. tf) 01 XJ c = .E ra ro „ 4-1 ro c 01 o i= (_> ro •3 5:. QJ £^ tt % B ^ 2 ca. o JS c 4-- CL o '43 O 01 •C J2 o Q-_ -c •tt ro 'tt "ro tf) •o 2 ^ o- tt o ro ro Z ro •3 01 T3 01 01 01 tf) QJ x: o = ro ro O i;^ "o 01 D QJ ca. o -n IA U tt 01 • g- c — ro o iS ^ t5 § tt OJ ,P ro k- LJ C C .2 0, H .E • 01 W) S3 — c ro ro -c: •5. i_ "ro 2 £ 2 ^ 4-1 tf) c 5 o 2 <-> '™ S o o o -4= — ro 0) = -C ro 4-1 4-1 ^ .E 'o QJ OJ o- lE tf) I— 00 ro c •5 -2 O -3 3 .0 _C 'sz c JS ca. O ra Sl tf) 01 +^ "10 c o ra fc "o tt 01 00 g ^-g 1 g ^ 5 p ro O 4-1 U tf) g CQ ro pg ^- O 00 01 DO ro a. E ro k. DO O k_ a. 00 c o ca. 01 cc -a c ro DO c c o c o ro DO c o .2 ro 3 00 " •fl LO T3 il! k- o ro A. > 3 0) rH "5 a. O ZD CQ LO QJ i^t §?9 Q X p<r o s>|jeuiaii uo!;e}uaui3|dui| paj^jJBA suejd UO umoqs juauoiedaa Suijotjudn rH U M PM" O 1 rH < Q. <tj adAx SuiJo^jUOjA) 1^ c 0 o "1 01 fc 01 tt ^ § LD h 01 •J' LD (- 4-1 _ 5 5 ro 01 k- QJ X xa 00 c ^ -g 01 u JS ra ro tt S =: ^ - ro £ r> l/l ^ cc 3 LO < < CD LO LO rH I g CQ tf) ,- 2 !S U QJ QJ c ca. c tfl U) p ro .E o c .Q "5 XI ^ o ro o i I. tf) u ro QJ 2 QJ ca. S3 a. _ ro ro tf) _gj tf) •D.£ x: DO 'QJ O -3 rH C M_ ro 2 2 B S. ro 2 tf)- °- .2 OJ OJ Q. zz tf) ro 1- Sl O u) l/l L> o 01 0) xa 01 C 01 QJ g .Q J3 .|=S 1 -3 .t; c caL JS ca. .c 3 u = fc .2 10 3 1- — ^ C •3 s; 01 ro 5 XJ ^ ? ro ro 0) i_ ro c o Is 2 CL kL_ tf) o Qj 01 o 01 C X OJ . tf) ro 00 j= tf) ±i 01 5 OJ XJ c _ ro 01 fe| OJ E 'E .iS S X3 00 C P Z -o T3 01 .D QJ QJ £ +J QJ 00 *~ CA — r- ro oo QJ ^ tf) Xi ro c 01 D. 3 3 O tf) ^ -E o .5? 01 J^ tf) 4-1 4-1 fc ^ .... • = r-. 01 'o _ O re tf) E ra" 2^ 01 ro ra •= c > .2^ ™ I 00 ,> 5 fM 0 -3 » c "O ro 01 i_ 4-1 O) ro 4^ QJ 01 V E •3 .2 C T3 ro r- - 4-1 01 £ QJ £ ll^ tt 'O tfl 3 nj -C CL o DO -=r 3 3 01 O -C 01 .E O QJ fc H J2 o ro O 01 00 -3 3 QJ 2 ^ JC 01 X3 01 k- ^ 01 -O p 01 ro ro tf) tf) ro .ti 4-1 4-1 tf) tf) C 01 -A .ra T3 c 3 O 00 '5. t: •o g ro 9- tf) 3 ID <4- ° 2 ro tt ro fc 01 < ro T o XI c 91 ro .2 4-1 ca. ro OJ c 01 •a -3 Q! S fM >• E QJ Z, 4-1 ro P -= E ~ 'x 2 -3 OL 01 ca. _ ro (4— PO IM 4-o O) 01 DO ro Q. E ro k_ 00 o k. a. DO C •4-1 k. o ca. 0) a: T3 c ro DO c c o c o •4-1 ro QO c o .2 ^ ro 3 DO ^ •i^ LO "O K ro 01 r-H 3 Q- O 3 CO LO QJ g?9 ^ Q. Q X PM" o t <* rH rH O s>|jeiuaii uo!)e;uauia|dvu| paiilJ^A suejd uo umoqs ^uamviedaa SuijotjuojAi U Nl fM O < CL adAx 3u!J0)!U0j/\) cc 3 LO < LU z g c o ? 4-- 0 " g 01 tf) o 75 1 i .SP tf) _ .-ti 0) c DO c '5 DO I C O 0) k-3 tf) C 01 o 4-* •3 01 E 4-1 OJ S3 15 Sl tf) ^ tf) 4-1 ra c -a o, c tfl ro ro Qj M .= -D •3 3 QJ >-OJ DO k- ^ S3 DO 3 O JC -Q ro •3 01 4-1 o 3 73 C o u OJ S3 4-1 o c c ro u ro c 4-1 o QJ 'o" 1- 01 c c o Ul k. 01 ca. 4-1 re y_ 01 0 "U ti ro ro u •ti 't 'c 'u .— 01 01 Q. sz LO 4-1 o -~ 4-1 LO l_ rH 2 1-1- Ol ca. S3 •3 £ OJ QJ > •K E §• 1- o lo LO ro .-t; >. jca • ro Q. -3 1 s 1_ 4-1 o ra H= x: c " 2 -o m QJ ro 43 QJ tt tf) ro 00 QJ .E -fe •o 4 01 5 2 -2 -o "53 01 >" JZ 4-1 O W) QJ •c •> •g "3 o) « CO Jo t? J: ro 0 QJ 1- o. ^ QJ -Q 01 ro tf) x: QJ tf) -o 1 ^ O LO fe £ _ T3 01 QJ 1- 1- 4-1 S3 ro 01 O) > o u 5 "g :2 ro 01 < >- H CO -g 2 *^ 1- 01 B o 2 "g =• re O OJ — S ro IS 2 "S 0 ro 1 *^ > 01 4-1 4-1 5 1-" •- QJ -£ O U fe- g. -C o I- § . tf) -Si = .g ^ z tfl 'fe fe ca. X5 o Jz u 5 .2 01 L) ro c .i: ro .ca tf) OJ 'u 01 _ •B o o PO tfl 2 'o OJ ca. tf) tfl •3 ^ Q' E tt •3 01 O v> QJ " L) ro 01 B 01 01 73 DO •— QJ 4_, > 3 73 O C ro "o Q. 01 J u "o -5 •= ^ ro c c o ro 73 -3 c OJ ro tt 73 .- C O U 00 . c ro 01 (5 Q' .1^ OJ > H= ro o o o c tn 4-1 1- ro o •£ O O ro o 2-tf) xa 4-1 00 u c ^ tt 1 3 re = " "2 u ^ c OJ o 1- ca. 01 k-re tf) O) tfl OJ 'u 01 ca. tf) T3 01 4-1 u 01 4-1 o k_ ca. u <J3 U- U t; p o 5 x: <-> u O I- •* -3 ^ C -g. re 2 ^ •> CO ro Q. 73 C ro 5 ^ •3 C ro 4-1 tfl 01 c •3 t— xa OJ Sl 4-1 >. -Q X3 01 tt QJ 00 I B o ^B 11 E g T3 O) E '••^ ro •- DO b •i i S 1 U LJ ra c sz o tf) tfl .— ro tfl OJ -3 tf) c 00- 2 .E a "o g i ^ I un 00 rH ra 1- ..il 01 S3 tu fc ro Q. QJ QJ fe (n Z Q 2 = m fn fc tt .t; i! E o 01 "3 tf) tf) ro .2 OJ ti tt .— re tf) ,_ </) m _QJ ^ C 3 C 01 o S tf) o re J= OJ tf) c 00 ~ c oc 01 k. XI 01 c o u 01 -O tf5 c c p ca. tt s.g E £ U PO o >• 01 re k. o U c O tf) •/) 01 It c 3 -O 01 4-1 4-' o — 2 tt -fc ^ :^ *J 00 c ra Q. u . 01- tf) Q. ro tf) 01 0) OJ > -P. in 73 OJ OJ 1— .ca QJ >• DO m c: ro •— 3 -o J; -o -O 3 01 1-Ll. 00 tf) 4-1 .— OJ 00 !2 .E 'tf) '.^ +-I tfl 3 QJ O C tf) tfl ro 01 2 <= ro c k. ro c QJ •> ° O E 'J^ sr ^ I •§ - 1- c 00 o •3 "43 = 2 ro 3 S 00 4-1 o .E ^ QJ fe O <o S <-> g u 2 J:; fe. Ou.ro tf) > ro •3 t— ro 73 c 01 £ -p. QJ x: 4-1 T3 C o >- 01 Q; o tf) .tz 1- 0) >o D- It 2 O ro 01 > ro 01 u J3 m 01 > B QJ tf) o QJ 3 u u o QJ tt 8 tjo "s; o " c u o >• - tt 4= CL S w 4-1 4-1 3 o ro t; o c tt 4- ao c QJ ro o Sl •- tj 4-1 p PO E >fc o ro tf) >- OJ £ 3 tf) ro 01 3 .c 3- I- g ica •3 01 jp .P I I" (3 I JO — 01 ro S: 4-5 iz 01 tf) ro QJ ro tf) 't- O 4-1 O .- ^ Ln DO o oj o 4-1 • • C c O 3 O 1- vn 01 i; 'fc 0 3 §.g PO -fc _g o .C 4-1 •^^ c _^ — ro Ll 1 o >- k- ^ g o QJ o tt u o •Q. = tf) tf) o -2 C o ro ^ tt .52 2 o I ii 8 4-1 Ql ro JZ Sl 4-1 tf) 01 c 01 x: 4-1 o tf) 4-* 'ro tf) 4- •QO 4-1 0 tf) 01 p c IQ OJ -C 4-1 ied ^" M-^" oo ro T3 3 OJ cr M-QJ tf) 00 4-1 c >-' S3 4-1 tf) •3 01 01 c C 01 "c c 4-1 01 01 4-1 01 01 —: T3 tf) 01 ro .> ro •4-1 •3 u 01 ro c k-0 longe band' 0 ro c I g PO PM O o 01 DO ro a. DO o 00 c o ca. 01 cc 73 c ro DO c o o ro 00 o vH ro „ -a rn 1- o ro JL > 2 01 r-t 3 Q-P Z> CO LO QJ ^" §?9 ^ Q-Q X PM" o o 1 rH U Nl PM" O < a. (5 sjjjeuiau uojiieiuauiaiduij paijjjBA suejd uo umoqs luauiuedaa 3ujJ0t!U0j/\| adAx 3utJ0^!U0)^ 00 c o 00 •3 0) 4-1 c 01 E _QJ ca. E OJ .ca OJ = c ro o r "4-1 00 <-> • 3 QJ I-— 4-1 "O C = ro O ca. DO = "TZ 01 ro i2 -3 ro C tf) 0) •3 0) 73 9 5 -c -o 3 2 g c I -3 8 QJ "P § > o P ^ C3 •3 c ro o 00 £ i? > re 01 i_ ^ — tf) ro ro sz Of fe — ao DO c tt o o 01 *^ tf) 'o' Xi .2 iZ 01 Ll Q. >. OJ 01 O Q. ^ g"^ o 01 po 00 c c ro •3 c ro •3 01 4-1 _Q1 ca. £ o u QJ -ca "ii JZ tfl tf) x: -3 QJ 01 o o c ca. 2 £ •5. QJ ^ ?i 0 -o u — .E .g tf) — 4-1 +1 .12 u ao 01 o "2 .2 CL -ca tf) fc 01 4j ._, £ -2 -oi LU cc 3 < c o •4-1 u 3 t— 4-1 to C o u 00 c o ro gj 1- -ca 3 _ -O QJ ^ 2 ro ro -O tf) 4_i .^1 o I- CL u) XI QJ .2 3 Sz o — k. ro 3 tf) 3" tf) ro 52.^ O 3 -O ^ tf) ro •QO S -= = g tt o E o 1— o Q- 2 DO C 5 I a ca- oo c B ro tt.g >- .•t; "3 <-> S x: " ••g tf, 5 .2 l_ L) 01 OJ tt o. C tf) o 0 o 4-1 -3 c c .g ro '.^ » ro £r ^ ro QJ tf) c tf) c 01 01 01 ca. = £ tt o E .ti ro _gj tf) J3 VI -—— „ .2 S -S > B 4-1 ro ^ o L. •— ro CL "3 - 1 0 £ .2 c 4^ 2 L) 01 LJ •2" E J- 4-1 Q. tf) -g B •£ u .t! tfi .2 t g. .E -g fe- ™ 8 i •^1 o ro oo' •° § .2 £ 00 c '4= :0 oi S 0) 3 "5 - £ i-E ;> Ll 1 = ^ ^ 3 ro tf) O ^ .g^ OJ o 'u .ia 5 2 S ^ 2 -t: 1= ro 3 Q. -C tf) O O. o C fc ro fc 01 QJ >: "2 'oj U -C OJ JZ '.^ O c .>• tf) 01 •— 4-1 4-1 ro ro zz -C ^ fc OJ • -3 £ tf) QJ C 2 >• .i ^ S tt "S ro tf) S) g -g -2 c r; o c ro .!2 o .t; •o •43 -Q QJ u ro ^ QJ -c _ •<-' — 2 c ca. <4 tf) X 01 ao c _g re •3 . 01 ^ tt ro LO u O P .2 ^ 4-1 ro — E1 3 £ tt re 4-1 01 ro sz XI QJ C 4-1 C ro p tf) c c |-g £ ro 8 o ^ 4-1 01 _o i/) tf) = 0) ^ 8 tf) <t tf) ro tf) o c C5. o u 3 k-4-1 tf) c o u c OJ QJ 4-1 tf) 01 ro o 00 ^ 01 g sz t: ^ «^ 2 .E 4-1 tf) tf) ro 'x 2 QJ ro -3 o 01 01 •e :2 3 W tt 3 ••B ° , tf) 0 B tf) 3 01 o tf) LJ QJ 01 .2 '? > Ta .. 01 tf) u O) c i-5 v2i •43 O) ro 4-1 k- o 's ••^ J= tf) •- QJ E *^ .= ra re -C tf) tf) . OJ 73 0" QJ >• _o it r OJ p ^ OJ U) U tf) L) 01 re u u ro c o c _g '43 u 3 1-4-1 tf) c o o •3 c ro c OJ if tt .2- o- 1^ 10 tf) c o u oj 3 3- OJ rH I g 00 PO Psi 01 00 ro a. E ro k. 00 o DO c o CL 01 QC 73 C ro DO c c o c o c o .2 ^ ro 3 DO ^ •+3 73 PO k- O ro JL > 3 QJ rH "3 CL O 13 CO LO Sif ^" §?9 Q X PM" o sijjeuiau uojteiuauiajdui) paiijjaA sueid uo umoqs tuauiviedaa 3u|jo))uoj/u rH U Nl o I <* rH < Cl. tJ3 adAx 3u!J0^|U0|/y) c o ^ •3 •— 2 QJ 2^3 "ti^t^^:^ 0 .E — re 01 1--Q XJ — 4-1 ro Sl Q^ tf) .— tf) -o ro •• QJ B -5 8^ I 2 ro tt " ra o 73 ~" C QJ ra -O ro .ti O) QJ S3 OJ 2 .> 0, •ti .c tf) 4-1 £= 4-1 Q* = M tf) 01 ro DO > 5 o 1- CL < tf) 1- 01 C QJ ro 4-< ro 00 .i2 E S? ro £ tf) .— -3 .E 00 •£ g "O vt OJ o ^ _ QJ tf) — tf) <-> ro .t; tf) "S « ro ro -c: o; SJ fe •43 73 •tf) 01 _ 01 o- " o -B C tf) 01 ^ Ll ro ^ 4-" ._ c 01 tf) 3 QJ tf) QJ •3 \- cc 3 LO < LU !5 _ c O ro ttf 4-1 £ -P ro c .op •tf) 01 73 QJ tf) QJ CO in 3 3- .12 LU "3 ro ca. LO 13 £ o 3 ro QJ g fe- fe. 2 £• IA ro tf) tf) OJ o XS 3 tf) o 'x o 01 -c •s 4-1 QJ 2 g •g E &8 OJ 73 JQ C _ ro ro -c -2" tf) 01 .12 "TO .ro ^ fe g tt S E.i 01 -Q ra ro Sl tfl tf) c g 'tf) 1- OJ > 01 sz "S ro 01 4-1 £ •^^ 2 ro ro .E £ t 00 .E o c ca. 3 i^ S" i= 3 2^ o" o 2^8 Q* tt 73 C O O •= -3 -C 73 c i2 4-1 0) S: iz tf) (D S -= C 4-1 O 1- ca. 01 00 g .E fe 4-1 01 tf) f 1 -z: 01 _g T3 QJ J3 2 4e C Ql > 01 k. CL P •3 OJ tf) t _ ro 01 ^ OJ QJ .2 fe 5 ro dJ Si QJ E-E ro 01 QJ 4-1 ±i 3 '55 O it "O o g tf) ro £ -2 b fc QJ o S -g Stt ca. tfl ro 'C fc fc < c 01 QJ ro gj ro ro -c _gj 'ca- — « ro XI JZ 0) tf) 4-1 re XJ "oj E 3 "° £ •3 O; tf) 8 J Q. >+- °- P ro fc o ro 2 QJ o 5r = 73 QJ .E . . ro i: tf) 4-4 •3 QJ il 2 5 ° 1 00 'u ^ ro c -o fe •3 4= C 4^ re zz tf) LO DO E _ _ 'tf) LJ ro £ .E 01 ro . 73 tf) 01 QJ P QJ .E X! •3 z= Si ro tf) Sl M_ tf) s s Q. 01 tf) zz £ o ro 0 4-1 tf) .g i 4-1 OJ 01 E tfl O) 1-ro O E ro 01 ^ •S tfl X2 01 'io SZ ro 4-1 01 00 c .E ro 1-01 tf) tt QJ c u 01 c QJ >Si 4-1 i P ao c o c 3 o u 1- OJ ra 5 15 2 I .E ro i -3 £ f A Ml QJ tf) • 4-1 .zi ^ S -fe ro O -tt OJ ca. OJ OJ 5 - -° i 2 o DO 01 E = -c T3 _QJ 3 •3 OJ SZ . u tf) tf) C QJ ro S3 -Q tf) = t; ro x: tfl ro 01 c c ro QJ u '43 O .1 1 u E - £ 80 -3 QJ o u .2 i- i- 3 01 o ca. tf) QJ 00 I- c ro •§ .2 -g 00 ^ -2 fe o u 73 o 'o > tf) ro t; O ro ca. = £ '4- 12 o 'o 'I S ro o s -g it: ro c _ .SP § tf) .— *j tf) tt o k. u. (C OJ 01 01 ro ra tfl •£ S 2 2 p o > CJ. c ra ro _ "3 •c o c fe ro •2- -3 --• 1- 01 in 3 •3 01 t; 2P •= ro •?: QJ '*- .E E-C ofc 5. 3 tf) ^ tf) •QJ 15 o i = ro 01 OJ tf) u 3 X3 C o u r- QJ E -Q ro — 2 ro 4-1 -C tf) tfl £ QJ .= tf) .E QJ E fe 2 I 73 OJ c tf) 01 ^1 4-1 01 c tf) O) u > 1-01 0) L. X ca. 01 p 01 J2 C 4-1 0 ro P S E .0 ^ = Si g y= o £ QJ -2 "5 5 JC" 01 "O tf) p 3 I- C 1-O LU CO tf) JC Ql 00 ^ g c != 5 i •3 '43 OJ L) r= 3 O. fc g = 2 o tt u tf) 3 « -g ro •= £ S — 00 l.i c ro QJ -tt 4-1 LJ a 2 OJ +^ .ti c P QJ tz o "E .2, 'E "o fc ro 01 J3 E 0) 4-1 ca. 01 LO o tf) m .2 r-l O ^ 01 £• o. 1— i« ro 3 XJ 1--Q S3 01 LL 00 — C C Xi O 01 tf) 01 ro t OJ .Q tf) 00 r- 10 ._ 4-1 "O 2 g ™ HZ 0) "3 O -Q .— 73 00 c S o 2 tt r- ro fe ^ £ .i E "o T QJ r OJ 01 .> u) • Ul 01 o ^ ~ QJ C U 2 tt Q^ 4-1 o tf) _tf) 0 ™ '-^ z= tfi 5 .QJ ^ u 01 « 1-1 4^ tf) ro -g ^ C 0, s > Q. 43 ^1 01 01 00 tf) g - .E 0) •3 01 3 .E rH Vl 6 § 5 ^ c o .2 ^ ro 3 00 ^ •P in 73 rn 1- o ro J-> 2 01 rH "5 CL O 3 00 in QJ ^" §?9 ^ Q. Q X PM" O s>|jeuiaij uoiietuamajduij paj^jjBA suejd up umoqs )uaui;jedaa Suuo^iuoj/u o I (_> Nl PM O < CL L5 adAx 3u!J0}!U0)/y) S3 E Si -a g ^ S '•J^ QJ ro -c .CS o 5 b ^ i c ao ro 15 E c '•P .t: « 3 XJ ro S3 _tf) t— ro U C" o tt 73 1- QJ ^ .E 2 s ^° 0 ro 01 "o .E _gj S3 ro u ^ 1 ro CO op ^ ^ LU CC 3 LO < < tf) .iz 01 .2>£ g o ca- 5 tf) 73 QJ 5 QJ c 01 £ 01 u i2 c -po and O and H-tfl i— < ne oi ro ^ 4-1 c •tf) o tf) Ll o ca. •3 tf) _QJ ro ro .52 01 'k. tf) -Q 01 _c •3 •3 o 01 U-an los D -2 U U T3 C asc £Z 01 QJ ro ca. Xi LO > ke 15 > 01 Sl LL .Q tf) LO p c "ro JC tfl "flj c c o tf) 1- 01 ca. 4-1 U 01 'o" k- Q. H-P tf) 4-1 OJ CL oi P ^ t; £ o P or 73 c ites 14- ro ro _g '4-4 ites OJ k-LO ee tf) ro ca. any •nent USF' sui S! 4-1 u 01 ca. cei he -C 4-1 4-1 u 01 ca. c 1-DO tf) ro _E c -C tf) 'l_ — c c 3 •3 01 _g T3 c tion/ '4-1 tf) ra tfl tion/ ndi tive es ro 1-CO ra 4-1 Ll o resen U 4-1 resen ra o res ova resen 4-1 >-I— rep 4-1 Sl an dd rep .00 DO ro >• QJ •3 c 5 fe ^ O 73 C 73 ra O S £ :5 •3 o) -2 ±: jQ O c 2 -E tf) g £ tt 01 01 •= = b ro " 01 O) u li O- Xi QJ — OJ 01 .— fc LL tf) 2 -o i QJ 01 ro •3 01 o) .t; > tf) g = E o 2 -D -L QJ ^ % JS = 3 ro "JO ni 2 -Q 73 _ _3 4-1 u 01 .E u 01 'o 1- a. ro +-» _c f g 'i •S ^ 8 $"1 .2 U o "5. u >-c ro ca. £ o o u ro >- ro £ 01 ca. _ Q. o ra £ OJ 3 .E rH +J 6 § 5 u. ro psi M- o PO rH 01 DO ro DO O DO C o Cl. 01 cc 73 c ro 00 c c o c o c o .2 ^ ro 3 00 ^ •43 LO ro Ji. > 3 OJ rH 3 CL 0 n CO LO 01 ^-§?9 =5 3 U D. D X PNT o I rH sjjjeuiau uoi^etuaiuajdui) paUjjaA sueid uo umoqs ^uauiviedaa 3ujJOi|uo|/\) O NI O < adAx 3uuo)!UO|/\| UJ CC 3 LO < Z g 52 00 c o DO I c O ca. 00 _E T3 _3 U E tfl 01 u 1-3 o tf) 5 •¥ tfl u it ro c 01 0 2 tfl 3 re -3 01 o tf) t— ao o. .E +--3 o 0) c 01 _ g 00 IO 4-1 «i CQ Xi 43 o ja ua ro c -= ro u_ OJ _ .c o 1- — 4-1 " Sl 01 > g *P u 3 73 01 4-1 ro 'u P tf) Wl ro 01 tfl 'o c •3 01 4-1 _ro QJ k- 1 c o •43 DO u 3 k. 4-1 tf) c o u tf) QJ o ro •3 c ro 01 £ ao 00 E •E 5 •3 o ro zz o DO QJ .E -B fe £ -2 •! •° 5 01 -= tt 4-1 re w) :£ 'C 01 73 4-1 2 o E r = m 01 rH -O ^ = 01 ro -Q " £ tf) 2 2 Q-•4-1 01 2 ^ tt o ro tf) 01 tf) o Sl *•> >- 01 -g 2 «> 3 g's! ao QJ tf) -= — 4-1 01 > tt 01 ro OJ .12 "oi 0 > C .0) 01 "3 ^ 3 tf) O 4-' tf) ro 4^ ca. c £ .2 — re 01 > tf) ro < CO •3 o LD X5 01 01 O X QJ 4-1 o c "(5 x: tf) tf) ro 01 k-< c . o '4-1 fc ro B £ 5 QJ XJ tf) fc § tf) o .ti 01 Ln rH k- QJ .ca £ OJ 4-1 ca. QJ LO o C tfl tn ro ro ~ 01 ro °-.9- 2 QJ L- 3 JC 01 00 E 3 •3 2 LO Ln rH S = io O 3- ro C QJ X E 5 5 tt 2 E = -g = tf) •7^1 P 01 u c (_) '5; .il 8 y LL •— T3 •3 J^ c *^ ro -QJ 01 }2 2 -2 (J J2 ro ^ "g I o 01 ^ .S2 OJ O X z 00 _E 'k- 3 •3 cr 01 •— ^— ro — tfl cr ^ ^ E -2 < ,5 QJ CO ^ .!2 "3 rH °g2 .1 5 E tt ° ro I -g c ^ E ca. o ° r. .>• 01 "OJ sf s ^2-g ^ -1 tf) OJ o ^ QD LO 0 XJ 4-1 01 01 c .h 01 > ^1 ^ gi QJ ro 3- CO LJ LU •^3 01 H- 5 0 U 01 8 "° -TO g ro x> 01 QJ .E QJ fc u X k. 01 o >- XJ T3 S = c: CO ro ro 73 01 s p LL s: c QJ Ll 01 •3 73 01 c o £ OJ xa LO r3 'G 01 ro c o XJ •3 ro 3 3-QJ SP 53 = -E 5 ro 5 2 +j T -C P m c rH >- 3 -C —1 tf) O tf, 4-1 _ 01 LO > r-H 01 y QJ fe 2 g tn < C JO ro OJ c o X3 O 'kZ 0) CX L. 3' o -3 ^ QJ ?, "3 QJ « QJ 2 ^ 10 Q_ i4_ QJ £3 re OJ > o •3 QJ 00 re b QJ r --J ^ 4-1 g \i >-'- tfl ^ s .E tf) tt QJ ro c XS < 00 73 tf) 01 • O ca. 01 L. 00 c 01 ^ p > 01 c ro .-: t 01 > _0} 01 tf) 3 (T 01 1- >- ro £ •3 c ro Q U •3 c ro LO LO £ p 2 £ 00 rH I g OQ DO C 1 - C QJ k|- ro JTO tf) tf) "3 •QJ" ro 4-1 '(o QJ Ul c 3 .2 >• .t; ro — op u '•t; 45 E >: 4-1 ro ro S •t; -2 ro ro o 4J ro +-1 4-1 o ro ro E ro o 00 fc i| ao > 'jzi ro = 73 ro Ql ^ 4-1 £7 01 ro 1-. tf) := tfl 0) u 01 c u fe 2 _ ro 8 ro jo ro c Q. 01 O iS •M Q, c 2 OJ 01 •3 c ro •3 01 _ 2 00 01 •3 re ao ^3 c OJ 00 01 •n J3 01 ja tf) ro 01 ^ 01 .2 QJ '4-1 ro ' > OJ o tfl c 73 o c O ro 2 4-1 c: .c 8 ^ p ro .3 ao "O c P tf) 0) 4-1 -Q J= zz .SP 3 01 ro Sl •K '42 O. -Q ro u 3 fc -2 :E 2 ao 3 I g g OQ PO N M— o "* rH 01 DO ro a. E ro u. DO O i_ CL DO C o ca. 01 oc 73 C ro DO c o ro DO C O .2 ro 3 ao ^ •43 . tn 73 PO il o ro Jt. 01 rH 3 CL O =3 CO LO QJ ^" §?9 3 3 ^ Q. Q X PM" o a. X rH O I o Nl PM" O s)|jeuia}| uojieiuauiajdui) paiijjaA suejd uo umoqs )uauj)jedaa 3u|J0)!U0j/M adAx SuiJo^juojAI < Q. 15 fO Psi M— o 10 rH 01 00 ro a. 00 c ro 3 C= C < CC 3 <t UJ QO tf) E '~ '^•'QJ" S .E tfl — "g -E ro JS X C Q. -I 2 'u -a g.^ ca. tfl tf) o *^ o. JS ca. ca. 0) oj .> 'tfl ' ' ro (J c — — 01 - 2 P ra o. QJ .> "D 4-1 QJ ro tf) c O J. o. O r--4-1 *— c QJ •- 00 00 2 c fc _QJ .i: -Q "43 "3 ™ Si ca. S2 QJ 1-^ tt QJ 5^ c- o QJ 3 C "O fc 01 0 >- fc o 01 00 01 xa X- = 00 LJ c c: 3 O u 4-1 -3 C C re J5 a- ^ ca. re u 5 ra I bi 01 ro S3 — 4-1 ro OJ -c o tf) ro t =3 0 ro 1 £ >- o c fc 0 £1 c ca. 2 Si ^ 3 OJ U 01 .2, -C T3 I- ro o IM I g 00 o .Of ™ ro ro 01 00 il ~ < f- ro 01 tf) .> •43 tfl ro 01 c: 'o OJ >- ca-- tf) O c . ro .!2 c O ro £ fe o tf) 4J ^ f o 1- 73 -O C 01 ~ 2 "o Si ro ^ > 3 -E 01 ro E ro £ "S re tf) U = Q" *•>. -c £• P = tt 01 tf) > .2 c 0 — 01 4-1 o- £ tf) re o 4-1 tf) tf) a. X 01 u 0) .5 -s; >• c p tf) 2 'u 01 ro OL '43 tf) c OJ QJ ^ 2 u_ ca. o OJ c o C 3 re w ca- p o Q- fc c . o -3 '43 01 ro ~ £ QJ .> tf) 10 0) ro XJ > ±i QJ o S2 -4= kl o ca- o QJ •3 .2 C tf) ro ro 00 S E s c ro fe U tfl 01 'o 01 ca-tf) c o o c +.. 0 c 'tf) JS 2 °- 01 01 >. .2 C tf) ro ro 3 .S .3 1 1. 0) 00 >4-ro -a a c -c re I- (O 01 ll 4-1 c: tn O 0) LJ £L .2 u 2 1 fe « ° « ao tfl c 3 o. re O u c tfl JS c < Q. C i2 V u 1_ re Q. C O •> •c a tf) re •3 01 XJ _3 L) _C 01 xa E ro 1-00 o k. a. DO c o Q-01 CC •o c ro DO c c o c o c o .2 ^ ro 3 in 73 PO ro J^ QJ rH 3 ca-0 3 CO LO 01 ^- §?9 3 3 ^ D- Q fM O cp u Nl O < CL s>|jeui3D uojie^uauiaidui) paijijBA suejd uo umoqs ^uauiviedaa 3UIJ01IU0IA) adAx 3uuo}!UO|/\| 5i Q. LU 01 .-ti UJ CC 3 I/) 5 01 a. .S2 DO o .E 73 i; ro E 00 CL ro OJ ja ro 00 ro u 'DO O O QJ ro 01 c c •3 01 O 2^3 Q. tfl it-_ ro 'c -g ^ > tf) tt QJ I '^^ ro — .2 O QJ Q. ro ca. Sl ro u £ ro L. 00 o 01 ro i- -3 •t: 2 'p it '^ fe ° QJ -3 ._ °- °- O 00 p crop ^4-2 2 ro :5 00:= *i " ^ g tt- c ^ ooc •fZ 01 It 00 _g o 01 ro JC u k- ro tt 01 'o k. ca. QJ 00 OJ C Sl 3 2 QJ <?o ro OJ .E QJ ca- H 00 c o _ p 4-1 U = -g QJ 5 4!2 ro ca. X OJ 00 73 C 01 0 01 ^ i 01 ca. iE £ < ce 3 01 L) c ro ^ 01 o tf) > 4-1 '~ -3 2 = QJ •^ OJ c *^-B tf) t .ti fe S °- Q. O OJ 4-1 ^ .i xa +j 1- 1 2 3 tt H- •3 01 . c fc £3 tf) ro ^ c tf) o 00 3 "-^ 2 o 01 fe.'> tt J2 "3 ° ro c •z. ro 01 >• u c 01 3 3" 01 OJ JZ tf) ro tt £ c **-O) o o 01 u c ro X "o ro > ro D tf) C QJ o ^ •43 P J3 ro 01 ^ ^ 4-1 ro ro "3 X = ou QJ ro P c Q. re 4-1 •i^ 2 tf) ro "ob fc -9 E o 8 QJ ro OJ tf) 5P -7-2 ° 5 'E o £ 01 OJ 01 O fc St. c Q_ +r' L. .- 3 .ti c o E 01 ro _g '1- CL "5. o- § ro 4-1 01 ro .«i "O 5 >- O) > g iE 5 §{, § g" ro o- '42 ^ - g .2 i= E ^ "fe .2 C 4-1 O 2 DO g •-pro 3 'C -= (T fe u 2 Q fe 01 = c O. tf) H- 3 Ql °-g - i ^ .2 0) Ta OJ TZ: c S" 5 ro C tf) , •~ 5 u O 01 .2 "43 4-1 TJ O 01 u ro QJ S £2. S X ca. .t 01 >-= 73 ro QJ .1 8 •E 2 £ o. c OJ ro -Q u _ 00 7= c 5 3 ro tfl k. +j 00 o "O g. 2 OJ o "3 .t; ^ i ro C 4-1 .SP 73 S c ro O 73 >- ~ 01 ro 01 "u c 73 ^3 C 01 re ^ S E fc is re o s2i XJ 3 U PO pg s+-o va rH 01 DO ro CL £ ro i_ DO O DO C t o ca-01 QC •a c ro DO c c O o c o .2 ^ ro 3 '43 LO -O PQ L- O ro JL > 3 01 rH 3 ca-o 3 CO LO QJ .d-" §?9 3 3 ^ ca. Q X sijjeuiau uo|)e}uauia|diu| pa»u^A suejd uo umoqs PM O luauqjedaq SujJ0}!U0|/\) U Nl Pvl o < Q. adAx Suijotjuoj/v LU CC 3 LO < UJ < 01 73 ro >. 01 .t; x: ro OJ -= o T3 ro 01 = L. ro QJ 01 4-1 3 C ro g 01 "t; .cr E 2 ^ O QJ .ti )r, :£ R ro L) 4-1 01 > re tf) u.1 ,— E o 2 •g .E c 3 4-1 ,tf) _>. 'ao tf) o .is > ro 01 JZ h: <-> ca. k_ ro g QJ c 01 "3 > 01 OJ ^ QJ ~ LJ ro ro "S -e -" 2 tf) •E "o P 73 £ ^ C OJ 4-1 O a. ro JC tfl 4-1 tf) 'DO _g o 0) ro 00 _o o OJ ro c o £ c ro u 'i-QJ E < 01 > QJ £• ir: 4-1 9 ti sz re 4-1 Q > -Q •g -3 ro OJ 73 >• >- ceo ro ro tf) QJ u k-3 O t 00 E 01 ro c ca. 00 OJ O 0) .Q ro . -3 tf) ro .01 o -C -3 QJ -^T; •g '2 ro 01 JC L) 1- ro OJ ifl to 01 4-1 - u ro ca. E ^.2 2 fc 00 o P LJ >~ 3 01 4-1 01 •3 QJ t— ro tf) _E 'ro £ OJ tf) -= >. QJ C 3 O u ro 01 tfl 01 ro c ^^1 ro QJ 73 4-1 = B. 01 ^ - 2 01 *^ Q fe ^"2 ^ o •Jj c o QJ LJ 4-1 — o ro OJ £ 3 tf) 2 1 2 ro ._, £ ^ 2 5 •3 c ro XJ OJ 1- 01 > o u 01 01 ro fc ro •w 01 tt i. m .— 1— s+r ft. 01 .Q QJ "S £ -= < -2- OJ > +i > ro •2 ro o ca. E OJ OJ 73 c ro _ >- 01 ^ 3 01 T3 DO o re 4-1 01 u 1-3 O tf) 01 ^ — Vil 4-1 ° -3 L. 4., re >-u c 01 00 re T3 c ro u c 01 00 ro •3 ro -2 01 sz QJ 1-U 3 c o ra tf) u 0) tp 'c _ 00 ro OJ Q- fc £2. iSs ro oo -g -5 fc u 01 4-1 c c •= ro E .2 01 op 73 'tf) £ •- ^ 00 o o 3 £ QJ 2-g 00 Sf 2 fe t ^ £'.E QJ +i > 3 O tf) 0 c 01 o QC O ro tf) k. tf) 01 •3 ^ OJ •tf) ro 3 tf) 01 3 '= o E •3 C QJ ro 11 U Sl sz ti c .—_ l-l •3 QJ 4-1 U ro 4-1 c o L) 01 .Q 00 C tf) ro .2 U |i ^ 01 OJ JC 2 '*-> >• ro S3 2 Ta tt QJ 0 JP 01 '4-1 S3 C QJ P "3 O 2 c ro •2 tf, .•ti QJ tf) -43 O ~ ca. .2 tf) 4-1 ^ g 73 c c ro o F= g ^ DO 3 ro o tfj T3 £ •3 ro ro O 01 ti3 ^ ^ E-B ^ ro| -i .2 5 00 f- •i 2 -o 0 -43 01 ro ro 4-1 Sl QJ ca. u tB ro 01 QJ fc 4J 01 ro u 3 k- 4-1 tf) c o u 3 tf) •o C L.* o o u .t; c p .2 ^ £ u i— ro ro c ra 3 3- 01 T3 ra c ro E p .2 •3 £ 2 01 £ < 01 > Q- O ki 01 Q. CO T3 01 4-1 L) ro QJ t: o o .ti -i 00 E ll ^ 00 ro ^ "i ^ 01 p -a OJ 1- ro o x: u u 01 01 > o u 01 01 S3 Qi 73 C ro ro ro tf) 'C tf) 0) _>• •fe JS £ g < 01 PO psi o N rH 01 00 ro CL E ro DO o DO c o ca. 01 QC 73 C ro DO c c o c o c o 2 ^ ro 00 IS -3 PO ro J^ > 2 01 rH 3 CL O 3 CQ LO QJ «*" g?9 3 3 Q X PM" o s>|jeuiau uojie^uauiajdui) paijijaA suejd uo umciqs juauiyedaa au|jo)!uoiA) U Nl PM O < CL adAx Suijoiiuoj/v CC 3 LO < UJ 5 ^ c 2i o 1- .ti 3 c u O OJ £ B DO 2 1- T3 00 1-O 01 O 4-1 -a 01 tf) tf) "ZI E ^ ^ 2 tt 2 73 01 4-1 ro 'o O tf) Ul ro 73 c ro tfl c o U 01 OJ •= ca. o t— ca. Q. ro c ro 0) u •B ro QJ ro 1-3 4-1 3 o c re u •3 c ro OJ xa 73 J= = 2 ™ fe OJ tfl tfl ±i QJ 3 tf, 0) c o QJ £ fc ro fl 4-1 c k-- OJ QJ E > < >. I re S ca. o 01 tf) 4-- ro tf) c CO Psi st— o 00 rH 01 DO ro a. 0) = -E g i g. o 00 4-1 C 11 Q. 00 ^3 ro K« "o op 01 C 4-1 T3 u TJ -O QJ S 4-1 re g T3 = QJ 3 tf) D 01 u o 00 E T3 _3 U c >- -Q ro 2 2 fc ro , V XJ -3 C 01 re t P re 01 C3L 'tfi 4-1 QJ o QJ £ = 2 f T3 .2 C C O 01 re '43 JQ Q- re ^ to O T3 4-> OJ C c g £ ro 1- £ 2 1- QJ 01 73 CL QJ T3 01 C V. ^ 3 S 2 01 -Q ro c ro T3 c ro 01 £ o u L) ro QJ xa c 01 T3 C 01 u tf) 01 " E 3 ro tf) •g 'S .ro ro tf) 3 p .y ^ P u) tf) ro tf) "3 11 01 00 vfc o _ P O u = 1-1-01 < Q. OL Si ob £• QJ ro 01 > o u tf) tfl 01 u 01 C 73 OJ U c ro t: o ca. £ 01 D ->• <-> 0, o -S T3 5 P T3 fc 01 ro 4-1 4-1 "3 QJ ro QJ -= T3 2 O. -5 E o k- o Ll S 3 .i2 01 tf) — tfl ao 2 "g .E "3 ™ "g c -3 ro OJ ''"J tt^^ ro ca. ^ £ QJ s o ro LJ u c o >-u QJ 01 Sl S3 4-1 t: 2 O) 01 B < ro C JC •43 tf) QJ 4-1 T3 ^ X ro Q. OJ 01 >— J—t — OJ p C o .t u 01 Jl TJ < QJ cc 2 3 o 01 xa ro DO ro L. 3 4-1 3 U 00 T3 C 01 _g 01 B 1 0) Q. lE E tt ro c xa 00 ro < 4- p c 01 .2 £ 4-1 4-1 ro ro > 01 ro ,1- c 00 OJ .2 .E B tA S3 tfl i_ tf) •— 3 tf) 5 fc 01 tf) 1-''^ -3 01 01 > Sl ro Z T3 01 C -C re -t-- ^ g ro ") 01 oc o _c ti -= -fc 73 T3 ™ C C O ro 3 CO o ^ >• DO o tf) re p '^ -J P S '-re c ro i/' OJ tt 01 E o O 3 OJ ^ .!2 T3 3 OJ L. O c ro 01 tf) ^ P. OJ > c ro oa >-01 oc tf) 01 u I— 3 o Ul OJ 01 01 c 0-0^^ .- tf! F 4J c ro •— i_ !_ P QJ -4-1 3 = u QJ m re — tf) re ra tf) c ^ I OJ o Q. c: o 0) 01 > .!2 01 > •3 Z 01 2 x: 01 u u 3 4-1 • QJ g 4-1 -ir c ^ P OJ g " £ ^ g - 00 fc c OJ £ 01 01 ob re tf) >- Z 00 .2 i= C . •r- ca. tf) p tf) .2 4-1 C 4J 'E ra '> P 73 ••}-; 5 = g 2 % 3 T3 4-1 ro 3 .E u tfl >- p p 2 2r 5 '^ £ < o !C 01 tf) g 2 -I ro -c 01 fc = *^ ro k. L) 01 'C C3. 01 ° 3 a. < c £ OJ 0) 2 .2 00 tt ro ro 01 ^ IC 4J 01 (J tf) .2, 3 ca. 01 c ro 73 c QJ u tf) OJ o 01 tf) P 01-'=^ 3 tf) 4-1 01 ro 0, ro TJ 2 ^ tt TJ 01 1- 01 > o u c 3 S4- O 01 tf) 01 5 o ca. to — 'DO ro o o "g g ™ 3 o JI tf) 01 u c ro •t: o Qj £ ro .S2 3 u 6f« ro 3 3 o- O 3 CO LO QJ ^" §?9 3 3 ^ c^ Q X r>r sijjeiuau uoj^e^uauiaiduij paiiijBA suejd uo umoqs }uauiuedaa 3u!J0}iuo)AI U Nl fM O < CL adAx 2u\joi\uo\fi CC 3 LO < «7 = +i -3 ro re 01 — 01 > tt o O U •—. tf) T3 SZ o IC 01 S2 '3 ro ^ re c o ro 2 Si tf) 2 2 O) 00 -3 P -2 fe o >. o QJ — tf) k. 01 ro 1- T3 Xi £ x; ro 4-1 OJ c ~ k- •— *: 01 01 10 ro sz u k- ro T3 c ro O — Ife OJ ±; *^ 3 u O ^ 5 u ra 00 E •> o E J3 t: ro OJ c 5.. ") o ^ .2 c 43 ro 3 LJ ro 01 E < 01 > o u —• 3 01 tfl tt > '= i2 ro o Z u c o u 00 _c 'k- 3 73 3 E ro 01 k-ro >-k. 01 > o u tf) 3 01 4-1 2 T3 01 £ £ 00 _g o 01 ro JC o k- ro 01 OJ -XJ 73 -CCC •^^ ro ro ™ g" s OJ 2 "3 i^ JC LJ Q. ^ tfl g 5 c tf) o •QO O ^ P ro tf) QJ 3 CJ- 0) 3 3- 'E 3 T3 C ro TJ tt O) c ° .c ^ -a p c 00 ob ™ .E CO 00 >- fe .E Qi S I- oc 01 ^ '5 -o g ^ i S3 tfi 01 y r- c p ro .2 ^ o. re 01 ro u s! ^ iE a; -J QJ o 3 tfl c o o fc P u 01 c *^ T3 C ro 1 1 >4-QJ S f- ro :fc .2 o o c o £ c ro y 01 £ < 01 .> '4-1 ro Z 01 g . ^ ro OJ d o u > 4-; ro u- tf) 1- ^ 00 00 c 01 01 OJ u £ g c <-> .2 tf) tf) 01 'ab -fc 01 •tt ro *-• Jii ro ^ " c o u ro ro 1-3 o _ TJ QJ tf) O ca. o •3 01 -(n S-g c - tt ro 01 .2,xi ll O 01 fe.E ^ 4-1 tf) o c 3 O tf) U OJ 01 >- in 01 S QJ E 4^4 J3 U 3 01 o 'E ro op z o 73 IC C 01 ro .52 2 .3 B OJ ro .c c h- c o u 01 01 tfl 01 ro JC 4-1 tf) o> ro Sl L> ca. p tf) .0 •4-1 tt ro 01 ^ ro p u kl X ca. 01 OJ .12 c s_ >. 01 ^ i ro O tf) o B .5) tf) tf) QJ 'ob 01 ro tf) 01 4-1 " 2 tf) tf) ro 01 QJ I- -JC tf) .2 ^ 4—1 tt .ro ro ^ •3 01 tfl 01 u 1-3 o tf) OJ oc .01 O TJ O JC 4-1 01 £ TJ 01 k-k. 2 2 ca. k-- c 01 00 > 'tf) 01 It: OJ u tf) c 01 ro 2 i2 o S tfl ro - tt ro sz 01 ro .c ?^ >• CT u « c ^ QJ o 00 g TJ ro ro 4-1 01 ro — T3 •o cf OJ ^ ^ ro 3 Q-tfi c o u OJ S3 £- OJ > o u 0) 01 ro re ro OJ TJ 5 -S tf) tf) re — (3 = u re 3 JC tf) tf) >. c IA CD E ro p — .2 •4-1 c ro .2 = tf) ro .S2 c ro tf) 05"+- m -C *— ^ x: c ao •— a. TJ •g .2 ro P 00 'ab ^ ™ tf, o w) c O c fc = g ^ § 2 3 'tf) 4-1 tf) P <o •— fc i4_ iz ~ 5 OJ O tA — ro ^ ^ k. 4-1 u ro 01 O ca- tf) 01 o 01 u c ro •3 "o > ro re -c 2 QJ zi 4-1 3 ro <-> fc "g = |i .2 -g ^ o o 0) OJ ™ 3 ro tfl ^ - 01 4-* 2 0 o.g >. 3 3 "o fc OJ " o 01 j- = tt o" 5 — ro c 3 tf) TJ S4_ C o ro 00 73 c ^ 1 CO 2 sr QJ °: -B tn M ro C QO ro 01 m k- Jl =3 < 01 K 2 PO fM 91 rH 01 DO ro Q. E ro k. DO O 1-CL DO C o ca. 01 QC TJ C ro 00 c c o c o I f * C O ,2 ^ ro S 00 ^ •43 in 73 PO ro I > 3 01 rH 3 Q-O 3 00 LO QJ ^" §?9 3 S a X PM" o sijjeuiaii uo!;e)uaiua|dui) paU'jaA suejd uo umoqs luaui^jedaa 8u|joi!U0|/\| <=1- rH O NJ PvT O < a. (J3 adAx SuuotiuojAI UJ CC 3 < q I- o IC OJ tf) - 3 DO _E 'k. 3 73 73 OJ 1-01 > o u 1-4-10) o o .c c fc ^ tf) QO .- 01 c tt o OJ T3 3 4-1 -O r'l-g ro .g x: O t DO 01 ro c re 01 c 3 C TJ tf) C 01 tfl £ 8 01 ro E 3 < t 2- 3 4-1 3 73 01 P 01 tf) 01 S4- u 3 tf) ro J3 in g 3 O = 3 Qj £ ^ QJ tf) .2 QJ 43 >-ro z :° ro o IC 4-1 QJ U —' u -C = ^ .2 4-1 ^ QJ tfl i-01 U •43 .!2 'iS XJ L) •— ro QJ 3 O 73 sz o OJ 1^ c «=• 00 S4- 3 o •3 73 C c re re 3 =° fc >-tt 01 0) QC S" .52 2 = = g .Q 01 Tj" g 01 c 1-4-13 2 2 o c •£ u 0 QJ u fc 00 c ro 01 QJ tt "5 2 tn ro o n, tf, uo LO c o 'S QJ 01 .2 _ S" 01 OJ 01 sz > 01 OJ OJ J: -c 00 ro ^oS'^^*'''^*^^^ to^SP-E^^tt-^'C c o u 01 LO 01 TZ O U >- c [op *1- o o 4-1 tfl ro tf) 00 E 3 c ^ £• 01 — tf) ro OJ .!2 fc 'c o ro k-3 4-1 3 u c 01 x: 5 tf) •QO _g o 01 ro Sl u 1- ro 4_, OJ -c 1= 3 •o fe 2 E < ro „, 3 .t .i: c +-• 4-1 ^ ;z 4-1 .2 fc ±; -O 5 -c "4= x: -t ro 4-1 £ o 3 01 c ro u 2 ro 00 c -tz 00 4_, o tt O) 3 >• r- QJ fc ro E u £ g = •3 ~ ro fc < £ tt 3 ro O o o 73 o -QJ o £ 43 TJ u 5 c •> g 2 ° 2 ob £ ca. .E •- ro o. IA ^ 73 "O c QJ ro tt QJ ca. tfl 3 tfl ro 01 = tt ro ro sz in -to •g QJ g u ro ±i -Q ro ^ 01 ^ X .IO ro "3 F L. <T) - O) 01 c o o QJ meg ^ ro -O c ja tf) g i_ ro 4J 3 .c L) 4-1 _ OJ .!2 c LO TJ .0 OJ C 73 C tf) O P 2 u fc s- Q! QJ 3 iJ 2 73 = S O T5 ro tf) c •ti QJ ro c al 0) 01 c o o fc = ro tt n — ro 3 O. 01 Q. C 4-1 'i 5 -g E Q5 o — o >fc 01 4-1 = ^ tf) ro ro ^ ^ c 2 -g .2 g >• tt g iE OJ O ^ TJ O 01 IC C 01 1 = QJ < _g Qj S3 4-1 ro 01 -C .c tf) 4-1 tf) t- oj 01 tf, E 3: '5-'£ c — 1- ro ro 01 u C 4J •:-ro QJ "3 OJ £ < ro c £ .2 2 ro u c o ra u 01 •43 OJ = QJ op o > C 1- '43 'C 0 tt 3 U 2 T3 >. 0) ra 4- 43- _^ ro 3 4-1 O tf) " I rs " .E 01 B B U 2 o tt c ro 3 1 u B 01 sz o 1-o u tf) 'tf) tf) 'u C QJ £ ro a. 2 IP c ro 3 tf) g 3 E 01 < 01 ™ > c *i 01 TJ ^ OJ TJ QJ ro ca. 73 S 3 in tp c c -JC 01 3 , tf) O 2 u g Q. .2 O 1-O) 00 01 X! gj E = b < 01 c >• 8 2 QJ 3 tf) c i'i QJ fc £^ c 01 o o ro o 73 .12 c T3 01 QJ £ B E 'S 8 c 2 .2 OJ tt ro ra 2 g st- fc c 01 E 4-1 QJ cj^) *^ .E LO 8 ^ c u O tf) O QJ u c OJ c — k. in tt o 3 4^ OJ ^ •§ - .g E fc o c . *- ro tf) tf) .u c c OJ ro ro £ E E < 2 2 u £ X OJ < -c ^ •^ ^ o C tf) •2 p £ u p I 8 ^ OJ •= .E OJ "3 QO 01 ro "3 op •> o k- ca. c" > 01 c ro TJ c QJ >. L) — tf) 01 01 Q •-• "g ro tf, ^ c ii; 's 3 E o fe 00 pg . . PO Psi S4-. o o Psi 0) DO ro Q. 00 o 00 c o Q- 01 cc 73 c ro 00 c c o ro 00 c o .2 ^ ro 3 00 ^ •43 m 73 PO 1- O ro JL > ^ 01 rH o :^ CO LO QJ «*" §?9 3 3 ^ c^ Q X PM" o o I rH U Nl Psj" o < a. sijjeuia}) uojie^uauiajduij payjjaA suejd uo umoqs ;^uaui;jedag 3u!JO}juo|/v adAx 3u)JOijUOV\| ec 3 (/) < UJ Z g (3 = = 01 c = ro C|_ -C ro S4— tf) t 01 ^ B tfl S ro .2, fe 2 £ ^ 3 01 o B -o 0 TJ "c = .E ro 73 tf) 01 01 t 2 O 3 Q- p E tf) ._ OJ 1-tf) c ^ •I i tf) .t ro tt QJ E 1- O ra u E Y 2 g '^ TJ 73 OJ 01 IM t -2r 0 ro 0- S X ro 01 QJ 1- . -Q o _ ro c -c c o E c ro .u 'C 01 £ < 01 > tf) 01 u L- 3. o tf) QJ £ 3 •g ^ O IC OJ ro -c 3 4-1 O tt c o OJ > c 01 ro 01 .2 -C u 4-1 c QJ .E J2 l| 0 •^^ 4-1 OJ tf) 43 'tfi ro 4_i 'C o 01 01 3 U _E 're 4-1 c o u o k. ca. 73 O c c re u) 4-1 01 tf) o 'ES) T3 3 ^ o -z: QJ QJ sz fc o ro fe £ fM ^ Jl -o < 2J g 31 PO PsI PsI 01 DO ro a. £ ro k^ DO O i_ CL 00 c •4-1 1-o Q-01 oc 73 C ro 00 c c o c o ro DO c o ro DO 73 PO ki o ro JH > 2 QJ T-H 3 CL o 3 CO LO QJ ^" 3 S ^ Q. Q X Psj" o o I <• u Nl PNl O < CL sijjeuiau uoimuauiajdui) paiijjaA suejd uo umoqs luaui^jedaa Su|joi|uoi/\] z _J Q. adAx Suijo^juojA) 0 c 01 o g% g I .2 g. O 00 •*-• c „ _ 00 fe ^ -E •c 2 5 CL 00 00 cc 3 LO < Z g oo o £ ro t— DO O LO •£ 2 5 C 73 ^ -fe 'f^ DO C tfl tfl 01 ro Sl ro 01 £ c g 4-4 ro 00 ro u 'Sb o c o _QJ ro QJ 5 g -2 £ 3 -QJ Q. OJ p 4-1 £i ro O 01 ro Q. 73 01 ro 3 3- CL ^ = C o QJ re sz u 4-1 X 01 re u 'ob o •— ..ro ro 4-1 M- 01 Q. 00 c 73 2 00 01 £ OJ 4-* ro •k-ca. o k-ca. Q. re c ro 4-1 3 O ro 3 TJ ~ > o TJ .C .E g c ro >; sf |l Is .52 >. 4-1 tt O tfl QJ 01 -o 3 CT =z ro TJ 2 C C ro o OJ ^ ro .E ca. TJ ro V, t— QJ QD "5 Sl "O •fc QJ •i-5 tf) ro -Q 01 £ DO rz: ;= 55 tf) •c o tf) ca. o 01 Q -3 01 01 ro ro £ 4-1 tf) 01 ro ro .c = ^ o •o tt fe- sfc .E J2 •E ra 2 ^ tA O IA O 2 •bb 3 QJ ti p 43 01 u sz ro 3 tf) tf) 73 01 E 'ro 4-4 01 1- 01 xa g 'C ca. 00 o o •*-• -= c o o ^ -2 o ro _QJ Q. ro ca. _E TJ QJ ^' tp Q l£ °" ^ < o u 01 4-1 TJ P ro tf) OJ L. 3 73 01 U O -C +J 3 tf) C o u tfl c _g •4-1 re > ro u X OJ 00 p c -t c o QJ •= c — 4-1 r- IA ro ca. °-TJ >- 0) o fc 3 ™ 4J 3 C CJ- o OJ 0) ro -c CL H- tfl 4-1 c c o o o u ro c o 01 'tA c o 01 -Q 3 OJ -c = 12 I" t tf) o •— 4-1 2r 3 QJ O' ro C tf) — •g.2 ti 00 " -2 tfT o 01 fc 3 c cr p 'E ^ Sl ro Ll £2. 01 tf) O ca. 01 •3 73 01 xa k- 3 4-1 _U1 73 C 3 tf) 3 O re 3 -3 ro u 'ob O > — 01 c 01 tf) Ll 01 o t 4-1 3 .52 tf) fei •3 Ti QJ c o -2 ro ca. c ra u 01 00 ro > o ca. X OJ c ro tf) 01 re QO tf) -ti B r M- QJ O 73 — >. .2 5 01 c £ o t 4-1 0 0) tf) -JZ QJ LT -ii 01 IO > _ OJ ro 01 O ~ £ •^ S3 TJ £ tf)" ^ H 01 5 o g :§ ^ ro re 01 '" QJ O L) 01 01 .ti 00 x: » c x Q) 'H 4-1 g .i= J2 O 43 ro ro c •43 p OJ c I 01 ro tf) 01 — .E io m 4-? •3 01 c .2 u •4-1 01 c ca. 01 tf) Z .2 D- O 01 -3 73 - C 3 re -kf o tf) 'ao » o "O Ll ni re ^ tv tA ^ ^ -ti c .52 c 2 re c o •o 3 o '•^ E Ski ^ +J <t 4-1 01 2 = 3 .2 ° ro 2 £ •;s o ro LL •§j a .0 ra P "43 tt = £ ro O LO .2 TJ ra c QL re 2 10 fc tt 1-c o 8 g 3 ^ E <-> '2 - ro c u •~ 'Eib 01 o g 3 _ .2 ^ S- g. s X 2 < 0) ca. 00 o c P 0) c o _Q1 ro ca. QJ Sl 4-1 •3 01 k. 01 4-" > .!2 5 00 u O tf) 3 ^ ^ 2 o QJ 5 o X oj £ QJ =E tf) ro QJ -P x: tf) tr ro Coo o c ca. c ca. 3 our, 4-14-1*-' _ro o tf) ro = S4- JS o -.- QJ T3 4-' 0 jgj 'c ca- 01 p fe t <-> o re ro ro ca. tf) tfl tf) •a p QJ !P C = . QJ ro x: .2 -5 •D Bt 4-1 QJ tf) C 00 111 OJ ro 00 ca. u 4j QJ I ro* O L. -2: c ° ro o -t^ -3 ro ,2 01 Q. 73 T3 . •. r- t 4-' Si ^ ro ro -F, QJ 3 - o O TJ -r- Q. E o .E 0 Ll QJ 01 a. -Q tf) Q^ oi >< 4- .bz 0) tf) 73 C •g'rT ro 1-2 2 2 c fe •= o ca. 2 Q.2 cQ tf) ro » 4-1 tfl tf) i: .E .E 01 ro £-c P .E c S ro i 2 P — 01 > S .E QJ sfc «^ E = £• •t ro ro •'-' C tf) ™ 1= 10 ro tf) QJ ^ S4_ u .E o QJ .E QJ ro > ..^ u ra QJ 01 P 01 -Q 01 Q. O < a. P o .2 ^ ro 3 00 IS "3 PO kl O ro JL > s 01 rH 3 Q- O 3 CO LO QJ <* gf 9 3 S Q X PM" o sijjeiuau uo!}e)uaiua|dui| paj^jjBA suejd uo umoqs luauiviedaQ Sujjo^jUoj/v .01 .ii I ro ca. tf) 01 QJ ll > CL LD L!3 O I rH U Nl o I rH < Q. (JJ adAx 3u|jo)!uoj/\i 00 _c 3 ro i— 00 O) tf) -M c •tfl o 00 ^4^ .E 2 1_ QJ 3 ca. Q o o 01 g f g § g. O 00 4-- c .2^ 01 1- --^ ^ o £ 8 C Ql 1- g ca. 01 it DO S 3 .E .c P TJ .2 4-i g 2 -= !2 -3 DO 5 iP DO c 3 ro i-00 01 tf) 4-1 c •iio g M tt .E 2 k. Ql 3 Q. Q O CC 3 V) < Z g .ii 01 o ro g-iJ 01 DO ro 2 >. -° ro tfl zz •g-ro 00 p 1 ^ g ^ E c OJ o JC '43 ro 00 QO C '43 1 £ -3 _ "3 ro 01 u tt 'DO _Q} _o 3 2 u c tf) o •E ^ ro ro £ o- 01 k- QJ 7= JZ IA +-• tA o tt LL O tf) 01 o c 2 QJ SZ 01 sz OJ ca. ro s*- 0 tfl 01 •Q. . ^ 0 TJ u 01 DO -C _g 4-1 ro 4-1 ro 00 Ll c 73 _g an ro TJ tfl" 01 'tf) 4-1 k_ U) SO sS -3" 01 red 1-re 'f5 ca. ca. 01 QJ k- L. Q. S4-: c 2 'u tf) ro _E 'c o '4-1 ro c o 73 -3 01 .+J 'tf) o ca. 01 •3 01 -Q tf) ca. ro £ 73 c ro tfT O 01 QJ -C S3 4-1 _ !2 ro ro .c .E tf) U _tf) ^ C sS Q QJ •4-1 Jl u fc 01 ^_ 1.1 ro 4-1 .2 ro 'QD C IS li .2 01 = i QJ C E o ro 4-1 0) — ca. ro -c 3 4-1 4-1 o a •43 QJ .t Q •'-' c c ro .t ;n 01 •3 c — ro S3 ro QJ u 00 = ro O-J^ o-2 ro tf) V4_ C QJ ^ _g _g 73" B B $i p _gj tf) c o _ u IO .0 i« PJ tf) = tf) tf) 3 tf) " .P tf) S4- OJ ca. S •O QJ 2 iti T3 P C .— re tl 'C o o D. .ti ca. c 3 o .12 £ ro 'u ro c y ro 'oo 2" -Q C 73 O fe 'E ro ro o- ca. _ E g o .= u LJ - ro < ab tf) TJ QJ C QJ = TJ 5 = ro ro •o QJ " § 2i W tf) 01 ip = 3 73 01 tfl p Q. X QJ "tfT £ tf) ro ti ob 0 P 1 = £^ .2 ro 4-1 E ro op E -t 5 £ .t 01 43 tfl u tf) OJ £ tf) Ml ca. 01 ro 5 I- o 00 u •43 01 ro >- k- <4- tt o _ 01 •° g QJ E 5 8 iP tf) •— •g .§> x: tf) 73 c ra L. tf) 01 01 QJ TJ •|1 £ g :> ^ u ro T3 .2 QJ S: tf) c P DO .s ro B >• ro XI -^3 I 2 £ 01 1^ x: 01 4-1 °- QJ OJ ro .ti xa -5 = QJ ro = ._ x: ro tt o 00 c -g 0) z= "3 ™ Si -c 2 tf) c .tf) t •tf) ss* Zl ro 3 00 o o u fc TJ .0 C t- ra ca. 3 QJ O QJ <-> .t tf) QO -Q ra 00 c E 01 0 — 3 .2 01 u gJTJ 2 QJ T-I tf) Qi3 !;! ro ro •E - 2 ao ca. oj JJ -ii c QO o o _ QJ 3 iD -3 tf) 01 00 .00 ro .2 ro — ro O >- c -° O "D 'i3 g fe -S.k2 Q) 1- TJ P ro 73 01 ca. 0 QJ > 01 •3 01 ja -3 3 0 .c tf) tf) 01 t— 3 01 ob ea c p TJ c re 01 4-1 u. 01 4-1 00 c OJ 3 0 'tf) U ao _c i— "i-3 3 CO -3 tf) •3 QJ >4- 0 ent c £ .SP OJ 'tf) ca. de E X OJ 01 JZ 01 .Q 3 JZ IA >• 01 £ 3 tf) £ "S ^ tf) .ti ro £ ^ "3 2 ro Q. 01 .11 .ti re ro tf) M- ro P c ni ro — >, = 01 ~ - 1 2^ Q; o 00 '= .E Q. tf) 4-1 c QJ tfl 01 k_ •L 01 ro X2 c 0 _g 4-1 'tfi -3 tf) SZ tB 3 0 0 k. >4-ca. OJ k--3 ro QJ ro tf) int en ro 0 ca. •3 ro o> > as -Q xa 1 S4— 0 -3 -3 ro -2 se -3 od c tf) ro tfl TJ 0 01 4-1 tf) -Q 01 zz J3 ro IA sz ro tA JA ro •3 'C 01 QJ 4-1 4-4 01 ro ca. E E 01 0 x: u 4-1 01 "D s: c •*-" ro tt ••^ 0 O ro £ 01 m Q" ro c 01 O ao ro k- o tt ro OJ 4-1 k. o Q. X 0) QJ -Q O 01 >• 01 4-1 ro £ 'x 0 k_ ca-Q. ro *4-. JC 4-1 ca. iP 01 •3 •3 c ro -TO 4-1 ro 01 4-1 -3 ro 01 'C 4-1 ca. va E ro ea-exc ap 01 c -Q ro 1 4-1 "ra ro sh, S4— 0 E •3 01 ro tf) -Q 0 ay ds! x: T3 •T3 OJ g O •--I S 8 >-o o Psl rH PM >• ID < < LO 0 Nl Nl UJ . < < X EXHIBIT "ADDM" ADDENDUM TO THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 The purpose of this Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration is to describe a revision to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program associated w/ith the College Boulevard Mitigation project; to state the determination that this revision does not create any new significant environmental efl^ects; to indicate that none of the conditions contained in Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have occurred; and to state that a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration is not required. To'-address comments received from the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians on May 15, 2015, the revision contained in this addendum revises Mitigation Measure CULTURAL-1 and replaces Mitigation Measure CULTURAL-2 contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. CULTURAL-1 (revised MM) The following archaeological resource mitigation measures shall be implemented: a. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide v/ritten verification that a qualified archaeologist has been retained to implement the monitoring program. The verification shall be presented in a letter from the project archaeologist to the lead agency. b. The qualified archaeologist/historian shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the contractors to explain and coordinate the requirements of the monitoring program. c. During the original cutting of previously undisturbed deposits, the archaeological monitor(s) shall be on-site full- time to perform periodic inspections ofthe excavations. The frequency of inspections will depend upon the rate of excavation, the materials excavated, and the presence and abundance of artifacts and features. d. Isolates and clearly non-significant deposits will be minimally documented in the field and the monitored grading can proceed. e. In the event that previously unidentified cultural resources are discovered, the archaeologist, in consultation with the lead agency and the Native American monitor, shall have the authority to divert or temporarily halt ground disturbance operation in the area of discovery to allow evaluation of potentially significant cultural resources. The archaeologist shall contact the lead agency at the time of discovery. The archaeologist, in consultation with the lead agency and the Native American monitor shall determine the significance of the discovered resources. For significant cultural resources, a Research Design and Data Recovery Program to mitigate impacts shall be prepared by the consulting archaeologist, approved by the lead agency, and carried out using professional archaeological methods. If any human bones are discovered, the county coroner and lead agency shall be contacted. In the event that the remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Most Likely Descendant, as identified by the NAHC, shall be contacted in order to determine proper treatment and disposition of the remains. /. Before construction activities are allowed to resume in the affected area, the artifacts shall be recovered and features recorded using professional archaeological methods. The archaeological monitor(s), in consultation with the lead agency and the Native American monitor, shall determine the amount of material to be recovered for an adequate artifact sample for analysis. g. All cultural material collected during the grading monitoring program shall be processed and curated according to the current professional repository standards. The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title, to an appropriate curation facility to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation. If however, the artifacts discovered are determined to be of Native American cultural importance, the resources shall be returned to the Tribe and/or the Most Likely Descendent h. A report documenting the field and analysis results and interpreting the artifact and research data within the research context shall be completed and submitted to the satisfaction of the lead agency once the grading is completed. W 4 EXHIBIT "ADDM" CULTURAL-2 (replaces current MM) The following archeological mitigation measures shall be implemented: a. The developer shall enter into a Pre-Excavation Agreement, otherwise known as a Cultural Resources Treatment and Tribal Monitoring Agreement, with the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing activities. This agreement will contain provisions to address the proper treatment of any cultural resources or Luiseno Native American human remains inadvertently uncovered during the course of the project The agreement will outline the roles and powers ofthe Luiseno Native American monitors and the archaeologist b. Any and all uncovered artifacts of Luiseno Native American cultural importance should be returned to the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians, and/or the Most Ukely Descendant, if applicable, and not be curated. c. Native American monitors and archaeological monitors shall have joint authority to temporarily divert and/or halt construction activities. If cultural resources are discovered during construction, all earth moving activity within and around the immediate discovery area must be diverted until the Luiseno Native American monitor and the archaeologist can assess the nature and significance of the find. d. The Luiseno Native American monitor shall be present at the project's preconstruction meeting to consult with grading and excavation contractors concerning excavation schedules and safety issues, as well as consult with the principal archaeologist concerning the proposed archaeologist techniques and/or strategies for the project e. If a significant cultural resource(s) and/or unique archaeological resource(s) are unearthed during ground disturbing activities for this project, the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians shall be notified and consulted regarding the respectful and dignified treatment of those resources. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(b) avoidance is the preferred method of preservation for archaeological and cultural resources. If however, the Applicant is able to demonstrate that avoidance of a significant and/or unique cultural resources is infeasible and a data recovery plan is authorized by the City of Carlsbad as the lead agency, the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians shall be consulted regarding the drafting and finalization of any such recovery plan. /. When cultural resources are discovered during the project, if the archaeologist collects such resources, a Luiseno Native American monitor must be present during any testing or cataloging of those resources. If the archaeologist does not collect the cultural resources that are unearthed during the ground disturbing activities, the Luiseno Native American monitor, may in their discretion, collect said resources and provide them to the tribe and respectful and dignified treatment in accordance with the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians cultural and spiritual traditions. g. If suspected Native American human remains are encountered, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the San Dlego County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(b) remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. Suspected Native American remains shall be examined in the field and kept in a secure location at the site. A Luiseno Native American monitor shall be present during the analysis of the remains. If the San Diego County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) must be contacted within 24 hours. The NAHC must them immediately notify the "Most Likely Descendant' of receiving notification ofthe discovery. The Most Likely Descendant shall then make recommendations within 48 hours, and engage in consultation concerning treatment of remains as provided in Public Resources Code 5097.98. h. In the event that fill is imported into the project area, the fill shall be clean of cultural resources and documented as such. If fill material is to be utilized and/or exported from areas within the project site, then that fill shall be analyzed and confirmed by an archeologist and Luiseno Native American monitor that such fill material does not contain cultural resources. This revision is not considered substantial or significant as it relates to the environmental effects associated with the project, or the condifions contained in Secfion 15162 of CEQA, and a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declarafion is not required. S-ai-zs- Date: Don Neu City Planner PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 7103 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF: 1) AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND THE OPEN SPACE AND 3 CONSERVATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR PARCEL A (1.0 ACRES) 4 FROM RESIDENTIAL LOW-MEDIUM DENSITY (RLM) TO OPEN SPACE (OS) AND PARCEL C (8.81 ACRES) FROM RESIDENTIAL LOW-MEDIUM DENSITY 5 (RLM) AND OPEN SPACE (OS) TO OPEN SPACE (OS) AND 2) A ZONE CHANGE FOR PARCEL A (1.0 ACRES), PARCEL B (0.84 ACRES) AND 6 PARCEL C (8.81 ACRES) FROM LIMITED CONTROL (L-C) TO OPEN SPACE (OS) ON A 17.44-ACRE SITE (16.43 NET ACRES) LOCATED NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF COLLEGE BOULEVARD AND SUNNY CREEK ROAD AND SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF CANNON ROAD AND COLLEGE BOULEVARD, WITHIN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 15. CASENAME: COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION CASE NO.: GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01 WHEREAS, WP Golf & Equestrian, "Owner," and Bent-West LLC, "Applicant," has filed a 11 verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as 12 13 Northern Parcel. APN 209-060-71 That portion of Lot 'B' of Raficho Agua Hedionda in the County of San Diego, State of California, according to the map thereof, filed in the 24 Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, November 16, 1896. Said parcel being described as Parcel A of Certificate of Compliance recorded March 27, 2007 as Instrument No. 2007-0205890 of official records. 15 16 17 18 19 Southern Parcel. APN 209-060-72 That portion of Lot 'B' of Rancho Agua Hedionda in the County of San Diego, State of California, according to the map thereof No. 823, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, November 16,1896. 20 Said parcel being described as Parcel D of Certificate of Compliance recorded September 13, 2007 as instrument No. 2007-0603110 of 21 official records 22 ("the Property"); and 23 WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a General Plan 24 Amendment and Zone Change as shown on Exhibits "GPA 14-02" and "ZC 14-01" dated June 3, 2015, 25 attached hereto and on file in the Carlsbad Planning Division, COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION - GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01, as provided in Government Code Section 65350 et. seq. and Section 21.52.150 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and as provided by Chapter 21.52 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, 28 in respectively; and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 WHEREAS, the proposed Zone Change is set forth in the draft City Council Ordinance, EXHIBIT "X" dated June 3, 2015, and attached hereto COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION - ZC 14-01; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on June 3, 2015, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relafing to the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of 11 Carlsbad, as follows: 12 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 13 C) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION - GPA 14-02/ZC 14- 14 01, based on the following findings, and subject to the following conditions: 15 Findings General Plan Amendment, GPA 14-02 17 1. The Planning Commiission finds that the project is in conformance with the Elements of the City's General Plan based on the facts set forth in the staff report dated June 3, 2015 including, but not limited to the following: 18 19 Land Use- in that the proposed habitat mitigation project creates and permanently 20 preserves 8.81 acres (Parcel C) of sensitive wetland, riparian and upland habitat adjacent to Agua Hedionda Creek. Proposed Parcel C will be permanently preserved as open space 21 through a biological conservation easement. In addition, consistent with the requirements of the Habitat Management Plan (HMP), the area will be converted from a 22 Proposed Standards to a Hardline Area. Proposed Parcels A and B will also be designated as Open Space. Parcel A will be designated as OS and used as a garden area in the future. 23 Parcel B will developed with a bio-retention basin and also designated as OS. In total, 10.65 acres is proposed to be designated as OS, which will contribute to the enhancement 24 and image of Carlsbad as an open-space oriented community. 25 b. Open Space - in that the proposed habitat mitigation project entails the creation of sensitive wetland, riparian and upland habitat adjacent to Agua Hedionda Creek which 26 will be permanently preserved. The mitigation project will enhance the overall biological value of the area adjacent to the creek and will assist with maintaining a functional 27 wildlife corridor and habitat linkage along Agua Hedionda Creek. In addition, a total of 5.21 acres of the project site is currently designated as OS in the General Plan and a total PC RESO NO. 7103 -2-28 1 of 10.65 acres is proposed to be re-designated to OS as part of the General Plan 2 Amendment. Thus, a net gain of 5.44 acres of OS-designated property is proposed. 3 Zone Change, ZC 14-01 4 2. That the proposed Zone Change from Limited Control (L-C) to Open Space (OS) for Parcels A, B and C is consistent with the goals and policies of the various elements of the General Plan, in 5 that the OS zoning designation replaces the L-C zoning designation, which is in^tended to be an interim zone, and implements the Open Space (OS) General Plan Land Use designation. ^ The O-S designation allows for the sensitive habitat on Parcel C to be permanently preserved and managed through a conservation easement and also allows for a future garden on Parcel ^ A and a bio-retention basin on Parcel B. 8 9 3. That the Zone Change will provide consistency between the General Plan and Zoning as mandated by California State law and the City of Carlsbad General Plan Land Use Element, in that the zone designations shown on Exhibit "ZC 14-01" attached hereto implements the Open 20 Space (OS) General Plan Land Use designation. 11 4. That the Zone Change is consistent with the public convenience, necessity, and general welfare, and is consistent with sound planning principles in that the open space uses allowed by the 12 proposed zone change are compatible with the adjacent and future residential, community facility and open space uses. 13 14 15 17 18 19 24 25 26 27 28 California Environmental Quality Act 5. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: a. it has reviewed, analyzed, and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum for COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION - GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14- 02/MS 14-10, the potential environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL ofthe project; and the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California 20 Environmental Quality Aet, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and 21 it refiects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of 22 Carlsbad; and 23 d. based on the EIA and comments thereon, there is no substanfial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. General 6. 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. PC RESO NO. 7103 -3- 1 Conditions: 2 1. If any of the following condifions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented 3 and maintained over fime, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein 4 granted; deny or further condifion issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke, or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein 5 granted; record a notice of violation on the property title; institfite and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said condifions or seek damages for their violation. No vested ^ rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City's approval of this General ^ Plan Amendment and Zone Change. g 2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all correcfions and modifications to the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change documents, as necessary to g make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final acfion on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed 10 development, different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. 11 3. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and regulations in effect at the fime of building permit issuance. 12 4. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment of any 13 fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Secfion 66020. If any sueh 14 condition is determined to be invalid, this approval shall be invalid unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with all requirements of law. 15 5. 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 liabilifies, 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 General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, (b) City's approval or issuance of any permit or acfion, whether discretionary or nondiscretionary, in jg connecfion with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator's installafion and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including without limitafion, any and all liabilifies 20 arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This obligation survives until all legal proceedings have been concluded and 21 continues even if the City's approval is not validated. 22 6. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum, COLLEGE BOULEVARD 23 MITIGATION - HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolufions No. 7102, 7104 and 7105 for those other 24 approvals incorporated herein by reference. 25 7. Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, COLLEGE BOULEVARD 26 MITIGATION - GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10. 17 18 27 28 PC RESO NO. 7103 -4- 0 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 ofthe Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on June 3, 2015, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Scully, Commissioners L'Heureux, Montgomery, Siekmann and Segall NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Anderson and Black ABSTAIN: VICTORIA SdLILLY, Chairperson CARLSKtimANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: DON NEU City Planner pr RF«;n wn. 7in3 EXHIBIT "X" June 3, 2015 ORDINANCE NO. ^ ^ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, 2 CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 21.05.030 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP TO 3 GRANT A ZONE CHANGE FROM LIMITED CONTROL (L-C) TO OPEN SPACE (OS) FOR PARCEL A (1.0 ACRES), PARCEL B (0.84 ACRES) AND PARCEL C (8.81 ACRES) ON A 17.44-ACRE SITE (16.43 NET 5 ACRES) LOCATED NdRTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF COLLEGE BOULEVARD AND SUNNY CREEK ROAD AND SOUTH OF THE 6 INTERSECTION OF CANNON ROAD AND COLLEGE BOULEVARD, WITHIN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 15. CASE NAME: COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION CASE NO.: ZC 14-01 4 g The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does ordain as follows: WHEREAS, the City Council did on the day of , hold a duly 11 noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 12 WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Zone Change as shown on Exhibit "ZC 14-01 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION," dated June 3, 2015, attached hereto 14 and made a part hereof; and 15 WHEREAS at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and 16 arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said City Council considered all factors 18 relatlngto the "ZC 14-01 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION." 19 NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad does ordain as 20 follows: 21 SECTION I: That section 21.05.030 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, being the 22 2^ zoning map, is amended as shown on the map labeled "ZC 14-01 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD 24 MITIGATION," dated June 3, 2015, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 25 SECTION II: That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission in Planning Commission Resolution No. 7103 shall also constitute the findings and conditions of 27 the City Council. 28 " 1 EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective no sooner than thirty days ^ after its adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it 3 to be published at least once in a publication of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within 4 fifteen days after its §doption. 5 INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meefing ofthe Carlsbad City Council 6 y on the day of 2015, and thereafter 8 /// 9 10 11 12 13 14 /// 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 /// /// /// /// 15 /// 16 /// /// /// /// 21 /// /// /// /// /// /// -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 1 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of ^ Carlsbad on the day of 2015, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY CELIA A. BREWER, City Attorney MATT HALL, Mayor ATTEST: BARBARA ENGLESON, City Clerk (SEAL) GPA 14-02 Exhibit "GPA 14-02' June 3, 2015 College Boulevard Mitigation EXISTING PROPOSED Related Case File No(s): ZC 14-01 / HDP 14-04 / SUP 14-03 / HMP 14-02 / MS 14-10 General Plan Land Use Designation Changes Property From: To: A. 209-060-71 RLM/OS OS B. 209-060-72 RLM/OS RLM/OS C. ZC 14-01 Exhibit "ZC 14-01" June 3, 2015 College Boulevard Mitigation L-C R-1-0.5Q EXISTING PROPOSED Related Case File No(s): GPA 14-02 / HDP 14-04 / SUP 14-03 / HMP 14-02 / MS 14-10 Zoning Designation Changes Property From: To: A. 209-060-71 L-C OS B. 209-060-72 L-C L-C/OS C. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTiON NO. 7104 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF 3 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND MINOR 4 SUBDIVISION TO ALLOW FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF HABITAT MITIGATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF COLLEGE 5 ' BOULEVARD REACH "A" ON A 17.44-ACRE SITE (16.43 NET ACRES) LOCATED NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF COLLEGE BOULEVARD AND 6 SUNNY CREEK ROAD AND SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF CANNOISI ROAD AND COLLEGE BOULEVARD, WITHIN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 15. CASE NAME: COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION CASE NO.: HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/MS 14-10 24 25 26 27 28 WHEREAS, WP Golf & Equestrian, "Owner," and Bent- West LLC, "Applicant", has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as 7 8 9 10 11 „ Northern Parcel. APN 209-060-71 12 That portion of Lot 'B' of Rancho Agua Hedionda in the County of San Diego, State of California, according to the map thereof, filed in the 13 Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, November 16, 1896. 14 Said parcel being described as Parcel A of Certificate of Compliance 15 recorded March 27, 2007 as instrument No. 2007-0205890 of official records. 16 17 Southern Parcel. APN 209-060-72 That portion of Lot 'B' of Rancho Agua Hedionda in the County of San 13 Diego, State of California, according to the map thereof No. 823, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, November 19 16,1896. 20 Said parcel being described as Parcel D of Certificate of Compliance recorded September 13, 2007 as instrument No. 2007-0603110 of 21 official records 22 ("the Property"); and 23 WHEREAS, said verified applicafion constitutes a request for a Hillside Development Permit, Special Use Permit, and Minor Subdivision as shown on Exhibits "A" - "G," dated June 3, 2015, on file in the Planning Division, COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION - HDP 14-04, SUP 14-03, MS 14-10, as provided by Chapters 21.95, 21.110, and Title 20 ofthe Carlsbad Municipal Code; and 21 22 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on June 3, 2015, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Hillside Development Permit, Special Use Permit, and Minor Subdivision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: Findings: Hillside Development Permit, HDP 14-04 20 B) That based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Hillside Development Permit, Special Use Permit, and Minor 11 Subdivision, HDP 14-04, SUP 14-03, MS 14-10, for COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: 12 " 13 14 1. That hillside condifions and undevelopable areas of the site have been properly identified on 15 the constraints map, including the existing fioodway, sensitive habitat, exisfing and proposed topographical contours and slope gradients. 16 That the development proposal is consistent with the intent, purpose, and requirements ofthe 17 Hillside Ordinance, Chapter 21.95, in that the grading proposed in conjunction with the project will implement the goals and objectives of the land use and open space/conservation 18 elements of the General Plan since permanent open space will be created as part of the habitat mitigation project. Specifically, 8.81 acres (net) of sensitive upland, riparian and 19 wetland habitat will be created adjacent to Agua Hedionda Creek and will be protected through the designation of an open space lot and long-term preservation via a biological 20 conservation easement on Parcel C. The proposed habitat mitigation project satisfies the biological resource mitigation measures for the development of College Boulevard Reach "A", which is an extension of a major arterial road. The habitat mitigation project would create manufactured slopes at varied gradients (i.e., minimum slope inclination of 2:1) up to 40 feet in height and 200 feet in length. The manufactured slopes would be contoured to blend in 23 with the surrounding area and would be landscaped consistent with the City's Landscape Manual and Habitat Management Plan to appear natural and aesthetically pleasing. In 24 addition, the proposed quantity of grading, 7,595 cubic yards of grading per acre, falls within the "acceptable" range. 25 3. That the alteration of natural hillsides will be done in an environmentally sensitive manner 26 whereby lagoons and riparian ecosystems will be protected from increased erosion and no substantial impacts to natural resource areas, wildlife habitats or native vegetation will occur in 27 that the proposed habitat mitigation project will ultimately enhance the natural resources and improve the wildlife corridor adjacent to Agua Hedionda Creek. , <Lp* PC RESO NO. 7104 -2 1 4. That the project design substanfially conforms to the intent of the concepts illustrated in the 2 Hillside Development Guidelines Manual, in that the manufactured slopes will have varying gradients, will be contour-graded, and will be landscaped pursuant to the City's Landscape 3 Manual and Habitat Management Plan. The combined effect will soften the appearance of the graded slopes. No development beyond the grading for the habitat mitigation is proposed in 4 conjunction with the project. 5 Special Use Permit, SUP 14-03 g 5. The site is reasonably safe from flooding in that pursuant to the Hydraulic Analysis prepared for the project (Lyle Engineering, Inc., January, 2015), the grading associated with the 7 proposed habitat mitigation project will increase the flow conveyance volume in the fioodplain areas and significantly reduce the lOO-year starting water surface elevation (WSE). 8 This reduction will occur west of the bridge over Agua Hedionda Creek; the bridge will be constructed as a part of the College Boulevard Extension (Reach A, EIR 98-02). In addition, as 9 a result of the grading for the habitat mitigation, which includes widening the channel on Parcel C, Parcels A and D will be located outside of the floodplain. Further, results of the 10 Hydraulic Analysis indicate that fiow velocities post project will be lower or equal to pre- project conditions within the proposed widening of the channel. Flow velocities will be 11 significantly reduced because of the shallower depths spread across the channel bottom. Therefore, the site will be reasonably safe from fiooding. ^2 6. The project as proposed has been designed to minimize the flood hazard to the habitable portions of the structure in that no habitable structures are proposed in conjunction with the habitat mitigation project. 25 7. The proposed project does not create a hazard for adjacent, or upstream/downstream properties or structures in that the grading associated with the proposed habitat mitigation 15 project will increase the flow conveyance volume in the floodplain areas and significantly reduce the lOO-year starting water surface elevation (WSE). This reduction will occur west of 17 the bridge over Agua Hedionda Creek; the bridge will be constructed as a part of the College Boulevard Extension (Reach A, EIR 98-02). In addition, as a result of the grading for the 18 habitat mitigation, which includes widening the channel on Parcel C, Parcels A and D will be located outside of the fioodplain. Further, results of the Hydraulic Analysis indicate that fiow 19 velocities post project will be lower or equal to pre-project conditions within the proposed widening of the channel. Flow velocities will be significantly reduced because of the shallower depths spread across the channel bottom. 21 8. The proposed project does not reduce the ability of the site to pass or handle a base fiood of lOO-year frequency in that the grading associated with the proposed habitat mitigation 22 project will increase the fiow conveyance volume in the fioodplain areas and significantly reduce the lOO-year starting water surface elevation (WSE). 24 9. The proposed project taken together with all the other known, proposed, and anticipated projects will not increase the water surface elevation of the base fiood more than one foot at 2^ any point in that pursuant to the Hydraulic Analysis prepared for the project (Lyle Engineering, Inc., January 2015), the grading associated with the proposed habitat mitigation project will 25 increase the flow conveyance volume in the fioodplain areas and significantly reduce the lOO- year starting water surface elevation (WSE). 27 28 PC RESO NO. 7104 -3- Minor Subdivision, MS 14-10 10. That the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement of 3 the subdivision as condifioned, is consistent with and safisfies all requirements of the General Plan, any applicable specific plans. Titles 20 and 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the 4 State Subdivision Map Aet, and will not cause serious public health problems, in that the tentative parcel map creates four (4) parcels, three (3) of which (Parcels A-C) will be General 5 Plan-designated and zoned Open Space. No development is proposed on Parcel D at this time. 6 11. That the proposed project is compafible with the surrounding future land uses since permanent ^ open space is a desired land use, particularly natural open space, as is proposed in conjunction with the habitat mitigation adjacent to Agua Hedionda Creek on Parcel C. 8 g 12. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development in that no development beyond the habitat mitigation on Parcel C is proposed. Parcels A, B, and C will be designated as Open Space which will preclude any residential development in the future. Parcel D will continue to be designated Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM) and zoned 12 Limited Control (L-C); no development is proposed on Parcel D at this time. 12 13. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not confiict with easements of record or easements established by court judgment, or acquired by the public at large, for 13 access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, in that there are no easements of record or easements established by court judgment for access through or use of 14 property within the property. 15 14. That the property is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act). 16 17 18 26 27 28 15. That the design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, in that in that no structures are proposed in conjunction with the habitat mitigation project. j^g 16. That the design of the subdivision and improvements are not likely to cause substanfial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat, 20 in that the proposed habitat mitigation project includes the creation of sensitive upland, riparian and wetland habitat adjacent to Agua Hedionda Creek. Ultimately, the overall value 21 of the sensitive habitat adjacent to the creek, as well as the wildlife corridor, will be superior to what currently exists on-site. 22 17. That the discharge of waste from the subdivision will not result in violafion of exisfing California 23 Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, in that the subdivision of the property into four (4) parcels and the implementation of habitat mitigation on Parcel C will improve 24 the drainage pattern through the addition of wetland habitat adjacent to Agua Hedionda Creek. In addition, the project has been designed in accordance with the Best Management ^5 Practices for water quality protection in accordance with the city's drainage standards and the project is conditioned to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. PC RESO NO. 7104 -4- 1 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 California Environmental Quality Act 18. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: a. it has reviewed, analyzed, and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation 4 Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Addendum for COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION - GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10, the 5 potential environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments" thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Addendum, have been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and c. it refiects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and 1 11 d. based on the EIA Part II, comments thereon and with the incorporation of the proposed Mitigation Measures listed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, there is 12 no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. 13 General 24 19. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in conformance with the Elements of the City's General Plan based on the facts set forth in the staff report dated 25 May 20, 2015, including but not limited to the following: 25 a. Land Use- in that the proposed habitat mitigation project creates and permanently preserves 8.81 acres (Parcel C) of sensitive wetland, riparian and upland habitat adjacent 17 to Agua Hedionda Creek. Proposed Parcel C will be permanently preserved as open space through a biological conservation easement. In addition, consistent with the 18 requirements of the Habitat Management Plan (HMP), the area will be converted from a Proposed Standards to a Hardline Area. Proposed Parcels A and B will also be designated 19 as Open Space. Parcel A will be designated as OS and used as a garden area in the future. Parcel B will developed with a bio-retention basin and also designated as OS. In total, 2*^ 10.65 acres is proposed to be designated as OS, which will contribute to the enhancement and image of Carlsbad as an open-space oriented community. ^ Open Space - in that the proposed habitat mitigation project entails the creation of sensitive wetland, riparian and upland habitat adjacent to Agua Hedionda Creek which 23 will be permanently preserved. The mitigation project will enhance the overall biological value of the area adjacent to the creek and will assist with maintaining a functional 24 wildlife corridor and habitat linkage along Agua Hedionda Creek. In addition, a total of 5.21 acres of the project site is currently designated as OS in the General Plan and a total 25 of 10.65 acres is proposed to be re-designated to OS as part of the General Plan Amendment. Thus, a net gain of 5.44 acres of OS-designated property is proposed. 26 20. The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilifies and Improvements Plan, the Local 27 Facilities Management Plan for Zones 15 and all City public policies and ordinances. The project includes elements or has been conditioned to construct or provide funding to ensure that all PC RESO NO. 7104 -5- Xb*^-^ 1 facilities and improvements regarding: sewer collection and treatment; water; drainage; 2 circulation; fire; schools; parks and other recreafional facilifies; libraries; government administrative facilifies; and open space, related to the project will be installed to serve new 3 development prior to or concurrent with need. Specifically, 4 a. The Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No. 17 and will be collected prior to the issuance of building permit. b. The Local Facilities Management fee for Zone 15 is required by Carlsbad Municipal Code ^ Section 21.90.050 and will be collected prior to issuance of building permit. ^ 21. That the project is consistent with the City's Landscape Manual and Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 18.50). 8 22. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer ^ contained in this resolufion, and hereby finds, in this ease, that the exacfions 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. 10 11 12 21 24 Conditions: Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to issuance ofthe grading 23 permit. 24 1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over fime, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained 15 according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condifion issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke, or 16 further condifion all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; record a notice of violation on the property title; institute and prosecute litigation to 17 compel their compliance with said condifions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City's approval of this Hillside 1^ Development Permit, Special Use Permit, and Minor Subdivision. '^^ 2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all correcfions and modifications to the Hillside Development Permit, Special Use Permit, and Minor Subdivision documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final acfion on the project.. Development shall occur substanfially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development, different from this approval, shall require an amendment 22 to this approval. 23 3. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and regulafions in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 4. If any condifion for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment of any 25 fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section 66020. If any such 26 condifion is determined to be invalid, this approval shall be invalid unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with all requirements of law 27 2^ PC RESO NO. 7104 0k 1 5. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, 2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum, GPA 14-02, ZC 14-01, and HMP 14-02, and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolufions No. 7102, 3 7103 and 7105 for those other approvals incorporated herein by reference. 4 6. Developer shall implement, or cause the implementafion of, the Mitigated Negatiye Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum, GPA 14-02/ZC 14- 5 01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10. 7 8 9 6 7. 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 liabilifies, 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 Hillside Development Permit, Special Use Permit, and Minor Subdivision, (b) City's approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or nondiscretionary, in connecfion with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator's installation and operafion of the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of 22 eleetromagnefic 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 12 validated. 13 8. Developer shall submit to the Planning Division a reproducible 24" x 36" mylar copy of the Site Plan refieefing the conditions approved by the final decision-making body. 14 Developer shaH include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plancheck, a reduced 15 legible version of all approving resolufion(s) in a 24" x 36" blueline drawing format (including any applicable Coastal Commission approvals). 16 17 10. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required as part of the Zone 15 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that Plan prior Jg to the issuance of building permits. 29 11. This approval shall become null and void if grading permits are not issued for this project within 24 months from the date of project approval. 20 12. Developer shall pay the citywide Public Facilifies Fee imposed by City Council Policy #17, the 21 License Tax on new construcfion imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Secfion 5.09.030, and CFD #1 special tax (if applicable), subject to any credits authorized by Carlsbad Municipal Code 22 Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 15, pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such taxes/fees shall be paid at issuance of building 23 permit. If the taxes/fees are not paid, this approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void. 24 13. Developer shall submit and obtain City Planner approval of a Final Landscape and Irrigation Plan showing conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the City's Landscape 2g Manual. Developer shall construct and install all landscaping as shown on the approved Final Plans, and maintain all landscaping in a healthy and thriving condifion, free from weeds, trash, 2y and debris. yr 28 PC RESO NO. 7104 1 „ 14. The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigafion Plans shall be pursuant to the landscape 2 plancheck process on flle in the Planning Division and accompanied by the project's grading plans. 3 15. Prior to issuance of the Grading Permit, Developer shall submit to the City a Notice of 4 Restriction executed by the owner of the real property to be developed. Said notice is to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction of the City Planner, 5 notifying all interested parties and successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Hillside Development Permit, Special Use Permit, Habitat Management Plan Permit and Minor Subdivision by Resolutions No. 7102, 7103, 7104 and 7105 on the property. Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property deseription, location of the file containing complete project details and all conditions of approval as well as any conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. The City Planner has the authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice which modifies or g terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer or successor in interest. 20 Engineering: 11 NOTE: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions below shall be satisfied prior to grading permit, or recordation of the Parcel Map, whichever comes first; or pursuant to an approved 12 construction schedule at the discretion ofthe appropriate division manager or official. 13 General 14 16. Prior to hauling dirt or construcfion materials to or from any proposed construcfion site within this project, developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the city engineer for the proposed haul route. 15 16 17. Developer shall submit to the city planner, a reproducible 24" x 36", mylar copy of the Site 17 Plan/Tentative Parcel Map reflecting the condifions approved by the final decision making body. The reproducible shall be submitted to the city planner, reviewed and, if acceptable, 18 signed by the city's project engineer and project planner prior to submittal of the improvement plans, grading plans, or parcel map, whichever occurs first. 19 20 21 22 18. Developer shall prepare, submit and process for eity engineer approval a Parcel Map to subdivide this project. There shall be one Parcel Map recorded for this project. Developer shall pay the eity standard map review plan check fees. Fees/Agreements 23 19. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the city engineer for recordation the city's standard form Drainage Hold Harmless Agreement. 24 20. Prior to the future development of Parcel D, this parcel shall be annexed into City of Cartsbad 25 Street Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1 or 2, to the satisfaction of the city finance director. The developer of Parcel D shall pay all fees necessary to annex the property into 26 SLStLD. A note to this effect shall be included on the non-mapping sheet of the parcel map. 28 PC RESO NO. 7104 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 Grading 21. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantifies shown on the Tentative'Map/Site Plan, a grading permit for this project is required. Developer shall prepare and submit plans and technical studies/reports for city engineer review, post security and pay all applicable grading plan review and permit fees per the city's latest fee schedule. 22. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, Developer shall apply for and receive approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) related to the proposed grading within the existing regulatory fioodplain. Proof of CLOMR approval shall be provided to the satisfaction of the city engineer. 23. Upon completion of grading associated with this project. Developer shall submit, process and receive approval of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) to document, with FEMA, the work has been accomplished. Proof of LOMR approval shall be provided to the satisfaction of the city engineer. 24. Prior to approval of the Parcel Map, in accordance with Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 15 requirements. Developer shall provide evidence that the design and security has been posted for detention basin 'BJ' just east of the intersection of College Boulevard and Cannon Road all to the satisfaction of the city engineer. 25. Prior to approval of the Parcel Map, Developer shall provide evidence that the relocation site of the existing Rancho Carlsbad RV storage/garden site for the adjacent property owner of APN 168-050-43 (Rancho Carlsbad Partners) has been provided for as described in EIR 98-02. Developer shall provide evidence that a secured agreement is provided to the city guaranteeing rough grading and drainage improvements of the RV storage/garden site in a form acceptable to the city engineer and city attorney. 26. Prior to approval of the Parcel Map or construction of Basin BJ, whichever comes first. Developer shall provide evidence that the Rancho Carlsbad RV storage/garden replacement site improvements have been constructed as required per EIR 98-02 and RMHP 96-01(D), to the satisfaction of the city planner and the city engineer. 27. No grading for private improvements shall occur outside the project unless developer obtains, records, and submits a reeorded copy, to the city engineer, a temporary grading, construction or slope easement or agreement from the owners of the affected properties. If developer is unable to obtain the temporary grading or slope easement, or agreement, no grading permit will be issued. In that case developer must either apply for and obtain ah amendment of this approval or modify the plans so grading will not occur outside the project and apply for and obtain a finding of substanfial conformance and/or consistency determination from both the city engineer and eity planner. 28. Developer shall comply with the city's Stormwater Regulations, latest version, and shall implement best management practices at all times. Best management practices include but are not limited to pollufion control pracfices or devices, erosion control to prevent silt runoff during construcfion, general housekeeping practices, pollution prevention and educational practices, maintenance procedures, and other management pracfices or devices to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants to stormwater, receiving water or stormwater conveyance system to the maximum extent practicable. Developer shall, notify prospective owners and tenants ofthe above requirements. ^ PC RESO NO. 7104 -9- 1 29. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, developer shall submit to the city engineer receipt of 2 a Notice of Intent from the State Water Resources Control Board. 3 30. Prior to the issuance of grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, developer shall submit for city approval a Tier 3 Storm Water Pollution Prevenfion Plan (TIER 3 SWPPP). 4 The TIER 3 SWPPP shall comply with current requirements and provisions established by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board and City of Carlsbad Requirements. The TIER 3 SWPPP shdil identify and incorporate measures to reduce storm water pollutant runoff during construction of the project to the maximum extent practicable. Developer shall pay all applicable SWPPP plan review and inspecfion fees per the city's latest fee schedule. 15 16 18 19 27 28 Dedications/Improvements 5 6 7 g 31. Prior to approval of the Parcel Map, in accordance with Local Facilities Management Plan g Zone 15 requirements. Developer shall provide evidence that the design and posting of security of street improvements to College Boulevard approximately 4200-feet from its 20 existing northerly terminus near El Camino Real to the intersection of Cannon Road has been provided to the satisfaction of the city engineer. These improvements shall, at a minimum, 11 consist of 'core' improvements. 'Core' imprpvements include full-width grading for College Boulevard (major arterial standards), two 18-wide paved lanes (one in each direction), 12 median curb, road drainage crossings and environmental mitigation. The parcel map shall not record without compliance with Zone 15 requirements. 13 32. Prior to Parcel Map approval, in accordance with Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 15 14 requirements. Developer shall submit evidence of a financing program, for the design and construction of the 'core' improvements for College Boulevard reach A, executed by all participating property owners, subject to review by the city engineer and finance director and approval by City Council. The Parcel Map shall not record without compliance with Zone 15 requirements. 1^ 33. Prior to Parcel Map approval, Developer shall provide evidence that a private access and utility easement for Parcel A is provided through the adjacent Dos Colinas development, MS 09-04 as shown on the Tentative Map/Site Plan. If an access and utility easement has not been provided. Developer shall cause owner to submit to the eity engineer for recordafion an offsite covenant of easement, or other acceptable instrument, for private access and utility 20 purposes to College Boulevard for the benefit of Parcel A as shown on the Tentative Map/Site Plan. Developer shall pay processing fees per the city's latest fee schedule. 21 34. Prior to Parcel Map approval. Developer shall cause owner to execute a certificate on the 22 parcel or submit to the city engineer for recordation a covenant of easement, or other acceptable instrument, for private access purposes for the benefit of Parcel C as shown on the 23 Tentative Map/Site Plan. Developer shall pay processing fees per the city's latest fee schedule. 24 35. Prior to Parcel Map approval. Developer shall abandon a portion of abutters rights for ingress and egress relinquished per document no. 2007-0205886 recorded March 27, 2007. Said 25 abandonment shall apply to only that portion required to accommodate the proposed access road for the water quality basin on Parcel B and maintenance access for Parcel C as shown on 26 the Tentative Map/Site Plan all to the satisfaction of the city engineer. PC RESO NO. 7104 -10- 1 „ 36. Prior to Parcel Map approval, if the improvements, as listed below, along this subdivision 2 frontage have not been previously designed and secured through Zone 15 College Blvd Finance mechanism or other means. Developer shall prepare and process public improvement 3 plans and, prior to eity engineer approval of said' plans, shall execute a city standard Minor Subdivision Improvement Agreement to install and shall post security in accordance with C.M.C 4 Section 20.16.070 for public improvements shown on the Tentative Map for MS 09-04. Said improvements shall be installed to city standards to the satisfaction ofthe eity engineer. These 5 improvements include, but are not limited to Complete half-street improvements for College Boulevard (major arterial standards) along the project frontage per city standards. Complete half-street improvements include a 32-ft paved half-street width consisting of two 12-foot lanes and an 8-foot g bike lane, curb, gutter, street lights, fire hydrants, median hardscape, median landscaping, parkway irrigation and parkway irrigation as shown on the tentative 9 parcel map for MS 09-04 incorporated herein, 10 Developer shall pay the standard improvement plan check and inspection fees. Improvements listed above shall be constructed within 36 months of approval of the subdivision or 11 development improvement agreement or such other fime as provided in said agreement. 12 37. Developer shall process a construction revision to the record drawing or prepare public improvement plans and, prior to city engineer approval of said plans, shall execute a eity 1^ standard Minor Subdivision Improvement Agreement to install and shall post security in accordance with C.M.C. Section 20.16.070 for public improvements shown on the Tentative 1^ Map/Site Plan. Said improvements shall be installed.to city standards to the satisfaction of the city engineer. These improvements include, but are not limited to: Jg A. Developer shall remove or abandon the public sewer as shown on the Tentative Map to the satisfaction ofthe city engineer. 17 Developer shall pay the standard improvement plan check and inspection fees. Improvements 28 listed above shall be constructed within 36 months of approval of the subdivision or development improvement agreement or sueh other time as provided in said agreement. 19 " 20 38. On the non-mapping sheet. Developer shall depict the proposed limits of lOO-year inundation 21 through the subdivision. 22 39. Add the following notes to the Parcel Map as non-mapping data: 23 A. Developer has executed a city standard Minor Subdivision Improvement Agreement and has posted security in accordance with C.M.C. Section 20.16.070 to install public 24 improvements shown on the Tentative Map/Site Plan. These improvements include, but are not limited to: 25 1) Developer shall remove or abandon the public sewer as shown on the Tentative 26 Map to the satisfaction of the city engineer. Non-Mapping Notes 27 B. Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the appropriate agency determines that sewer and water facilities are available. PC RESO NO. 7104 -11-28 Code Reminders: The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to the following: 1 ,. C. The owner of this property on behalf of itself and all of its successors in interest has 2 agreed to hold harmless and indemnify the City of Carlsbad from any action that may arise through any diversion of waters, the alteration of the normal flow of surface 3 waters or drainage, or the concentration of surface waters or drainage from the drainage system or other improvements identified in the city approved development 4 plans; or by the design, construction or maintenance of the drainage system or other improvements identified in the city approved development plans. 5 6 7 8 40. This tentative map shall expire two years from the date on which the Planning Commission g voted to approve this applicafion. 20 41. Developer shall pay planned local area drainage fees in accordance with Section 15.08.020 of the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code to the satisfaction of the city engineer. 11 42. Some improvements shown on the tentative map and/or required by these condifions are 12 located offsite on property which neither the city nor the owner has sufficient title or interest to permit the improvements to be made without acquisition of title or interest. The developer 13 shall immediately initiate negotiafions to acquire such property. The developer shall use its best efforts to effectuate negotiated acquisition. If unsuccessful, developer shall demonstrate to the 14 city engineer its best efforts, and comply with the requirements of the Carlsbad Municipal Code Secfion 20.16.095 to notify and enable the city to successfully acquire said property by 1^ condemnafion. 16 43. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, Developer shall pay the Local Facilities Management jy fee for Zone 15 as required by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.90.050. 28 44. Developer shall pay a landscape plancheck and inspecfion fee as required by Section 20.08.050 ofthe Carlsbad Municipal Code. 19 45. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the Zoning 20 Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of grading permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein. 21 " 22 23 24 25 26 27 " „LO 28 PC RESO NO. 7104 -12- 20 21 NOTICE 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." 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 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in g accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to fimely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. 7 You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT 8 APPLY to water and sewer connecfion fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading, or other similar application processing or service fees in connecfion with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any 9 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. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 VICl'«QgJA^CULLY, Chairperson 19 CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meefing ofthe planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on June 3, 2015, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Scully, Commissioners L'Heureux, Montgomery, Siekmann and Segall NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Anderson and Black 22 DON NEU City Planner 23 24 25 26 27 28 PC RESO NO. 7104 -13- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 7105 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF 3 CARLSBAD, CAUFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE REMOVAL OF 4 UPLAND HABITAT (HABITAT GROUPS E AND F) FOR THE COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION PROJECT ON PARCEL C, A 8.81-ACRE (NET) 5 PARCEL LOCATED ON A 17.44-ACRE (16.43 NET ACRES)''SITE, LOCATED NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF COLLEGE BOULEVARD AND SUNNY ^ CREEK ROAD AND SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF CANNON ROAD AND COLLEGE BOULEVARD, WITHIN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 15. CASE NAME: COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION CASE NO: HMP 14-02 24 25 26 27 28 WHEREAS, WP Golf & Equestrian, "Owner," and Bent- West LLC, "Applicant," has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as 7 8 9 10 11 ,. Northern Parcel. APN 209-060-71 12 That portion of Lot 'B' of Rancho Agua Hedionda in the County of San Diego, State of California, according to the map thereof, filed in the 13 Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, November 16, 1896. 14 • 15 16 Said parcel being described as Parcel A of Certificate of Compliance recorded March 27, 2007 as instrument No. 2007-0205890 of official records. jy Southern Parcel. APN 209-060-72 That port-ion of Lot 'B' of Rancho Agua Hedionda in the County of San 28 Diego, State of California, according to the map thereof No. 823, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, November 29 16,1896. 20 Said parcel being described as Parcel D of Certificate of Compliance recorded September 13, 2007 as instrument No. 2007-0603110 of 21 official records 22 ("the Property"); and 23 WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has received authorization to issue permits to impact various sensitive species and habitats, including species listed as Threatened or Endangered, by virtue of Incidental Take Permit No. TE022606-0 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Natural Community Conservation Planning Permit No. 2835-2004-001-05; and WHEREAS, the authority stated above is based on a plan titled Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad, Final Approval November 9, 2004, referred to as the HMP, and approval of all projects is contingent on a finding of consistency with the HMP; and WHEREAS, said verified application by Developer constitutes a request for a Habitat Management Plan Permit pursuant to the City's authority as contained in Chapter 21.210 ofthe Zoning Ordinance, on file in the Planning Division; and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 g WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on June 3, 2015, consider said request; and g WHEREAS, at said hearing, upon hearing and considering all tesfimony and arguments, 20 if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Habitat 11 Manageniient Plan Permit. 12 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: 13 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 1'* B) That the COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION project is consistent with the HMP as described in the following findings. 15 16 Findings: C) That based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Habitat Management Plan Permit, HMP 14-01, for COLLEGE jy BOULEVARD MITIGATION based on the following findings and subject to the following condifions: 18 19 .. That APNs 209-060-71 and 209-060-72 (proposed Parcels A-D), of the College Boulevard 20 Mitigation project are shown in Figure 28 of the approved HMP as a "Proposed Standards Area". 21 2. That proposed Parcels and A and D will remain as a "Proposed Standards Areas," Parcel B will 22 be removed from the "Proposed Standards Area" and Parcel C will be converted to a HMP "Hardline Area" to allow for the long-term preservation of sensitive upland, riparian and wetland habitat. 24 That authorization to impact sensitive habitats through the removal of 0.03 acres of Non- 2^ Native Grassland (Habitat Group E) and 6.32 acres of Agricultural/Eucalyptus Woodland/Disturbed habitat (Habitat Group F) on Parcel C is subject to continuous compliance 2g with all provisions of the Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communifies in the City of Carlsbad (HMP), the Citywide Incidental Take Permit issued for the HMP, the Implementing 2y Agreement, the Terms and Condifions of the Incidental Take Permit, and the Biological Opinion. 28 PC RESO NO. 7105 1.. That authorization to impact sensitive habitats is subject to continuous compliance with all 2 mitigation measures as stated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum for COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION - GPA 14- 3 02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10, and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 7102, 7103, and 7104 for those other 4 approvals, including but not limited to recordafion of conservafion easements over all conserved areas and management and monitoring in perpetuity by a qualified conservation ftr entity. 5. That authorization to impact sensitive habitats is subject to confinuous compliance with the provisions of Volumes I, II and III of the Mulfiple Habitat Conservation Program and the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for Threatened and Endangered g Species Due to Urban Growth within the Mulfiple Habitat Conservafion Program Planning Area (SCH No. 93121073). 9 That all impacts to habitat and all take of species will be incidental to otherwise lawful activities 20 related to construction and operation of the College Boulevard Mitigation project. 11 7. That the project design as approved by the City of Carlsbad has avoided and minimized impacts to wildlife habitat and species of concern to the maximum extent practicable. Specifically, 0.03 12 acres of Non-Native Grassland (Habitat Group E) and 6.32 acres of Agricultural/Eucalyptus Woodland/Disturbed habitat (Habitat Group F) on Parcel C will be removed and mitigated 13 through the payment of an in-lieu mitigation fee as required pursuant to the HMP. In addition, mitigation measures have been included which prevent negative effects on the 14 adjacent sensitive habitat which include: erosion control; landscaping; fencing, signage, and lighting; and predator and exotic species control. 16 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 HMP jy Implementing Agreement. 24 25 10. That the City Planner is authorized to sign the Take Permit. 28 9. That the authorizafion to impact sensitive habitats 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 29 all of the above stated requirements, as well as ongoing monitoring and reporting to the wildlife agencies and the public. 20 " 21 11. The Planning Commission hereby finds that all development in Carlsbad benefits from the 22 Habitat Management Plan, which is a comprehensive conservafion plan and implementafion program that will facilitate the preservation of biological diversity and provide for effective '•^ protection and conservation of wildlife and plant species while confinuing to allow compatible development in accordance with Carlsbad's Growth Management Plan. Preservation of wildlife habitats and sensitive species is required by the Open Space and Conservafion Element ofthe City's General Plan which provides for the realization of the social, economic, aesthetic and environmental benefits from the preservation of open space within an increasingly urban 2g 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 2y Mitigation Fee imposed on all new development within the City is essential to fund implementation of the City's Habitat Management Plan. 28 pr RF<;n wn 7ini; 1 „ 12. That the HMP Consistency Findings for Zone 15 can be met pursuant to the analysis included 2 in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum for COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION- GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14- 3 03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10, (attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 7102). 4 13. That the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game (Wildlife Agencies) issued a finding that the College Boulevard Mitigation project is consistent 5 with the Habitat Management Plan on May 18, 2015. 6 14. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: 7 a. it has reviewed, analyzed, and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum for COLLEGE 8 BOULEVARD MITIGATION- GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14- 02/MS 14-10, the potential environmental impacts therein identified for this project 9 and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and 10 b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California 11 Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protecfion Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and 12 it refiects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of 13 Carlsbad; and 14 d. based on the EIA and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. 15 15. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer 16 contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exacfions are imposed to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the degree 17 of the exacfion is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project. 18 Conditions: 20 21 19 1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be 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 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 issued under the authority of approvals herein 22 granted; record a notice of violafion on the property titte; institute and prosecute litigafion to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested 23 rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City's approval of this Habitat Management Plan Permit. 24 2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to nriake, all corrections and 25 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. Development shall 26 occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. 27 28 Pr RFSO NO. 7105 6 7 1 .. If any condition for construcfion of any public improvements or facilifies, or the payment of any 2 fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section 66020. If any such 3 condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with all requirements of law. 4 Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold 5 * harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all liabilifies, 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 Permit, (b) City's approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in g 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 g arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This obligation survives until all legal proceedings have been concluded and 10 continues even if the City's approval is not validated. 11 5. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum, GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14- 12 04/SUP 14-03/MS 14-10, and is subject to all condifions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 7102, 7103 and 7104 for those other approvals incorporated herein by 13 reference. 14 6. Developer shall implement, or cause the implementafion of, the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Addendum, GPA 14-02/ZC 15 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10. 16 7. As a condition of this approval, applicant must comply with the requirements of all regulatory agencies having jurisdicfion over the project and any mitigafion requirements of the 17 environmental documents for the project. Pursuant to Government Code section 65871 and Carlsbad Municipal Code Title 20, Chapter 20.04, section 20.04.140 applicant shall grant a 1^ conservation easement for the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants and the habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populafions of certain 1^ species thereof, in accordance with the City's adopted Habitat Management Plan. 20 21 8. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or clearing of any habitat, whichever occurs first, the Developer shall take the following acfions to the satisfaction ofthe City Planner in reiafion to the open space lot(s) which are being conserved for natural habitat in conformance with the 22 City's Habitat Management Plan: a. Select a conservation entity, subject to approval by the City, that possesses 23 qualifications to manage the open space lot(s) for conservation purposes. 24 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 25 perpetuity in accordance with the requirements of the North County Multiple Habitats Conservation Plan and the City's Open Space Management Plan. 26 c. Based on the results of the PAR, provide a non-wasting endowment or other financial 2y mechanism acceptable to the City Planner and conservation entity, if any, in an amount sufficient for management and monitoring ofthe open space lot(s) in perpetuity. |^ PC RESO NO. 7105 -5- ^ 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 d. Record a Conservation Easement over the open space lot(s). e. Prepare a Preserve Management Plan which will ensure adequate management ofthe open space lot(s) in perpetuity. 9. This project has been found to result in impacts to wildlife habitat or other lands, such as 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 Mitigafion Fee consistent with Section E.6 of the Habitat Management Plan and City Council Resolufion No. 2000-223 to fund mitigafion for impacts to certain categories of 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 with the Habitat Management Plan and the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan. Developer or Developer's successor(s) in interest shall pay the fee prior to recordation of a final map, or issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first. If the In-lieu Mitigation Fee 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 become null and void. NOTICE 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." 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 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 imposifion. 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, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connecfion 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 limitafions has previously otherwise expired. PC RESO NO. 7105 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 June 3, 2015, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Chairperson Scully, Commissioners L'Heureux, Montgomery, Siekmann and Segall Commissioners Anderson and Black VICTORJA SCULLY, Chairperson CAm!SMD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: . DON NEU City Planner PC RESO NO. 7105 EXHIBIT 5 The City of Carlsbad Plannmg Division A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Item No. P.C. AGENDA OF: June 3, 2015 Application complete date: N/A Project Planner: Shannon Werneke Project Engineer: Jeremy Riddle SUBJECT: GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION - Request for a recommendation of adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigafion Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum; and a request for a recommendafion of approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Hillside Development Permit, Special Use Permit, Habitat Management Plan Permit and Minor Subdivision to allow for the implementation of habitat mitigation associated with the development of College Boulevard Reach "A" on two parcels (APN 209-060-71, 72) totaling 17.44 acres (16.43 net acres) located north of the intersection of College Boulevard and Sunny Creek Road and south of the intersection of Cannon Road and College Boulevard, within Local Facilifies Management Zone 15. The City Planner has determined that through the implementafion ofthe proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigafion, Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum, the proposed project avoids the effects or mitigates the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the project "as revised" may have a significant effect on the environment. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 7102 RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigafion Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum; and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolufion No. 7103 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of a General Plan Amendment (GPA 14-02) and Zone Change (ZC 14-01); ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 7104 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of Hillside Development Permit (HDP 14-04), Special Use Permit (SUP 14-03), and Minor Subdivision (MS 14-10); and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 7105 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of Habitat Management Plan Permit (HMP 14-02) based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND Background The proposed College Boulevard Mitigation project consists of the enhancement and preservation of sensitive wetland and riparian habitat, as well as the creation of new wefiand, riparian and upland habitat areas adjacent to Agua Hedionda Creek. The creek is currently narrowly incised and fiows from east to west through the central portion ofthe project site. The proposed project satisfies the biological resources mitigation measures set forth in Environmental Impact Report, EIR 98-02 (State Clearinghouse No. 99111082), as it relates to the future construction of Detention Basin BJ and College Boulevard Reach A, which represents the missing link between the northern and southern extents of College Boulevard, a major arterial road. In conjunction with development of the road, a bridge will be extended over Agua Hedionda Creek. The bridge is adjacent to and immediately east ofthe project site. The development of College Boulevard, including the bridge, have already been analyzed and approved GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10- COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION June 3, 2015 Page 2 pursuant to EIR 98-02. The focus of the subject applicafion is purely on the implementation of the biological habitat mifigation for the development of College Boulevard Reach A. Environmental Setting The existing environmental setting of the subject properties can be generally characterized as semi- rural. Existing uses consist of an equestrian barn and stables, an equestrian training and riding school and a vacant single-family residence. Surrounding land uses include a vacant parcel to the north, a vacant commercially-zoned parcel to the south, the Sunny Creek neighborhood to the southeast consisfing of single-family homes and multi-family apartments, and a single-family home and the Rancho Carlsbad golf course to the west. Agua Hedionda Creek, which is currently narrowly incised, fiows from east to west through the central portion ofthe project site. The elevation of the flow line ofthe creek drops nine feet through the project site, ranging from 60' as it enters on the east side under the College Boulevard right-of-way to Sl'above mean sea level (MSL) as it enters the golf course to the west. The southern half of the project site (APN 209-060-72) is generally fiat and ranges in elevation from 51' to 75' above MSL. The northern half of the site (APN 209-060-71), steeply climbs in elevafion from 51' to 112 above MSL. The central portion ofthe project site is located in the fioodway, while a majority of the overall project site is currently located in the fioodplain. The entire project site is located within a Standards Area pursuant to the Habitat Management Plan (HMP). Proiect Description The project site, consisting of two privately-owned parcels (APN 209-060-71, 72) totaling 17.44 acres (16.43 net acres), is located north ofthe intersection of College Boulevard and Sunny Creek Road and south of the intersection of Cannon Road and College Boulevard. Access to the site is provided by a dirt road extending from the southern terminus of College Boulevard. The site is also located within the boundaries ofthe Zone 15 Local Facilities Management Plan. APN 209-060-71, the northern parcel, is 6.49 acres in size (6.02 net acres), and APN 209-060-72, the southern parcel, is 10.95 acres in size (10.41 net acres). Both properties have a split General Plan Land Use designation of Open Space (OS) and Residenfial Low-Medium (RLM) density and a zoning designation of Limited Control (L-C). The mitigafion area comprises 8.6 acres ofthe total project area (5.5 acres of upland mitigation area and 3.1 acres of wetland mitigation area). With exception to a few of the stables located at the southeastern corner of the project site, all of the structures will be demolished to implement the proposed habitat mitigafion project. Ultimately, the remaining stables will be demolished in conjuncfion with the development of College Boulevard Reach A. Grading proposed in conjunction with the creafion of the mitigation area includes the addition of a contour-graded 2:1 slope adjacent to the northern and southern limits ofthe new wefiand area and the widening of the creek bed. A total of 73,300 cubic yards of cut and 470 cubic yards of fill is proposed. As a result, a total of 72,830 cubic yards is proposed to be exported from the site. The applicant has indicated that the exported material will be utilized in conjunction with the development of College Boulevard Reach A. A 100-foot-wide wetland buffer is proposed from the outer limits of the newly- created wetland mitigafion area. With exception to the bio-retention basin, which is an allowable encroachment, no development will be allowed within this buffer. GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10-COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION June 3, 2015 Page 3 ] The applicafions requested to implement the mitigafion project are summarized below. General Plan Amendment (GPA 14-02). A GPA is required as part of this application since the future habitat boundaries extend beyond the limit of the exisfing Open Space (OS) land use designafion. The expanded OS area will allow for the natural habitat to be placed in a separate lot (Parcel C) and preserved in perpetuity. In addition, an OS General Plan Land Use designafion is proposed for Parcels A (agricultural lot) and B (College"Boulevard Reach A detenfion basin). Based on the current environmental constraints for the overall project area, the current residential unit yield is 23 units. As part of the proposed request to change the General Plan Land Use designation from RLM to OS to accommodate the project, the resulting development yield is 18.50 dwelling units. Therefore, a total of 4.5 dwelling units will be deposited into the city's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. Zone Change (ZC 14-01). A ZC is required to change the zoning designation from Umited Control (L-C) to Open Space to allow for the creation of the agricultural lot (Parcel A), the detention basin lot (Parcel B) as well as the natural open space/mitigafion lot (Parcel C). Parcel D is proposed to remain as L-C. As part of the General Plan Update, the zoning designation of L-C will be changed. No development on Parcel D is proposed in conjunction with the proposed habitat mitigation project. Hillside Development Permit (HDP 14-04). A HDP is proposed to allow for grading in an area which has existing slopes which exceed a gradient of 15% and an elevation differential of 15 feet or more. Special Use Permit (SUP 14-03). A SUP is proposed for grading in the existing 100-year fioodplain. As part of the proposed project, the exisfing fioodplain limits will be modified as a result of the grading proposed in conjunction with the habitat mitigafion area. Habitat Management Plan (HMP 14-02). The enfire project site (APNs 209-060-71, -72) is located in a Standards Area. Pursuant to the city's Habitat Management Plan (HMP), Consistency Findings are required to be processed to remove Parcels C and D from the Standards Area and convert Parcel C to a Hardline Area. In addition, a HMP is required to permanently preserve the sensitive riparian and upland habitat. Minor Subdivision (MS 14-10). A MS is proposed to subdivide the two existing lots (APNs 209-060-71, - 72) into four lots (Parcels A-D). The lot sizes and intended future use are summarized below: Parcel A: 1.0 acres (gross/net), agricultural-future garden; proposed to remain as an HMP Standards Area; Parcel B: 1.12 acres (gross)/0.84 acres (net), bio-retention basin for College Boulevard; to be constructed as part of the construction of College Boulevard; proposed to be removed from the HMP Standards Area; Parcel C: 9.23 acres (gross)/8.81 acres (net), wefiand and upland habitat mitigafion open space lot, to be preserved in perpetuity through a biological conservafion easement; proposed to be removed from the HMP Standards Area and converted to an HMP Hardline Area; and Parcel D: 6.09 acres (gross)/5.78 acres (net); future residenfial development; no development proposed at this time; proposed to remain in HMP Standards Area. V 6^ GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10-COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION June 3, 2015 Page 4 . Table 1 below includes the exisfing General Plan designafions, zoning and current land uses of the project site and surrounding properties. TABLE 1 Location General Plan Designation Zoning Current Land Use Site Resicjential Low-Medium Density (RLM) and Open Space (O-S) Limited Control (L-C) Equestrian facility North Residential Medium Density (RM) and Open Space (O-S) Residential Density- Mulfiple (RD-M) and Open Space (O-S) Vacant (Dos Colinas property) South Local Shopping Center (L), Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM), Residenfial Medium Density (RM) Local Shopping Center (C-L), Residential Density- Multiple (RD-M) Vacant commercial property, single-family homes and multi- family apartments East Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM) and Open Space (O-S) Umited Control (L-C) Vacant West Open Space (OS) Limited Control (L-C) Golf course III. ANALYSIS A. Residential Low to Medium Density (RLM) and Open Space (OS) General Plan Land Use designafions; B. Open Space (O-S) and Umited Control (L-C) Zones (Chapters 21.33 and 21.39 of the Zoning Ordinance); C. Hillside Development Regulations (Chapter 21.95 of the Zoning Ordinance); D. Floodplain Management Regulations (Chapter 21.110 ofthe Zoning Ordinance); E. Habitat Preservafion and Management Plan Requirements (Chapter 21.210 of the Zoning Ordinance); F. Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20 of the Municipal Code); and G. Growth Management Ordinance (Chapter 21.90 of the Zoning Ordinance), Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 15 The recommendation for approval of this project was developed by analyzing the project's consistency with the applicable regulafions and policies. The project's compliance with each of the above regulations and policies is discussed in the secfions below. A. Residential Low to Medium Density (RLM) and Open Space (OS) General Plan Land Use Designations The existing project site consists of two legal parcels. Agua Hedionda Creek currently defines the shared property line between the two existing parcels. Excluding College Boulevard, the total project area is 16.43 acres (net). The northern and southern parcels, APNs 209-060-71 (6.02 net acres) and 209-060-72 (10.41 net acres), respectively, each have a split General Plan Land Use designation of Open Space (OS) and Residential Low-Medium (RLM, 0-4 du/ac). A majority ofthe northern parcel is designated OS while a majority of the southern parcel is designated RLM. Collectively, a total of 11.21 acres is currently designated as RLM and a total of 5.22 acres is currently designated as Open Space. As part of the proposed project, the two (2) existing properties are proposed to be subdivided into a total of four (4) parcels. \-* GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10- COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION June 3, 2015 Page 5 : — Parcels A-C are proposed as OS to align with the proposed uses, including an agricultural lot (Parcel A, 1.0 net acres), bio-retention basin for College Boulevard Reach "A" (Parcel B, 0.84 net acres) and habitat mitigation associated with the development of College Boulevard Reach "A" (Parcel C, 8.81 net acres). Designating Parcel C as OS will allow for the long-term preservation of the property in perpetuity, will provide consistency with the Habitat Management Plan and will satisfy the biological resource mitigation measures associated with the development of College Boulevard Reach "A". This action is consistent with the General Plan Open Space Element and is in accordance with the intent and purpose of the OS Zone to designate high-priority resource areas as OS at the fime of development. Proposed Parcel D (5.78 net acres) will remain as RLM to allow for future residenfial development. No development is proposed on Parcel D at this fime. Table 2 below summarizes the proposed changes in the General Plan Land Use designations. TABLE 2 Existing Proposed Area Proposed Land Use General Plan General Plan (Net Acres) Parcel A RLM OS 1.0 Agriculture/garden area Parcel B OS OS 0.84 Bio-retention basin for College Boulevard Reach "A" Parcel C RLM/OS OS 8.81 Creation and preservation of sensitive wetiand and upland habitat Parcel D RLM RLM 5.78 No development proposed at this time. TOTAL 16.43 In total, 10.65 acres is proposed to be designated as OS and 5.78 acres is proposed to be designated as RLM. Therefore, a net gain of 5.44 acres is proposed as OS. As the proposed project does not involve the construction of residential dwelling units, a density calculafion is not required for the area proposed for habitat mitigation nor is an allocation from the City's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank (EDUB). However, because the proposed project entails a request to create additional open space which will be permanently preserved through a biological conservation easement, as well as other open space uses, such as a bio-retenfion basin, any dwelling units that were originally allocated to the RLM-designated area can be deposited into the EDUB. Based on the current constraints analysis and current General Plan Land Use designafions of RLM and OS, a total of 23.07 units could be built on the two exisfing properties (7.21 net acres x 3.2 = 23.07 units). As part of the proposed project, the only property with development potenfial left would be proposed Parcel D, which is proposed to be 5.78 net acres. Based on the exisfing/proposed General Plan Land Use designation of RLM for Parcel D, a total of 18.50 units could be built on this property at the Growth Management Control Point (GMCP) of 3.2 dwelling units per acre. Therefore, the difference between 23.07 units and 18.50 units, 4.57 units, is proposed to be deposited into the City's EDUB. The proposed habitat mitigation project is consistent with the applicable policies and programs of the General Plan as demonstrated in Table 3 below. 5^ GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION June 3, 2015 Page 6 TABLE 3 - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE ELEMENT Land Use USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL, OBJECTIVE OR PROGRAM Overall Land Use Pattern, Goal A.l: A City which preserves and enhances the environment, character, and image of itself as a desirable residential, beach and open space oriented community. Overall Land Use Pattern. Poiicv C.12: Develop and retain open space in all categories of land use. Agricultural Goal A.2: A City which supports agriculture while planning for possible transition to urban uses. Environmental Obiective: To establish the preservation of the natural habitat ofthe rivers, river banks, streams, bays, lagoons, estuaries, marshes, beaches, lakes, shorelines and canyons and other natural areas containing rare and unique biological resources as a high priority. PROPOSED USES & IMPROVEMENTS The proposed habitat mitigation project includes a request to create and permanently preserve 8.81 acres (Parcel C) of sensitive wetland, riparian and upland habitat adjacent to Agua Hedionda Creek. Proposed Parcel C will be permanently preserved as open space through a biological conservation easement. In addition, consistent with the requirements ofthe Habitat Management Plan (HMP), the area will be converted from a Proposed Standards to a Hardline Area. Proposed Parcels A and B will also be designated as Open Space. Parcel A will be designated as OS and used as a garden area in the future. Parcel B will developed with a bio-retention basin and also designated as OS. In total, 10.65 acres is proposed to be designated as OS, which will contribute to the enhancement and image of Carlsbad as an open-space oriented community. COMPLIANCE Yes GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10-COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION June 3, 2015 Page 7 —_ TABLE 3 - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE (CONTINUED) ELEMENT USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL, OBJECTIVE OR PROGRAM PROPOSEO USES & IMPROVEMENTS COMPUANCE Open Space & Conservation Open Space Goal A.l. An open space system of aesthetic value that maintains community identity, achieves a sense of natural spaciousness, and provides visual relief in the cityscape. Open Space Goal A.3: An open space system that improves the quality of life for the citizens of Carlsbad. Open Space Obiective B.12: To contribute to regional biodiversity and the viability of rare, unique, or sensitive biological resources throughout the city by maintaining functional wildlife corridors and habitat linkage. Open Space Implemenfing Policy C.20: If open space areas are adjusted, the proposed open space shall be equal to or greater than the area depicted on the Official Open Space and Conservation Map. Special Resource Protection Goal A.l: A city that protects environmentally sensitive land and buffer areas. Water Qualitv Goal A.l: A city with a high quality of water resources. As discussed above, the proposed habitat mitigation project entails the creation of sensitive wetland, riparian and upland habitat adjacent to Agua Hedionda Creek which will be permanently preserved. The mitigation project will enhance the overall biological value of the area adjacent to the creek and will assist with maintaining a funcfional wildlife corridor and habitat linkage along Agua Hedionda Creek. A total of 5.21 acres of the project site is currently designated as OS in the General Plan and a total of 10.65 acres is proposed to be re- designated to OS as part ofthe General Plan Amendment. Thus, a net gain of 5.44 acres of OS- designated property is proposed. The proposed habitat mitigation project is required to comply with the City's Standard Urban Storm Water Management Plan (SUSMP), which includes the requirement to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction. Ultimately, the proposed habitat mitigation project will improve the water quality since an exisfing equestrian use will be removed from the property. Yes B. Open Space (O-S) and Limited Control (L-C) Zone Regulations (Chapters 21.33 and 21.39 of the Zoning Ordinance) The 16.43 acre (net) project site is currently zoned Umited Control (L-C). The L-C designation is assigned to previously-annexed properties and is an interim zone for areas where plans for development have not yet been formalized. As part of this project, a zone change from L-C to Open Space (O-S) is proposed GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10-COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION June 3, 2015 Page 8 . for Parcels A, B and C (total of 10.65 net acres). The OS zoning designation aligns with the proposed OS General Plan Land Use designafion and will allow for the long-term preservation ofthe sensitive habitat created as a result of the mitigation project on Parcel C. In addition, the OS zone will allow for the construction of a future garden on Parcel A and the construction of a bio-retention basin on Parcel B. No residential development is allowed in the OS zone. Parcel D, 5.78 net acres, will remain as L-C unfil development plans are submitted for the parcel or will be rezoned as part of the General Plan Update. C. Hillside Development Regulations (Chapter 21.95 of the Zoning Ordinance) As discussed in Section II above, the southern half of the project site (APN 209-060-72) is generally fiat and ranges in elevafion from 51' to 75' above MSL. The northern half of the site (APN 209-060-71), steeply climbs in elevation from 51' to 112 above MSL. As the site contains hillside conditions that include slopes greater than 15 feet in height with a gradient equal to or greater than 15%, a Hillside Development Permit is required pursuant to the city's Hillside Development Ordinance (CMC Chapter 21.95). Grading proposed in conjunction with the creafion of the mitigation area includes the addifion of a contour-graded 2:1 slope adjacent to the northern and southern limits ofthe new wefiand area and the widening of the creek bed. A total of 73,300 cubic yards of cut and 470 cubic yards of fill is proposed. As a result, a total of 72,830 cubic yards is proposed to be exported from the site. The applicant has indicated that the exported material will be utilized in conjunction with the development of College Boulevard Reach A. The grading design is consistent with the intent of the Hillside Ordinance, Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) Chapter 21.95 since the proposal involves habitat restorafion and the proposed 2:1 (minimum) slopes will be contour graded. In addition, the slopes do not exceed a height of 40 feet and the proposed quantity of grading, 7,595 cubic yards per acre, falls within the "acceptable" range, 0- 7,999 cubic yards per acre. Finally, the slopes will be planted with native species consistent with the Habitat Management Plan. The required findings are discussed in the attached Planning Commission Resolution No. 7105. D. Floodplain Management Regulations (Chapter 21.110 of the Zoning Ordinance) As the project site is bisected by Agua Hedionda Creek, a majority of the area is located within the fioodplain. As the project proposes development in the fiood plain, a Special Use Permit (SUP) is required pursuant to CMC Chapter 21.110. The SUP is required to ensure that the public health, safety, and welfare are protected and to minimize public and private losses due to fiooding. A Hydraulic Analysis was prepared for the proposed project by Lyle Engineering (January, 2015). The Analysis concluded that the grading associated with the proposed habitat mitigafion project will increase flow conveyance volume in the fioodplain areas and will significantly reduce the lOO-year starting water surface elevafion (WSEL). This reducfion will occur west of the College Boulevard bridge, which will be constructed as part of the College Boulevard (Reach A) expansion project (EIR 98-02). Specifically, a majority of proposed Parcels B and D will be located outside ofthe floodplain as a result of the project due to the proposal to widen the channel (Parcel A located outside of the fioodplain pre- project). In addition, results from the Hydraulic Analysis indicate that fiow velocities post project will be lower or equal to pre-project conditions within the proposed widening ofthe channel. In addition, flow velocities are significantly reduced because of the shallower depths spread across the channel bottom. The required findings are discussed in the attached Planning Commission Resolufion No. 7104. .4^ GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION June 3, 2015 Page 9 E. Habitat Preservation and Management Plan Requirements (Chapter 21.210 of the Zoning Ordinance) The City of Carlsbad has an adopted Habitat Management Plan (HMP), which is a comprehensive, citywide program to identify how the City, in cooperation with the federal and state wildlife agencies, can preserve the diversity of habitat and protect sensitive biological resources within the City while allowing for additional development consistent with the Cit/s General Plan and its Growth Management Plan. In doing so, the HMP is intended to lead to citywide permits and authorization for the incidental take of sensitive species in conjunction with private development projects, public projects, and other activities, which are consistent with the HMP. In addifion, Chapter 21.210 of the city's Zoning Ordinance (Habitat Preservation and Management Requirements) implements the HMP, as well as the goals and objectives of the city's Open Space Element of the General Plan. As discussed in the attached Planning Commission Resolufions No. 7102 and 7104, which includes the Mitigated Negative Declaration and HMP findings, with the incorporation of mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to a less than signiflcant level, the project does not conflict with any provisions ofthe HMP or Zoning Ordinance. For some key properfies within the city which have not submitted proposed hardline designs for inclusion in the preserve system, the HMP includes conservation goals and standards which will apply to future development proposals. The goals and standards have been arranged according to the Local Facilities Management Zones (LFMZ) to which they apply. The standards only apply to those areas within the LFMZs not already covered by exisfing and proposed hardline areas, exisfing take authorizations or areas shown as development areas on the HMP map. Therefore, the standards only apply to those parcels which are designated as "Standards Areas" on the HMP map. If individual properties are proposed for development within a zone, the property owner must show how the standards, which include goals and objectives ofthe HMP, will be met. This planning should ensure that viable biological open space will be comprehensively planned for the zone, rather than having open space areas planned piece-meal for each parcel within the zone. The HMP identifies the subject property (APNs 209-060-71, -72) as a Standards Area in Local Facilities Management Zone 15. While the project site is located outside of any core or linkage habitats (pursuant to Figure 4 of the HMP), a number of important core and linkage habitats comprise much of Zone 15. Some of the natural habitat patches in the southern portion of the zone, including the subject site, border the southern drainage, Agua Hedionda Creek, and add to its value as a wildlife movement corridor. Agricultural areas north of Agua Hedionda Creek support a mosaic of disturbed coastal sage scrub patches on rocky hills and ridges, along with a variety of wetland communifies. These remnant natural habitat patches, surrounded by active agricultural fields, comprise part of a stepping stone to Unkage C for gnatcatchers and other species. The proposed College Boulevard Mitigation project consists of the enhancement and preservation of sensitive wetland and riparian habitat, as well as the creation of new wetland, riparian and upland habitat areas adjacent to Agua Hedionda Creek. The creek is currently narrowly incised and fiows from east to west through the central portion ofthe project site. The proposed project satisfies the biological resources mitigation measures set forth in Environmental Impact Report, EIR 98-02 (State Clearinghouse No. 99111082), as it relates to the future construcfion of Detention Basin BJ and College Boulevard Reach A, which represents the missing link between the northern and southern extents of College Boulevard, a major arterial road. In conjunction with development of the road, a bridge will be extended over Agua Hedionda Creek. The bridge is adjacent to and immediately east of the project site. The development of College Boulevard, including the bridge, have already been analyzed and approved pursuant to EIR 98-02. The focus of the subject applicafion is purely on the implementation of the biological habitat mitigafion forthe development of College Boulevard. GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10-COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION June 3, 2015 Page 10 . A Biological Technical Report (BTR), dated March 26, 2015 and Mitigafion Plan (dated March 26, 2015) have been prepared forthe proposed project by Alden Environmental. Implementafion ofthe proposed habitat mitigation project on Parcel C results in the following impacts: HabitatGroup E: Non-native grassland, 0.03 acres Habitat Group F: Agricultural Lands, 0.37 acres Eucalyptus Woodland, 0.67 acres Disturbed Lands. 5.28 acres Total: 6.32 Impacts to Habitat Group E, 0.03 acres of non-native grassland, will be mitigated at a 0.5:1 ratio through the payment of an in-lieu fee. Impacts to Habitat Group F, totaling 6.32 acres, will also be mitigated through the payment of an in-lieu fee. Please note that the habitat impacts associated with the bio- retention basin on Parcel B are included in the impact footprint for the development of College Boulevard Reach A. In addition, the impacts associated with the construction of College Boulevard Reach "A" are not included above as the focus ofthe proposed project is on the impacts to implement the mitigation project, not the construction of College Boulevard Reach "A". Pursuant to CMC Chapter 21.210, a Habitat Management Plan Permit is required for any development project which indirectly or directly impacts natural habitat. In addition, the habitat conservafion planning (i.e. conversion from standards area to hardline) requires the processing of Consistency Findings, which are also generally referred to as "HMP Findings." The HMP Findings analyze a project's consistency with the standards outlined in each zone. The HMP findings for the proposed project can be found within Planning Commission Resolution No. 7105. As discussed within the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the proposed project (Planning Commission Resolution No. 7102), with the incorporafion of mitigation measures and compliance with the HMP, the Habitat Management Plan Permit (HMP 14-02) can be supported. Concurrence from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (i.e.. Wildlife Agencies) was received on May 18, 2015. Please see Attachment No. 18 of the staff report for reference. F. Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20 of Municipal Code) The proposed project entails a request for a minor subdivision (MS 14-10) to subdivide the two existing lots (APNs 209-060-71, -72) into four lots (Parcels A-D). The Land Development Engineering Division has reviewed the proposed minor subdivision and has concluded that the subdivision complies with all applicable requirements ofthe Subdivision Map Act, as well as the Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20). The project is required to install all infrastructure improvements concurrent with the development. The developer will be required to offer various dedicafions (e.g., drainage and sewer easements, street right- of-way for College Boulevard, etc.) and will be responsible for a number of public and private improvements including, but not limited to, the construction of the core and frontage improvements (i.e., curb, gutter, sidewalks) for College Boulevard Reach "A". in addition, the project has been designed in accordance with the Cit/s Stormwater regulations. It has been conditioned to implement Best Management Practices (BMP) for water quality protecfion, to comply with the City of Carlsbad Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Order R9-2007- OOOl issued by the San Diego Region of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board as well as the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code. The required findings are discussed in the attached Planning ^ Commission Resolution No. 7104. \ GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10-COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION June 3, 2015 Page 11 — G. Growth Management Ordinance (Chapter 21.90 of the Zoning Ordinance), Zone 15 Local Facilities Management Plans The proposed project is located within Local Facilifies Management Plan Zone 15 in the northeast quadrant ofthe City. The impacts on public facilities created by the project, and its compliance with the adopted performance standards, are summarized in Table 4 below. TABLE 4 - GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE STANDARD IMPACTS COMPLIANCE City Administrafion N/A N/A Ubrary N/A N/A Waste Water Treatment N/A N/A Parks N/A N/A Drainage Basin D Yes Circulation N/A N/A Fire Station No. 2 and 4 N/A Open Space N/A N/A Schools N/A N/A Sewer Collection System N/A N/A Water N/A (no impacts after temporary irrigation removed) N/A As the proposed project entails a request to rezone existing RLM-designated property to OS, a total of 4.57 excess dwelling units are proposed to be deposited into the Cit/s Excess Dwelling Unit Bank (EDUB). IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Environmental Protection Ordinance (Title 19) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, stafl' conducted an environmental impact assessment to determine if the project could have any potentially significant impact on the environment. The environmental impact assessment identified potenfially significant impacts to Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, and Hazards/Hazardous Materials. Mitigation measures were incorporated into the design of the project or have been placed as conditions of approval for the project such that all potentially significant impacts have been mitigated to below a level of significance. A Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigafion Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) was published in the newspaper and the requisite 30-day public review period for the MND occurred from April 7, 2015 to May 6, 2015. At the end of the 30-day public review period, comments were received from the following interested parties: • David Bentley, BENTEa dated April 27, 2015; • Michele Staples, Jackson, DeMarco, Tidus, Peckenpaugh, on behalf of Mandana Cal Co., dated May 6, 2015; • Preserve Calavera, dated May 6, 2015; • Lyall Enterprises, Inc., dated May 7, 2015 \ GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION June 3, 2015 Page 12 '. • Rancho Carlsbad Owners' Association, dated May 11, 2015; • San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians, dated May 15, 2015; • Wildlife Agency HMP Consistency Letter, dated May 18, 2015; and Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundafion, dated May 22, 2015. The letters are attached to staff report for reference. As a result of comments received from the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians, the cultural resource mitigafion measures have been revised to address the comments. Specifically, CULTURAL-1 has been revised to add reference to the requirement that the archaeologist consult with the Native American monitor, if determined to be necessary; and CULTURAL-2 was replaced with a new mitigation measure which adequately addresses the various comments received from the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians. An addendum has been prepared in accordance with Section 15164 of CEQA. The revisions have no new significant environmental effects and none of the circumstances require recirculation or the preparation of a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declarafion pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. In addition, staffs response to the comments received from David Bentley, Michele Staples and Diane Nygaard are attached to the staff report for reference. None of comments warrant recirculation or the preparation of a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 7102 (Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigafion Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum) 2. Planning Commission Resolufion No. 7103 (GPA 13-01/ZC 12-04) 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 7104 (HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/MS 14-10) 4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 7105 (HMP 13-02) 5. Location Map 6. Disclosure Statement 7. Reduced Exhibits 8. City response to David Bentley (BENTEQ) letter, dated May 27, 2015 9. MND comment letter received from David Bentley, BENTEQ, dated April 27, 2015 10. City response to Michele Staples (Mandana) letter, dated May 27, 2015 11. MND comment letter received from Michele Staples, Jackson, DeMarco, Tidus, Peckenpaugh, dated May 6, 2015 12. City response to Diana Nygaard (Preserve Calavera) email, dated May 27, 2015 13. MND comment letter (email) received from Diane Nygaard, Preserve Calavera, dated May 6, 2015 14. MND comment letter received from San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians, dated May 15, 2015 15. Letter of Support, Lyall Enterprises, dated May 7, 2015 16. Letter of Support, Rancho Carlsbad Owners' Association, dated May 11, 2015 17. Letter of Support, Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundafion, dated May 22, 2015 18. Wildlife Agency HMP Consistency Letter, dated May 18, 2015 19. Full Size Exhibits "A - G" dated June 3, 2015 NOT TO SCALE SITE MAP College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02 /ZC14-01 / HDP 14-04 / SUP 14-03 / HMP 14-02 / MS 14-10 1 ; n. « ^ DISCLOSURE Development Services '^•^^ STATEMENT planning DMSIOH ^ CITY OF p •1/A\ 1635 FaradayAvenue Ark I r-n A r>v (760)602-4610 CARLSBAD www.carlsbadca.gov Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require discretionary action on the part ofthe Gity Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee. The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot be reviewed until this infonnation Is completed. Pleas© print. Note: Person is deflned as "Any individual, firm, oo-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fratemal organization, corporation, estate, tmst, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, dty and county, city municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acGng as a unit" Agente may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be provided below. 1. APPUCANT (Not the applicant's agent) Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having a financial interest in the application. If the applicant includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, titles, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv-owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person Corp/Part U^C Title Title. Address , Address 2. OWNER (Not the owner's agent) ' Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having any ownership interest in ttie property involved, ^so, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e., partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership indudes a corooration or partnership. Include the names, titles, addresses of all indlvkluals owning more than 10% ofthe shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publidv-owned corooration. include the names, titles, and addresses ofthe corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person Com/Part (<yOl-f ^ ^\AeMeiV\ i^l^C- Title__ Title Address Address iWma^A t>i^iV£ Swt ZOO p.1(A) Pagel of2 Revised07/10 ,1 /L ( NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR TRUST If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonprofit organization or a trust. list the names and addresses of AN'Y person serving as an officer or director of the non- profit organization or as tnistee or beneficiary ofthe. Non Profit/Tmst . Non Profit/Tnjst ^ Title Title . Address Address Have you had more than $500 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months? I I Yes ^ No If yes, please indicate person(s):. NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. I certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. SignatLH^ of owner/date Signature of applicant/date Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant Signature of owner/applicanf s agent if applicable/date Print or type name of owner/applicanf s agent P-l (A) Page 2 of 2 Revised 07/10 1 O- 5 i i 1 it! A g»8 ilSI Is all K O y> lu Q 0. m HI" t's ^ ii ?B8 s 1 • II i ss i SB » ..68° lu ip 5Sf hit lias S^KSI |5i|!iiip is 1 ill ii 'B5 is .^1 Ss to ^ UJ , IsO 5 5 ta UJ s S 5 s s S k * I a a i ! I i ^ E E a s 5 iM ^ «3 <3 Q. O. i to o CM 2 (3 DO X X UJ LU _J LU O < a. IT) O Q. o cc Q. )— QQ X X UJ LU LU o OL < Q- o X LU it I CM fe E9 S li -i 4 Q. (3 is I is i ?! 1 ill! ! i|p ! i^'^i illlil! II; 8 i pat lis liiiii Mi I Nil sill 8 i f seSSS lilies Jiiiii ! t Ml ii! 8 5 i ipll iJliiii iJiliii iii s jl ill ill sliss 1 E is is |S ! f I iiil Aii if iiiiiiii! ill Sf ii IS ii Hit Si iii 111 it i p i ; 3 - u i I S| " M i !^ !' i i list I I III. i isiiiii i S ^» li is i^ip iii P!fe| ill IliiliflslSll^all 5S i I as IP it ; I Sis I m £5£ If p:-ss s||;;|S 5"'= 1 t Ss; s §§UJ§ O <r V-' u K Si -.S .... S-'S^ o '// / ATTACHMENTS Ccity of Carlsbad May 27, 2015 David M. Bentley Bentley Equity, Inc. 7449 Magellan Street Carlsbad, CA 92011 SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10- COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION Dear Mr. Bentley: Thank you for your comment letter dated April 27, 2015 received in response to the Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the College Boulevard Mitigation project. The following provides a list of your comments (in /to//c) and staffs response to the comments in your letter. Comment 1: In addition to substantially and negatively impacting adjacent land owned by my clients, Bepton & Dartford Investments, and a nearby property in which an affiliate, Bentley-Wing investments, has a substantial interest, the proposed Project will have an unnecessary negative impact on the overall Sunny Creek community and environment Response: This comment provides conclusions without providing substantial evidence to support those conclusions. The Initial Study prepared for the Project and included in the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") identified potentially significant impacts on the environment. As detailed in the draft MND and the documents referenced in the draft MND, there are no impacts associated with community character, aesthetics, or land use. Potentially significant impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, and hazards/hazardous materials were identified. However, the proposed mitigation measures, which were agreed to bythe applicant priorto release ofthe draft MND for public review, would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where no significant impact would occur [CEQA §21080(C)(2)]. No changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 2: Although purportedly designed to satisfy certain new water quality standards and habitat mitigation requirements in connection with the construction of College Blvd. and Basin BJ (ref EIR 98- 02), the Project would instead radically, permanently and unnecessarily alter and degrade a natural riparian habitat and significant water-way in order to create, for the benefit of the Project proponent, nearly 6 acres of new development area that Is currently un-developable flood way and flood plain land. Response: This comment provides conclusions without providing substantial evidence to support those conclusions. The Project would avoid impacts to Agua Hedionda Creek as discussed in the MND and Community & Economic Development Planning Division 11635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-73141760-602-46601760-602-8560 f | www.carlsbadca.gov RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, BENTEQ GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION May 27, 2015 Paee 2 shown in Figures 8 and 9 of the Biological Technical Report (Alden 2015) ("BTR") and the College Boulevard - Reach A and Basin BJ Project Mitigation Plan (Alden 2015). The existing channel would not be deepened. The existing streambed would stay in place and no grading would occur within its limits. The BTR and the Project Mitigation Plan detail the riparian habitat enhancement and creation that would take glace adjacent to the existing streambed. The mitigation effort would not "radically, permanently and unnecessarily alter and degrade a natural riparian habitat..." as stated by the commenter. The mitigation effort would not reduce the amount or quality of native riparian habitat within the mitigation area. The intent is to improve (enhance) and expand the existing habitat. Currently, much of the mapped habitat is a tree canopy over existing equestrian center facilities (corrals, roads, buildings, etc.). The grading in this area will remove these developed/disturbed areas under the tree canopy and provide for a much larger wetland/riparian habitat. Presently, the 9.23-acre mitigation site supports 1.93 acres of wetland/riparian vegetation (0.72 acre of southern willow scrub, 1.17 acres of sycamore woodland, and 0.04 acre of disturbed wetland). Following implementation of the mitigation, there would be an additional 1.32 acres of wetland/riparian habitat re-established/created on the site (freshwater marsh adjacent to the central portions of the creek that experience steady water flows to riparian scrub and forest habitats along the periphery ofthe wetland mitigation area) with an additional 1.78 acres of existing wetland/riparian habitat enhanced. The mitigation plan and BTR for the project (Alden Environmental, Inc., both dated March 26, 2015) provide details of the impacts of implementing the mitigation and the mitigation proposed for those impacts, where required. Mitigation measures are also detailed in the MND within the discussion of each environmental factor as well as in a single list at the end ofthe MND. No changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 3: Given the superior, lower-impact, lower-cost alternatives that exist for mitigating impacts arising from the College Blvd. & BJ Basin construction project, the proposed Project does not satisfy the standard of necessity (ref, HMP) with which any such project must comply. Response: This comment provides conclusions without providing substantial evidence to support those conclusions. The Initial Study prepared for the Project and included in the draft MND identified potentially significant impacts on the environment. However, the proposed mitigation measures, which were agreed to by the applicant prior to release of the draft MND for public review, would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where no significant impact would occur [CEQA §21080(C)(2)]. As a result, no analysis of alternatives is required. In addition, as required by the Habitat Management Plan (HMP), the city received concurrence from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Wildlife Agencies) on May 18, 2015 (please see attached letter). Pages 24-32 of the draft MND provides a summary of Carlsbad's analysis of the Project's consistency with the HMP according to the criteria established for such determinations. No changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, BENTEQ GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION May 27, 2015 Paee 3 , Comment 4: In any event, the proposed Project and related impacts cannot be adequately analyzed and understood, nor can the public be sufficiently informed about the Project, until a comprehensive Environmental impact Report, including analyses of project alternatives. Is prepared and circulated for review. Response: This comment provides conclusions without providing substantial evidence to support those conclusions. The Initial Study prepared for the Project and included in the draft MND identified potentially significant impacts on the environment. However, the proposed mitigation measures, which were agreed to by the applicant prior to release of the draft MND for public review, would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where no significant impact would occur [CEQA §21080(C)(2)]. As a result, no analysis of alternatives is required. No changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 5: For your convenience, the following DropBox link provides access to record documents used in preparing the attached comments and analysis: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/zltzvve5vo35a04//\ADQix xOBt5Snt5IFpQTKBFa?dl=0 Response: Staff acknowledges this comment Comment 6: The "Project Description" contained in the City's "Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration" and "Initial Study" differs substantially from the Project described in the BTR prepared by Alden Environmental, Inc. The City defined "Project" is identified as a 17.44-acre property referred to as the Equestrian Center North & South ("ECNS") and Includes a proposed parcel map that would divide the current 2 legal parcels into 4 parcels for use/development as agriculture, a bio-retention basin, wetland and upland mitigation, and future development. The BTR, which the City's MND and Initial Study relies on and refers to, defines the "Project" as College Blvd. & BJ Basin, which were previously analyzed and approved pursuant to EIR 98-02, and a new bio-retention basin "component". Please correct and reconcile the BTR, Initial Study & Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration to clearly define and analyze a specific single "Project". Response: Staff acknowledges this comment. The BTR was prepared to analyze the impacts to biological resources associated with the development of College Boulevard Reach A and Basin BJ, os well as the impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed College Boulevard Mitigation project, the scope and location of which is clearly defined in the MND. The project description included in the draft MND is consistent within the analysis in the MND, including the Initial Study, and the Notice of Intent. The project description satisfies the requirements of CEQA as it accurately describes the proposed habitat mitigation project [CEQA Guidelines §15071(a)]. The BTR was used as a reference in the preparation of the MND. No changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 7: If the Project is defined as the proposed subdivision and development of the 17.44 acre ECNS property into 4 parcels for 4 different uses, that Project should be analyzed and discussed as such. The extensive references, discussion and analyses of previously approved projects (EIR 98-02) is confusing and misleading. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, BENTEQ GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION May 27, 2015 Page 4 Response: The project description in the MND satisfies the requirements of CEQA as it accurately describes the proposed College Boulevard Mitigation project [CEQA Guidelines §15071(a)] and its relationship to EIR 98-02 (i.e., implementation of nriitigation measures associated with EIR 98-02). No changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 8: Table 1, and related discussion, in the BTR states that the environmental impacts arising from the proposed creation of the wetland mitigation on the ECNS property are not included because the "mitigation to be implemented on the ECNS parcels was not part ofthe Project in the EIR •• (EIR 98-02). Using that rationale, the impacts of the proposed bioretention basin should not be included in Table I. Please discuss, analyze and/or correct this inconsistency. Response: Table 1 in the BTR has been revised to clarify that the impacts associated with the wetland mitigation on the ECNS property are included in the column labeled "Current Impacts." The callout for Footnote 1 has been moved to the column labeled "EIR 98-02 Impacts" as this column includes the impacts from the EIR and not from the mitigation area impacts on the ECNS parcels. The Project analysis includes the mitigation area impacts as well as the Reach A/Basin BJ project, with water quality basins. Comment 9: As proposed, the Agua Hedionda Creek will be substantially graded, resulting in, among other permanent impacts, a deepened and widened creek and a new manufactured channel into which water that is currently contained in the existing single natural creek will be diverted/split Although significant, no substantive description, analysis or discussion of these impacts is presented in the BTR or Initial Study. Please discuss and analyze, in detail, these impacts and the requisite mitigation, or justification for requiring none; include discussion to support the BTR and Initial Study conclusion that "impacts would be avoided during implementation of mitigation for the Project", (i.e., how does grading and reconstructing a natural creek not cause significant impacts to that creek?) Response: The mitigation proposal would avoid impacts to Agua Hedionda Creek as shown in Figures 8 and 9 ofthe BTR (Alden 2015) and the College Boulevard - Reach A and Basin BJ Project Mitigation Plan (Alden 2015). The existing creek channel would not be graded or deepened nor would it be diverted/split. Rather, the existing banks of the streambed would be pulled back to widen the channel bottom. The existing trees rooted within the channel will remain. Presently there are 28 western sycamore, 18 arroyo willow, and three black willow trees within the wetland habitat mitigation area. Trees other than those rooted within the channel that cannot be avoided during site preparation will be replaced by the plant palette shown on Figure 10 of the BTR (Alden 2015) to restore and create both wetland and upland habitats. The plant palette provided for in Figure 10 reflects the species that occur within the mitigation site. One-gallon and five-gallon container stock will be planted, and impacted willow trees will be spread in the wetland/riparian portion ofthe mitigation area so that they can root and grow into trees again. The mitigation plan included installing container stock at a rate of 100, western sycamore trees per acre; 100, arroyo willow trees per acre; and 100, black willow trees per acre. All of these container stock plants were planned to be one-gallon size. The mitigation plan and BTR have since been revised to increase 50 ofthe western sycamore tree from one-gallon to 5-gallon size to help facilitate faster establishment of habitat. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, BENTEQ GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION May 27, 2015 Page 5 ; , Following implementation of the mitigation, there would be an additional 310 sycamore, 310 arroyo willow, and 310 black willow trees within the 3.1 acre wetland habitat mitigation area. While not the intent of the mitigation plan, if all 50 of the existing trees were to be removed, the planting of the 930 trees would result in an 11:1 replacement ratio of sycamore trees, a 17.2:1 replacement ratio of arroyo willow trees; and a 103.3:1 replacement ratio of black willow trees on the mitigation site. Even if all of the trees were removed in order to effectively implement the mitigation, the replacement trees (and inclusion of five-gallon specimens) would more than compensate for any temporal loss of mature trees and would result in a net gain in habitat quantity and quality over time. Presently, the 9.23-acre mitigation site supports 1.93 acres of wetland/riparian vegetation (0.72 acre of southern willow scrub, 1.17 acres of sycamore woodland, and 0.04 acre of disturbed wetland). Following implementation of the mitigation, there would be an additional 1.32 acres of wetland/riparian habitat re-established/created on the site (freshwater marsh adjacent to the central portions of the creek that experience steady water flows to riparian scrub and forest habitats along the periphery of the wetland mitigation area) with an additional 1.78 acres of existing wetland/riparian habitat enhanced. The number oftrees planted (including the spreading of any cut willows); the re-establishment/creation of 1.32 acres of wetland/riparian habitat; and the enhancement of existing wetland/riparian habitat through the removal of trash, cement, and other materials that have been dumped within and adjacent to the stream over time, will greatly enhance Agua Hedionda Creek and result in a net gain in habitat quantity and quality over time. The mitigation plan and BTR for the project (Alden Environmental, Inc., both dated March 26, 2015) provide details of the impacts of implementing the mitigation and the mitigation proposed for those impacts, where required. Mitigation measures are also detailed in the MND within the discussion of each environmental factor and again in a single list at the end ofthe MND. As stated in the MND, Standard Impact Mitigation Measures from Appendix A of the Guidelines for Biological Studies, as well as the other mitigation measures listed in the MND, would be implemented to avoid/minimize impacts to trees during grading. Mitigation Measure BIO-17, specifically, requires that: a. The qualified Project biologist shall review grading plans (e.g., all access routes and staging areas) and monitor construction activities throughout the duration ofthe Project to ensure that all practicable measures are being employed to avoid incidental disturbance of habitat and any target species of concern outside the Project footprint. b. Construction monitoring reports shall be completed and provided to the City summarizing how the Project is in compliance with applicable conditions. The Project biologist shall be empowered to halt work activity, if necessary, and to confer with City staff to ensure the proper Implementation of species and habitat protection measures. Comment 10: Please identify how many trees and/or sensitive, endangered or protected plants or other species will be impacted (i.e. removed, killed, cut, trimmed, relocated, displaced, etc.) in and along the Agua Hedionda Creek as part ofthe mitigation component ofthe project RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, BENTEQ GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION May 27, 2015 Page 6 Response: Figure 3 of the BTR (Alden 2015) identifies 10 southwestern spiny rush plants that are within the limits of the existing Agua Hedionda Creek. Because the Project would not impact the creek bottom, the spiny rush plants would not be impacted by the Project. No. other sensitive plant species were identified within the mitigation area. As a result, implementation of the proposed mitigation effort would have no impact upon sensitive plant species. As described in the RTC No. 9 above, existing trees Si rooted within and along the channel also will be avoided, to the extent practicable. The existing native wetland habitat along the creek is within the planned wetland habitat enhancement and creation area and there would be no reduction in wetland habitat. The native trees within the mitigation area are not considered sensitive individually and impacts would not be considered significant under CEQA. Three least Belfs vireo (endangered species) use areas were delineated east of the mitigation site along Agua Hedionda Creek and its tributary BTR Figure 3 (Alden 2015). The sensitive yellow-breasted chat and the sensitive yellow warbler also were observed/detected in the area. To be conservative, all riparian habitat in Agua Hedionda Creek (including on the mitigation site and in its tributary to the northeast) is considered occupied by the least Belfs vireo, yellow-breasted chat, and yellow warbler. The HMP prohibits clearing of vireo-occupied habitat during its breeding season (March 15 to September 15). With the incorporation of mitigation measure BIO-16 in the MND, however, impacts would be less, than significant. Impacts to the yellow-breasted chat and yellow warbler wouid be significant if habitat removal occurred during their breeding season (February 15 to September 15). According to the HMP, human activities must be restricted in yellow-breasted chat-occupied habitat during the breeding season, which would also protect the yellow warbler. With the incorporation of mitigation measures outlined in the MND, the impacts to these sensitive species would be less than significant. Sensitive raptor species including Cooper's hawk (one individual observed), sharp-shinned hawk (one individual observed), northern harrier (one individual observed), and white-tailed kite (minimum of three individuals observed) have potential to forage on the mitigation site. The Cooper's hawk and white-tailed kite also have potential to nest in woodland habitat on the mitigation site. Direct removal of upland and agricultural land foraging habitats on the mitigation site may have a substantial effect on sensitive raptor species and, therefore, would be significant. Direct removal of potential raptor nesting habitat (or active nest sites) would also be significant. With the incorporation of mitigation measure BIO-9 in the MND, however, these impacts to sensitive raptor species would be less than significant. No changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 11: Please discuss and analyze all mitigation for impacts associated with grading, deepening, widening and re-vegetating the Agua Hedionda Creek. Response: In addition to the information and analysis that is provided within the MND, including the Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP) and the supporting BTR, please see (Response to Comments) RTC Nos. 9 and 10 above. No changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 12: Please identify and discuss the post-construction impacts up-stream and down-stream (i.e. hydrologic, hydraulic, erosion, siit, sediment, etc.) that will result from lowering and widening the channel in this isolated section ofthe Agua Hedionda Creek. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, BENTEQ GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION May 27, 2015 Page 7 Response: The habitat mitigation project does not propose to lower the existing channel flow line of Agua Hedionda Creek. Please see the typical cross section of Figure 8 of the BTR. The responses below relate to the proposed widening associated with the habitat mitigation grading and its effect both up- stream and downstream ofthe habitat mitigation Project. Qf- • Hydrology. No change to peak flow rates result from the project, either upstream or downstream. • Hvdraulics. An analysis was performed by Lyle Engineering and presented in their report entitled "Agua Hedionda Creek Hydraulic Analyses, College Boulevard Wetland Mitigation Site" dated October, 2014 and referenced/cited in the draft MND. The report uses flow rates obtained from the FEMA Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for Agua Hedionda Creek, and was prepared to comply with the SUP 00-09 for Cantarini Ranch to obtain a CLOMR from FEMA prior to commencing grading for College Blvd. a. Upstream. The College Boulevard bridge is directly upstream of the habitat mitigation Project and was analyzed by sections 12590 and 12710 (see the post-project work map). Section 5.3, paragraph 5 of that report states, "There are slight increases in lOO-year WSELs due to the proposed bridge crossing. The maximum increase is approximately 0.24 feet at section 12710." Since the increase is due to the bridge and not the habitat mitigation Project, a discussion channel bottom. During the lOO-year storm, peak flow is contained in the wider channel as it traverses through the habitat mitigation Project. The wider channel banks transition to meet the existing banks at the westerly project boundary. Rip rap protects this bank transition. The post-project Work map locates section 11650 within the transition. The 100-YR WSEL increase by 0.01' in post-project conditions (See the Summary of Hydraulics model table in Appendix II: HEC-RAS Result) ofthe report. b. Downstream. The same table shows three sections downstream of the Project, each of which has identical pre- and post-project 100-YR WSELs. • Erosion, silt & sedimentation. Within the habitat mitigation Project site, velocities within the creek are reduced below 6 fps (see the Lyle report section 5.3, paragraph 6 and the Post-Project conditions Model). Therefore, no increase in erosion is expected within the habitat mitigation Project and existing offsite erosion, siltation or sedimentation patterns will not be adversely affected. No changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 13: Piease provide discussion, analysis and reference to any technical reports regarding the probability that the post-construction lowered channel section will naturally fill up with silt or sediment, effectively returning the creek bottom to its pre-construction elevation. Response: The College Boulevard Habitat Mitigation project does not propose to lower the existing channel flow line of Agua Hedionda Creek. The elevation of the creek bottom (i.e., the channel flow line) will remain unchanged by construction. Please see the typical cross section of Figure 8 ofthe BTR as • well as the cross sections included in the civil plans associated with the proposed project. No changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, BENTEQ GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION May 27, 2015 Page 8 . . Comment 14: Please discuss how the lowered and widened section of the Agua Hedionda Creek will be maintained and, if the creek is not periodically dredged or managed to maintain the lowered channel, could the flood plain or floodway ultimately return to the preconstruction levels. Response: Please see RTC No. 13. No changes are required to be made to th^ CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. ^' Comment 15: Please analyze and discuss how the newly constructed Agua Hedionda Creek will be maintained long term, how those maintenance impacts will be mitigated and who will be responsible for the maintenance and costs. Response: Similar to many other habitat mitigation sites in Carlsbad, a conservation entity acceptable to the City will hold title to Lot C, the habitat mitigation site. Prior to that entity accepting ownership of the property, a Property Analysis Record (PAR) will be prepared to estimate the costs of the long-term management and monitoring of the open space lot in perpetuity. Based on the results of the PAR, the applicant will be required to provide a non-wasting endowment to the conservation entity sufficient for the management and monitoring of the open space lot in perpetuity. This is addressed in Mitigation Measure BIO-8 in the MND. In addition, there are no potential impacts associated with long-term maintenance of the property. No changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 16: The BTR states that "Parcel D would be impacted by approved Reach A construction but otherwise would remain unaffected by the Project". In fact, however. Parcel D will be substantially affected by the grading of the Agua Hedionda Creek by eliminating nearly 6 acres of floodway and flood plain, thereby enabling development on Parcel D, which Is currently not developable. The BTR should be corrected and this impact should be discussed and analyzed. Response: The proposed mitigation will widen a deeply incised channel into a wider, more naturalized streambed. The widening of the streambed will allow more water to flow through this area during a rainstorm which will change the boundaries ofthe existing floodplain and floodway. No development is being proposed on Parcel D nor is the existing iSeneral Plan designation of Parcel D being changed, therefore it would be speculative to discuss possible environmental impacts of future development scenarios on Parcel D. No changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 17: The grading - lowering and widening - of the Agua Hedionda Creek will remove approximately 6 acres of the ECNS property (Parcel D) from the floodway and/or flood plain. Please discuss and analyze the environmental impacts to habitat values and functions resulting from this substantial reduction in the natural floodway and flood plain, as well as mitigation for said impacts. Response: As discussed above, the existing Agua Hedionda Creek channel would not be lowered. The proposed mitigation, as shown, in Figure 10 of the BTR and discussed in the MND, would expand and improve native wetland habitat adjacent to Agua Hedionda Creek. The expanded and improved wetland habitat in this area would have higher functions and values than currently exist as provided for in the BTR and the mitigation plan summarized in the BTR and included as an appendix to the BTR. Areas outside of the proposed mitigation area currently consist of disturbed/developed area associated with RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, BENTEQ GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION May 27, 2015 Page 9 the equestrian center activities. Changes in the floodway and/or flood plain would have no effect upon the existing disturbed/developed area which comprises Parcel D. No changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 18: Proposed Parcel B of the ECNS property is identified as "a new bio-retention basin that was added to the Project since its previous approval in 2001 in order to satisfy current stormwater requirements". Please identify when and by what regulatory method the new bio-retention basin was "added to the Project" and please clearly define the "Project" that said bio-retention basin was added to. Please specifically identify the "current stormwater requirements" that are referred to in this section of the BTR and in the City's Initial Study. Response: In order to comply with current stormwater requirements of San Diego Regional Quality Control Board Order R2013-0001, to mitigate storm water quality impacts and provide hydromodification management, eight basins were designed for the College Boulevard Reach A - Basin BJ Project. These eight basins are shown on Carlsbad drawing 456-3G for College Boulevard and identified as: West WQ Basin West Hydromodification Basin No. 1 West Hydromodification Basin No. 2 RCOA P-3 Basin College North Basin EC North Basin EC South Basin EC East Basin The three West basins were approved as part of MS 09-04/GPA 09-02/ZC 09-02/RMHP 96-01(D)/LFMP 15(E)/CUP 09-02/SUP 09-02/SDP 09-02/HDO 09-03/ HMP 09-02. The other five basins were approved as part of SCE 00-18(C) for Cantarini Ranch. Biological impacts due to proposed grading of these five basins are accounted for in the BTR for College Boulevard, Reach 'A' and mitigated by this habitat mitigation Project. Since the three basins located on the EC properties are within an existing floodplain area, the City obtained a consistency determination with the City's Habitat Management Plan from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (see letter dated 4/9/15), prior to approval of SCE 00-18(C). No changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 19: Please identify and discuss the drainage, stormwater quality, hydrology or other technical studies that were completed for this project that support the conclusion the proposed bio-retention basin being proposed for the new ECNS Parcel B will "satisfy current stormwater requirements". Response: Although not completed for this habitat mitigation project, the College Boulevard Reach 'A' - Basin BJ project includes studies that respond to this comment. Grading and improvement plans for College Boulevard Reach 'A', Carlsbad drawing 456-3G are under review by City of Carlsbad. Several associated drainage reports are in plan check for the College Boulevard Reach 'A' - Basin BJ project, prepared by Hunsaker & Associates. The reports that are under review with the City engineer include: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, BENTEQ GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION May 27, 2015 Page 10 • "Drainage Study for College Blvd." dated 4/22/15, • "Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) for College Boulevard" dated 4/22/15 • "CANTARINI RANCH, Hydromodification Management Plan" dated 12/17/14 and revised 3/3/15. The latter report covers the EC North basira to which the comment is directed and has been determined to be in compliance with current stormwater permits by the City's third party review completed by Tory R. Walker Engineering per their March 19, 2015 technical review memorandum. No changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 20: Please identify any and all other projects, besides College Blvd., that will use, drain to, contribute stormwater to, or otherwise benefit from the bio-retention basin proposed for the new ECNS Parcel B and include discussion and analysis of the associated environmental impacts. Response The EC North Basin accepts runoff from a storm drain system discharging from College Boulevard. That system includes runoff from College Blvd, Cantarini Ranch and Dos Colinas as shown in the "Drainage Study and Storm Water Management Plan for College Blvd." Based on the studies, runoff from Dos Colinas will be pre-treated onsite for water quality and hydromodification, therefore, EC North basin provides no water quality benefit to Dos Colinas. However, the EC North Basin wilt provide water quality treatment and hydromodification needs for a portion if Cantarini Ranch. Environmental impacts for the basin are documented in the BTR. No changes were made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 21: If projects other than College Blvd. use, drain into or otherwise derive benefit from the proposed Parcel B bio-retention basin, please discuss how impacts, costs and benefits associated with said bio-retention basin are to be allocated among the benefited projects. Response: The finance breakdown for EC North for College Blvd versus Cantarini Ranch are included in the proposed Zone 15 College Boulevard finance plan, which are not part of this application. Comment 22: The Initial Study and BTR present a confusing discussion and analysis of environmental impacts, in part, by referring to differences in the "Project footprint", presumably referring to a "Project footprint" found in EIR 98-02 and the newly proposed or amended "Project footprint" that would result from adding the proposed Parcel B bioretention basin to the College Blvd.+BJ Basin project (the EIR 98-02 project). Please provide a color exhibit with key that clearly depicts the different "Project footprints", including the specific location and scope of change in habitat impacts. Response: The BTR was used a reference for the preparation ofthe MND. The project description and supporting analysis in the MND accurately outline the scope ofthe College Boulevard Mitigation project. Figure 3 of the BTR (Alden 2015) presents the extent of the College Boulevard Reach A and Basin BJ project; this same figure also presents the proposed adjacent mitigation area which is the subject ofthe MND, and clearly described as such, in the project description ofthe MND. The purpose ofthe BTR is to present and analyze the current impacts of the College Boulevard & Basin BJ project, as well as the impacts of the proposed mitigation project. No changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, BENTEQ GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION May 27, 2015 Page 11 Comment 23: Table 1 (page 10) and related discussion in the BTR seem to conclude that as a result of ADDING the proposed Parcel B bio-retention basin to the previously analyzed and approved College Blvd.+BJ Basin project (EIR 98-02), impacts to Riparian (Sycamore) Woodland are REDUCED by 0.47 acre and overall Wetland/Riparian impacts are REDUCED by 0.18 acre. Please provide discussion, analysis and a color exhibit with ke^ showing, at a minimum, (a) the original College Blvd.+BJ Basin impact area/"footprint", (b) the proposed College Blvd.+BJ Basin+new proposed Parcel B bio-retention basin impact area/ "footprint", and (b) how and where said reductions in habitat impacts occur. Response: The impact analysis is based on current mapping and current project limits. Additional impacts associated with the basin located within Parcel B include eucalyptus woodland and agricultural areas; no wetland/riparian habitat would be impacted. Figure 3 of the BTR (Alden 2015) presents current vegetation mapping for the overall study area, which includes C. Figure 5a of the previous BTR (Merkel 2010), which is included as Attachment B to the current BTR, shows the previous vegetation mapping. A comparison of these two figures shows that the current College Boulevard Reach A and Basin BJ footprint has been reduced within the wetland/riparian habitat adjacent to Agua Hedionda Creek. The previous footprint showed an expanded wetland impact area on the southwest side of the bridge location. This impact has been greatly reduced in the current proposed footprint, which accounts for the majority of the difference (reduction) in impacts to wetland/riparian habitat. Additionally, this area that would have been impacted is now included within the mitigation area and will be enhanced, preserved, and managed. In short, the current proposed College Boulevard Reach A and Basin BJ project would impact fewer sensitive wetland/riparian biological resources within Agua Hedionda Creek than the previous design would have. Please refer to Appendix B of the BTR (Alden 2015) for the results of the previous biological study. Please also see the responses to comments 11 and 23. No changes were made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 24: Table l(pagelO) and related discussion in the BTR state the "impact foot print includes Reach A and Basin BJ", but "does not include the impacts ofthe mitigation on the ECNS parcels... ", then also states the "differences between the EIR impacts and the current impacts Iisted in Table 1 are due to revisions to the previously approved project (Environmental Impact Report [EIR No. 98-02; SCH No 99111082; Recon 2001a}) primarily to satisfy current storm water requirements". However, the proposed Parcel B bio-retention basin property is approx. 1.12 acres in size while the "Change" shown In Table 1 is +9.53 acres. Please explain and/or correct this discrepancy. Response: The 9.53-acre increase is a result ofthe addition ofthe five water quality basins added to the project by SCE 0018(C) described in RTC 20 as well as other changes along the road corridor to match the final grading limits proposed on the grading plans for College Boulevard Reach A & Basin BJ. The 1.12 acres in Table 1 of the BTR is a portion of the 9.53 acres -that being the basin that is proposed to be constructed on Parcel C. No changes were made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 25: The BTR states the "ECNS parcels (17.44 acres combined) support a former equestrian facility" (emphasis added). In fact, the property still supports an equestrian facility; piease correct Response: The BTR has been revised to state that there is an existing equestrian facility on the site which operates on a lease that can be terminated subject to notification from the property owner. Please note that the MND does describe the equestrian facility as a current use. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, BENTEQ GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION May 27, 2015 Paee 12 Comment 26: Table 2 (page 11) of the BTR shows a total of 1.93 acres of Wetland/Riparian habitat currently existing on the proposed Parcel C, which includes the section of Agua Hedionda Creek that is proposed to be extensively graded and reconfigured in order to lower and widen the creek channel, add a manufactured channel and redirect the creek flow. Please discuss and analyze the impacts that will occur to the 1«33 acres of Wetland/Riparian habitat, and required mitigation, arising from the proposed grading and substantial alteration ofthe natural condition. Response: As described in the BTR and the MND, wetland/riparian habitat on proposed Parcel C would not be impacted. Please see RTC No. 9. No changes were made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 27: Please discuss and analyze the source and survey methodology used to determine the acreages presented in the BTR and the city's Initial Study. Response: Survey methods are provided on page 4 of the BTR (Alden 2015). To calculate existing vegetation community acreages and impacts, ESRI's ArcGIS software was used to digitize vegetation into a scaled coordinate system. The project files from the engineer were turned into a polygon, which was intersected with the vegetation data. The resulting intersected data (impacts to vegetation) was summarized into an acreage table by vegetation community. These acreages were then used in the BTR. No changes were made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 28: Please discuss and analyze what changes are likely to result from new focused surveys for the ECNS property and/or the original College Blvd. +BJ Basin project and why they are not required as part ofthe City's CEQA review of this proposed Project Response: As discussed in the BTR, no new focused surveys are not proposed or required because the presence of previously-noted or potentially-occurring species is assumed, and mitigation to avoid/minimize potential impacts is required within the MND. Therefore, no changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 29: Throughout the BTR (ref, for example, page 12), the Wetlands and Non-Wetlands Waters present on the ECNS property are omitted/ignored; please explain. In particular, please analyze and discuss how Waters of the U.S. (WUS) and/or Waters of the State (WS), which are present on the ECNS parcels, will be "avoided during implementation of mitigation for the Project", particularly since the proposed mitigation project requires extensive grading in the Agua Hedionda Creek. Response: Please see RTC No. 10. No changes were are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 30: Table 2 and related discussion in the BTR define the proposed ECNS Parcels as totaling 17.44 acres. Table 5 ofthe BTR identifies the proposed ECNS Parcels as containing a total of 6.86 acres. Please reconcile and correct the tables to provide clarity and consistency. Response: The total acreage ofthe ECNS parcels, 17.44 acres, corresponds with what is presented in the MND, and is shown in Table 2 ofthe BTR (Alden 2015). The proposed Parcel C mitigation site (6.86 acres) occurs within the 17.44-acre area of the ECNS parcels. This is depicted on Figure 2 of the BTR. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, BENTEQ GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION May 27, 2015 Page 13 Table 5 ofthe BTR shows the impacts to the ECNS parcels (i;e., to 6.86 acres of proposed Parcel C within the 17.44 acres). No changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 31: Page 30 ofthe BTR, under "Other Areas", states that "Approximately 30.35 acres of other areas would be directly impacted by the Project as it is currently proposed... " Table 6 (page 42) of the BTR shows "Total Other Areas" of"26.39 Acres". Please analyze, discuss and reconcile the difference. Response: Table 6 lists the proposed mitigation for impacts to sensitive vegetation communities/wildlife habitats. Of the 30.35 acres referenced on Page 30, Table 6 identifies 26.39 acres as agricultural lands (16.08), eucalyptus woodland (2.17), or disturbed lands, to be mitigated by payment of an in lieu fee per Carlsbad's requirements. The remaining 3.45 acres of developed land and 0.51 acre of ornamental plantings do not require mitigation of any kind and are not listed in the mitigation table which is Table 6. No changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 32: The BTR study shows impacts to Coastal Sage Scrub (all categories) totaling 1.60 acre pursuant to EIR 98-02, and 2.61 acres for "Current Impacts". However, the impact analysis in the Merkel & Associates study. Table 6 (revised March 19, 2010), which is included in the BTR exhibits, shows the Project Impacts ofthe original College Blvd.+BJ Basin project to be 3.5 Acres. Please analyze, discuss and reconcile these numbers. Response: Figure 3 of the BTR (Alden 2015) presents current vegetation mapping for the overall study area. Changes to habitats have occurred since Merkel's study in 2010. The impact and mitigation analyses are appropriately based on current mapping and proposed project limits. No changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 33: Please confirm the required mitigation for impacts to Group D Coastal Sage Scrub pursuant to the HMP or other regulations and/or policies applicable to Zone 15; is the required CSS mitigation ratio 1: lor 2:1 ? Response: The Habitat Management Plan requires 1:1 mitigation for impacts to Coastal Sage Scrub. However, EIR 98-02 requires that mitigation for the impacts of the construction of College Boulevard be mitigated at a ratio of 2:1. Mitigation is being provided pursuant to the requirements of EIR 98-02. No changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 34: The BTR (ref Table 5 pg. 28) shows total impacts to Wetland/Riparian Communities/ Habitats from its proposed College Blvd.+BJ Basin+Parcel B bio-retention basin Project totaling 0.72 acres. However, the Impact analysis in the Merkel & Associates study. Table 8 (revised March 19, 2010), which is included in the BTR exhibits, shows the Project Impacts of the Jurisdictional Wetland and Waterways Impacts-Permanent Impacts of the original College Blvd.+BJ Basin (EIR 98-02) - without the newly proposed Parcel B bio-retention basin - to be 1.1 Acres. Please analyze, discuss and reconcile these numbers. Response: Please see RTC No. 23 and 32. No changes were made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, BENTEQ GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION May 27, 2015 Page 14 Comment 35: The BTR (pg. 43) states, "In total, the Project would provide 2.40 acres of wetland/riparian mitigation"; the referenced "Project" is defined as the original College Blvd.+BJ Basin project, pursuant to EIR 98-02 +the newly proposed Parcel B bio-retention basin. However, the Merkel & Associates study. Table 10 (revised March 19, 2010), which is Included In the BTR exhibits, shows total Project Mitigation for the original College Blvd. +BJ Basin project, pursuant to EIR 98-02, - without the newly proposed Parcel B bioretention - basin of3.01 Acre. Please analyze, discuss and reconcile the numbers. Response: Please see RTC No. 23 and 32. No changes were made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 36: The Merkel & Associates report (revised March 19, 2010), which is included in the BTR exhibits, states: "Mitigation ratios to HMP Group A habitats are subject to modification by state and federal agencies where wetiand regulatory authority exists. Mitigation ratios for HMP Group B-F habitats are based on Table 11 ofthe City's HMP (page D-113). It should be noted that College Boulevard - Reach A and the Basin BJ are City approved projects; thus, city projects that impact Type D, E and F habitats and require offsite mitigation, will not pay the in lieu fee and will mitigate at the Lake Calavera Mitigation Bank, as available. If lands are not available at the Lake Calavera Mitigation Bank, the in lieu fee will be required. In lieu fees are based on the City's Development Processing Fee Schedule, effective September 1. 2008 and updated July I, 2009." Please confirm the accuracy of this footnote and its applicability to the proposed College Boulevard Mitigation Project. Response: The 2010 Merkel report is provided as an appendix to the BTR to provide historical information in connection with the College Boulevard Reach A & Basin BJ project certified under EIR 98- 02. The 2010 Merkel report does not fully address the mitigation for the College Boulevard Reach A & Basin BJ project as it has been modified to satisfy current stormwater regulations. The current Alden BTR addresses the modified project and the mitigation requirements for its impacts. In addition, as required by the Habitat Management Plan (HMP), the city received concurrence from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Wildlife Agencies) on May 18, 2015 (please see attached letter). No changes were made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 37: HMP compliance requires Projects be designed to avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable. As noted in the BTR, Section 06 of the HMP (pg. D-90) states that Projects that affect wetlands must demonstrate that the impacts: (i) Cannot be avoided by a feasible alternative; (ii) Have been minimized to the maximum extent possible; (iii) Would be mitigated in ways that assure no net loss of habitat value and function. Based on the foregoing criteria, and any other applicable standards or policies, please discuss and analyze: Response: As required by the HMP, the city received concurrence from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Wildlife Agencies) on May 18, 2015 (please see attached letter. No changes were made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 38a: What alternative wetland mitigation projects were considered, including but not limited to the lower impact, lower cost Bepton Dartford/Lubliner wetland mitigation project that was approved by the City, USACE, CDF&G & RWQCB in 2010. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, BENTEQ GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION May 27, 2015 Page 15 Response: The proposed College Boulevard Habitat Mitigation project is a private development application and is not a city-initiated project. The city is not required to evaluate the differences or pros and cons between implementing the habitat mitigation project on the Lubliner property and the West/ECNS properties. Pursuant to EIR 98-02, "Agency policy recommends that mitigation occur within vicinity ofthe impacts and within the same watershed." The proposed project meets this policy and the Wildlife Agencies are supportive of the proposed location as demonstrated by the issuance of the HMP Concurrence letter on May 18, 2015. No changes were made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 38b: As designed and approved, the 2010 Lubliner wetland mitigation project (which was inexplicably abandoned/terminated by the current Applicant/West), provided over 3 acres of high quality wetland mitigation (creation and enhancement) utilizing floodway and flood plain land adjacent to the Agua Hedionda Creek, without radically altering the creek or substantially impact existing wetland habitat, as is proposed by the current West Project The West/ECNS property also offers several acres of floodway and flood plain land outside of and adjacent to the Agua Hedionda Creek that could be designed and utilized for wetland mitigation, with minimal impacts and at a much lower cost. Response: Please see RTC No. 38a above. No changes were made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 38c: The Applicant's/West's property, formerly part of its Dos Colinas project, located adjacent to the Agua Hedionda Creek and the Terraces Apartments, offers opportunities for wetland mitigation and a bio-retention basin with much less environmental impact and at a lower cost. Response: Please see response 38a regarding the issue of HMP compliance. No changes were made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 38d: What alternative upland/CSS mitigation properties were considered, i.e. the Bepton- Dartford/Lubliner property, the Basin BJ site, the Lake Calavera Mitigation Bank? Response: Please see response 38a regarding the issue of HMP compliance. No changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 38e: Upland/CSS mitigation can be achieved through purchase of "credits" in approved mitigation banks, or payment of in-lieu fees, at lower costs and without causing new impacts. Response: Please see response 38 regarding the issue of HMP compliance. No changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 39: The required wetland mitigation is reportedly 2.40 acres and the required upland (CSS) mitigation of 5 .22 acres can be satisfied through alternatives that are less impactful, less costly, and offer higher probability of success and/or higher quality existing habitat. The proposed Project would impact approx. 15 acres overall (of a 17.44 acre site) including the grading and reconfiguring of a natural creek and the reduction of floodway and flood plain function and values, while providing no guarantee of habitat creation success. Please analyze and discuss how these facts are consistent with the above referenced HMP standards. Section 06 (pg. D-90), or any other applicable regulatory provision or policy. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, BENTEQ GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION May 27, 2015 Page 16 Response: The mitigation effort will not deepen the existing Agua Hedionda Creek, nor will it reduce the functions and values of existing habitats within or adjacent to the current and/or proposed floodway/floodplain. The impact to sensitive biological resources associated with the mitigation effort is 6.86 acres, as shown in Table 5 of the BTR (Alden 2015). The BTR (Alden 2015) and the draft MND include requirements to successfully carry out the proposed mitigation effort. Please also see responses to comments 10, 18, and 38. No changes are required to be m'lade to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 40: As noted, this proposed Project is intended to satisfy mitigation requirements for offsite infrastructure (College Blvd.+Basin BJ) in LFMP Zone 15 and the Applicant is seeking reimbursement for the costs of this Project from Zone 15 property owners through its proposed LFMP Zone 15 financing program. Accordingly, please analyze and discuss the relative cost v benefit value of this Project by comparing its estimated costs with the estimated costs ofthe available mitigation alternatives. Response: A significant effect on the environment is a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the physical conditions of the area affected by the project. [CEQA §21068; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15002(g), 15382]. The issues raised are not related to an environmental issue pursuant to CEQA nor are they at variance with the existing content of the draft MND. No changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 41: Please discuss and analyze when focused surveys should be conducted for projects of this magnitude and why they are or are not appropriate or necessary for this Project. Response: Please see RTC 28. No changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 42: El Camino Real is a designated Scenic Corridor; please discuss and analyze the Project impacts to this Scenic Corridor. Please include identification and analysis of any visual/view-shed impacts arising from the removal, relocation or killing of existing mature trees and plants and replacing a narrow natural single creek with a wide manufactured dual channel basin. Response: The Project site is not adjacent to El Camino Real and is, therefore, located outside the boundaries of the El Camino Real Scenic Corridor. The Project site will be bordered on the north and south by residential development, to the east by College Boulevard, and to the west by a golf course. The draft MND at pages 7-8 addresses potential impacts to aesthetics. Impacts have been determined to be less than significant or that there will be no impacts, pursuant to the CEQA significance thresholds. The replacement ofthe existing equestrian facility with restoration and creation of wetland habitats and creation of uplands habitats is not expected to result in impacts to the El Camino Real Scenic Corridor or any other aesthetic resource. No changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 43: The Project proposed for the 17.44 acre ECNS property will substantially alter the local community character. The ECNS property is currently a rural equestrian and open space amenity that is consistent with and serves as the gateway into the Sunny Creek rural estate specific plan (SP191) area. In its current state, the 17.44 acre ECNS property provides substantial natural wetland, riparian, floodway and flood plain habitat function and value as well as a high demand regional service (equestrian). The 1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, BENTEQ GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION May 27, 2015 Page 17 • proposed Project will replace this unique and appealing historic land use with a large graded, manufactured and landscaped basin that substantially alters the natural environs as well as the flow and function of the Agua Hedionda Creek. Please discuss and analyze the impacts to community character and appropriate mitigation. Gi- Response: The majority ofthe Project site is highly disturbed and covered with older buildings, stables and paddocks. As shown by Figure 3 in the BTR, very little of this site can be classified as natural wetland/riparian. As explained previously, the existing creek is deeply incised and lined with broken concrete to minimize erosion. The proposed mitigation will remove these structures, lower the area around the existing streambed and bring this site into a more natural configuration. The equestrian use is on a lease with the property owner which can be terminated at any time. Replacing an equestrian use with natural habitat in conformance with the goals HMP as well as the General Plan, and will not have a negative impact on the community character. Carlsbad's Habitat Management Plan Annual Report 2015 identifies this area as one of the City's major east-west wildlife corridors. The widening of the existing narrow streambed and establishment of upland habitat adjacent to the future wetland area is expected to have a beneficial impact on wildlife movement in this corridor. No changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 44: Please discuss and analyze, with reference to the relevant regulatory standards or policies, how a landowner removing trash from their own property constitutes "habitat enhancement" or "mitigation" for development impacts. Response: The habitat mitigation plan introduced in the BTR and discussed at length in the referenced Mitigation Plan (Alden 2014) provides for a complex of tasks that together are proposed to both enhance habitat and mitigate for impacts ofthe College Boulevard Reach A & Basin BJ project. Removal of trash is only a component of the mitigation effort and is not intended, in and of itself, to result in habitat enhancement or mitigation. The mitigation effort, as described in the BTR and Mitigation Plan incorporates grading, planting, seeding, and irrigation to increase both the size and quality of the wetland/riparian habitat within the mitigation area. Removal of trash during installation of the mitigation will serve to facilitate the improvement of the habitat. Furthermore, the mitigation effort includes a 5-year maintenance and monitoring period, followed by long-term management, to ensure success. Given that the project does not propose to rely solely upon trash removal for its mitigation, there is no regulatory standard or policy to discuss, as requested by the commenter. Mitigation Measure BIO-6 of the draft MND notes that the applicant must obtain the approval of Carlsbad, the Wildlife Agencies, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of a final wetlands/riparian restoration plan prior to Carlsbad's issuance of a grading permit and/or the clearing of any habitat on- site. In order to obtain these approvals the mitigation effort must comply with applicable City and agency regulatory standards, guidelines, and requirements. No changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 45: The Project, particularly the Parcel B bio-retention basin and the Parcel C mitigation site, (a) is intended to support the previously approved Zone 15 College Blvd.+BJ Basin project (EIR 98-02); (b) is reportedly allowed to cause significant environmental impacts pursuant to the HMP "critical infrastructure" exemption; and, ( c) is dependent on funding/ financing through an LFMP Zone 15 financing program that is not yet formed or approved and is widely opposed by many of the Zone 15 'V. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, BENTEQ GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION May 27, 2015, Page 18 property owners. Given these facts, please discuss if/how the Project entitlements, approvals and/or permits will be subject to and/or conditioned upon (1) completion of a Zone 15 LFMP financing program, (ii) the construction of College Blvd.+Basin BJ, (iii) the recording of an open-space easement over proposed parcels B&C, and (iv) the funding of an endowment for perpetual maintenance and management ofthe mitigation and open space. « at Response: As concluded in the MND, with the implementation ofthe mitigation measures, the project impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level. In addition, HMP concurrence was received from the Wildlife Agencies on May 18, 2015. The financial details, including the financing ofthe project, is not a CEQA matter. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure BIO-8 of the draft MND, the applicant must record a conservation easement or restrictive covenant over the habitat mitigation Parcel C and must fund an endowment for the long term maintenance and management of Parcel C. Therefore, no changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Thank you for providing comments on the College Boulevard Mitigation project. Should you have any additional questions, please contact the project planner. Shannon Werneke, at (760) 602-4621 or by email at shannon.werneke@carlsbadca.gov. ^cerely. QL/U DON NEU, AlCP City Planner. DN:SW:bd Enc: Wildlife Agency HMP Concurrence letter, dated May 18, 2015 c: Mike Howes Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney File Copy Data Entry ATTACHMENTS BENTEQ BENTLEY EQUITY. INC. 760 476.9572 - ofc 760,809.5216 - cell 7449 M^ilan Street Cartsbad. CA 92011 hBnl,->q^rr>adrunngrrorTi .April 27. 2015 Ms. Shannon Wemeke. Associate Planner City of Carlsbad Planning, 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad. CA 92008 Via E-mail & U.S. Mail RE: Project No. GPA 14-02/ZC 14-Gl/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 Project Narae: College Boulevard Mitigation Dear Ms. Wemeke; Thank you tbr the opportunitv- to review and provide comments in connection with the above referenced Project, In addition to substantially and negatively impacting adjacent land oiATied by my clients, Bepton & Dartford Investments, and a nearby property in which an aflfiliate, Bentley-Wing Investments, has a substantial interest, the proposed Project will have an unnecessary negative impact on the overall Sunny Creek community and environment. Although purportedly designed to satisfy certain new water quaUty standards and habitat mitigation requirements in connection with the constraction of College Blvd. and Basin BJ {ref. EIR 98-02), die Project would instead radically, permanently and unnecessarily alter and degrade a natural ripariart habitat and significant water-way in order to create, for the benefit of the Project proponent, nearly 6 acres of new developraent area that is currently un-developable floodway and flood plain land. Given the superior, lower-impact, lower-cost altematives that exist for mitigating impacts arising from the College Blvd. & BJ Basin construction projects, the proposed Project does not satisiy the standard of necessity (ref. HMP) with which any such project must comply. In any event, the proposed Project and related impacts cannot be adequately ajialyzed and understood, nor can the public be suftlciently infonned about the Project, until a comprehensive Environmental Impact Report, including analyses of project altematives, is prepared and circulated for review. For your convenience, the following DropBox link provides access to record documents used in preparing the attached comments and analysis: h{Tps:/,^vww.dropkw.com/sh,^zltzvve5vo35aO-4-'AAlXT^x_x(3Bi5Snt5i^ vbu for vour jc»ssideration. 1 David M. Bentley. CCl.M - President Bentley Equity. Inc. fCopy lisl aiiached) Copies via email to: Don Neu, City Planner Gary Barberio, Assistant Manager Glen Van Peski, City Engineer ^ Jeremy Riddel, Assistant City Engineer Chuck McBride, Finance Aaron Beanan, Finance Celia Brewer, City Attorney Bob Ladwig, Ladwig Design Group Bepton & Dartford Investments Rancho Carlsbad Owners Association Bentley-Wing Properties, Inc. Diane Nygaard, Preserve Calavera Madeline Szabo, Friends of Sunny Creek Madana CaICo Kato Family Trust Walmart Barlow Horse Boarding Coman Trust Lyall Ranch Seaboume CorpjTHIolly Springs Pago 2 COMMENTS & QUESTIONS RE: City of Carlsbad Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration Project No. GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 ar Project Name: College Boulevard Mitigation 1. The "Proj ect Description" contained in the City's "Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration" and "Initial Study" differs substantially firom the Project described in the Biological Technical Report (hereinafter, the "BTR") prepared by Alden Environmental, Inc. The City defined "Project" is identified as a 17.44-acre property referred to as the Equestrian Center North & South (hereinafter "ECNS") and includes a proposed parcel map that would divide the current 2 legal parcels mto 4 parcels for use/development as agriculture, a bio-retention basin, wetland and upland mitigation, and future development. The BTR, which the City's MND and Initial Study relies on and refers to, defines the "Project" as College Blvd. & BJ Basin, 'which were previously analyzed and approved pursuant to EIR 98-02, and a new bio-retention basin "component". Please correct and reconcile the BTR, Initial Study & Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration to clearly define and analyze a specific single "Project". 2. If the Project is defined as the proposed subdi-vision and develo{Hnent of the 17.44 acre ECNS property into 4 parcels for 4 different uses, that Project should be analyzed and discussed as such. The extensive references, discussion and analyses of previously approved projects (EIR 98-02) is confusing and misleading. 3. Table 1, and related discussion, in the BTR states that the environmental impacts arisuig fi'om the proposed creation ofthe wetland mitigation on the ECNS property are not mcluded because the ^''mitigation to he implemented on the ECNS parcels was not part ofthe Project in the EIR " (EIR 98-02). Using that rationale, the impacts ofthe proposed bio- retention basin should not be included in Table 1. Please discuss, analyze and/or correct this inconsistency. 4. As proposed, the Agua Hedionda Creek will be substantially graded, resulting in, among other permanent unpacts, a deepened and widened creek and a new manufectured channel into which water that is currently contained in the existing single natural creek will be diverted/split. Although significant, no substantive description, analysis or discussion of these impacts is presented in the BTR or Initial Study. Please discuss and analyze, in detail, these impacts and the requisite mitigation, or justification for requuing none; inciude discussion to support the BTR and Initial Study conclusion that "impacts would be avoided during implementation of mitigation for the Project". (i.e. How does grading and re- constructing a natural creek not cause significant impacts to that creek?) Page 3 5. Please identify how^ many trees and/or sensitive, endangered or protected plants or other species wiil be impacted (i.e. removed, killed, cut, trimmed, relocated, displaced, etc.) in and along the Agua Hedionda Creek as part of the ihitigation component ofthe project. 6. Please discuss and analyze all mitigation for impacts associated with grading, deepening, widening and re-vegetating the Agua Hedionda Creek. 7. Please identify and discuss the post-construction impacts up-stream and down-stream (i.e. hydrologic, hydraulic, erosion, silt, sediment, etc.) that will result from lowering and widening the chaimel in this isolated section of the Agua Hedionda Creek. 8. Please provide discussion, analysis and reference to any technical reports regarding the probability that the post-constmction lowered channel section will naturally fill up with silt or sediment, effectively retuming the creek bottom to its pre-construction elevation. 9. Please discuss how the lowered and vwdened section of the Agua Hedionda Creek will be maintained and, if the creek is not periodically drec^ed or managed to maintain the lowered channel, could the the flood plain or floodway ultimately return to the pre- construction levels. 10. Piease analyze and discuss how the newly constructed Agua Hedionda Creek will be maintained long term, how those maintenance impacts will be mitigated and who will be responsible for the maintenance and costs. 11. The BTR states that "Parcel D would he impacted by approved Reach A construction but otherwise would remain unaffected by the Project". In fact, however, Parcel D will be substantially affected by the grading ofthe Agua Hedionda Creek by eliminating nearly 6 acres of floodway and flood plain, thereby enabling development on Parcel D, which is currently not developable. The BTR should be corrected and this impact should be discussed and analyzed. 12. The grading - lowering and widening - of the Agua Hedionda Creek will remove approximately 6 acres of the ECNS property (Parcel D) from the floodway and/or flood plain. Please discuss and analyze the environmental impacts to habitat values and fimctions resulting from this substantial reduction in the natural floodway and flood plain, as weU as mitigation for said impacts. 13. Proposed Parcel B of the ECNS property is identified as "a new bio-retention basin that was added to the Project since its previous approval in 2001 in order to satisfy current stormwater requirements". Please identify when and by what regulatory method the new bio-retention basin was "added to the Project" and please clearly define the "Project" that Poge 4 said bio-retention basin was added to. Please specifically identify the "current stormwater requirements " that are referred to in this section of the BTR and in the City's Initial Study. 14. Please identify and discuss the drainage, stormwater quality, hydrology or other technical studies that were completed for this project that support the conclusion the proposed bio-retention basin being proposed for the new ECNS Parcel B will "satisfy current stormwater requirements". 15. Please identify any and all other projects, besides College Blvd, that will use, drain to, contribute stormwater to, or otherwise benefit from the bio-retention basin proposed for the new ECNS Parcel B and include discussion and analysis of the associated envkonmental impacts. 16. If projects other than College Blvd. use, drain into or otherwise derive benefit from the proposed Parcel B bio-retention basin, please discuss how unpacts, costs and benefits associated with said bio-retention basin are to be allocated among the benefited projects. 17. The Initial Study and BTR present a confixsing discussion and analysis of environmental impacts, in part, by referring to differences in the "Projectfootprint", presumably referrmg to a "Projectfootprint" found in EIR 98-02 and the newly proposed or amended "Project footprint" that would result from adding the proposed Parcel B bio- retention basin to the College Blvd.+BJ Basin project (the EIR 98-02 project). Please provide a color exhibit with key that clearly depicts the different "Project footprints", including the specific location and scope of change in habitat impacts. 18. Table 1 (page 10) and related discussion hi the BTR seem to conclude that as a result of ADDING the proposed Parcel B bio-retention basin to the previously analyzed and approved College Blvd.+BJ Basin project (EIR 98-02), impacts to Riparian (Sycamore) Woodland are REDUCED by 0.47 acre and overall Wetiand/Riparian impacts are REDUCED by 0.18 acre. Please provide discussion, analysis and a color exhibit -witii key showing, at a minimum, (a) the origmal College Blvd.+BJ Basin impact area/"footprint", (b) the proposed College Blvd.+BJ Basin+new proposed Parcel B bio-retention basm unpact area/ "footprint", and (b) how and where said reductions in habitat impacts occur. 19. Table 1 (page 10) and related discussion in tiie BTR state tiie "impact foot print includes Reach A and Basin BJ", but "does not include the impacts ofthe mitigation on the ECNS parcels... tiien also states the "differences betyveen the EIR impacts and the current impacts Usted in Table 1 are due to revisions to the previously approved project (Environmental Impact Report [EIR No. 98-02; SCH No 99111082; Recon 2001a]) primarily to satisfy current storm water requirements". However, the proposed Parcel B bio-retention basin property is approx. 1.12 acres tn size while the "Change " shown in Table 1 is +9.53 acres. Please explain and/or correct this discrepancy. Page 5 20. The BTR states the "ECNS parcels (17.44 acres combined) support a former equestrian facility" (emphasis added). In fact, the property still supports an equestrian facility; please correct. 21. Table 2 (page 11) ofthe BTR shows a total of 1.93 acres of Wetiand/Riparian habitat currentiy existing on the proposed Parcel C, which includes the section of Agua Hedionda Creek that is proposed to be extensively graded and reconfigured m order to lower and widen the creek channel, add a manufactured chaimel and redirect the creek flow. Please discuss and analyze the impacts that will occur to the 1.93 acres of Wetland/Riparian habitat, and required mitigation, arising from the proposed grading and substantial alteration ofthe natural condition. 22. Please discuss and analyze the source and svirvey methodology used to determine the acreages presented m the BTR and the city's Initial Study. 23. Please discuss and analyze what changes are likely to result from new focussed surveys for the ECNS property and/or tiie original College Blvd.+BJ Basin project and why they are not required as part ofthe City's CEQA review of this proposed Project. 24. Throughout tiie BTR (ref, for example, page 12), the Wetiands and Non-Wetiands Waters present on the ECNS property are omitted/ignored; please explain. In particular, please analyze and discuss how Waters of the U.S. (WUS) and/or Waters of the State (WS), which are present on the ECNS parcels, will be "avoided during implementation of mitigation for the Project", particulariy since the proposed mitigation project reqixires extensive grading in the Agua Hedionda Creek. 25. Table 2 and related discussion in the BTR define the proposed ECNS Parcels as totaling 17.44 acres. Table 5 ofthe BTR identifies the proposed ECNS Parcels as containing a total of 6.86 acres. Please reconcile and correct the tables to provide clarity and consistency. 26. Page 30 of the BTR, under "Other Areas ", states tiiat "Approximately 30.35 acres of other areas would be directly impacted by the Project as it is currently proposed... " Table 6 (page 42) of flie BTR shows "Total Other Areas " oV''26.39 Acres". Please analyze, discuss and reconcile the difference. 27. Tlie BTR study shows impacts to Coastal Sage Scrub (all categories) totaling 1.60 acre pursuant to EIR 98-02, and 2.61 acres for "Current Impacts". However, the impact analysis ui the Merkel & Associates study. Table 6 (revised March 19,2010), which is included in tiie BTR exhibits, shows the Project Impacts of the original College Blvd.+BJ Basin project to be 3.5 Acres. Please analyze, discuss and reconcile these numbers. Page 6 28. Please confu-m tiie required mitigation for impacts to Group D Coastal Sage Scrub pursuant to the HMP or other regulations and/or policies applicable to Zone 15; is tiie required CSS mitigation ratio 1; 1 or 2:1 ? 29. The BTR (ref Table 5 pg. 28) shows total unpacts to Wetiand/Riparian Communities/ Habitats from its proposed College Blvd.+BJ Bashi+Parcel B bio-retention basm Project totaling 0.72 acres. However, the Impact analysis in the Merkel & Associates study, Table 8 (revised March 19, 2010), which is included m tiie BTR exhibits, shows the Project Impacts ofthe Jurisdictional Wetiand and Waterways Impacts-Permanent Impacts ofthe origmal College Blvd.+BJ Basin (EIR 98-02) - without the newly proposed Parcel B bio-retention basin - to be 1.1 Acres. Please analyze, discuss and reconcile these ntunbers. 30. The BTR (pg. 43) states, "In total, the Project would provide 2.40 acres of wetland/ riparian mitigation "; the referenced "Project" is defmed as tiie original College Blvd+BJ Basin project, pursuant to EIR 98-02 + tiie newly proposed Parcel B bio-retention basin. However, tiie Merkel & Associates stiidy, Table 10 (revised March 19,2010), which is included in the BTR exhibits, shows total Project Mitigation for tiie original College Blvd. +BJ Basin project, pursiant to EIR 98-02, - without the newly proposed Parcel B bio- retention - basin of 3.01 Acre. Please analyze, discuss and reconcile the numbers. 31. The Merkel & Associates report (revised March 19,2010), which is mcluded in the BTR exhibits, states: "Mitigation ratios to HMP Group A habitats are subject to modification by state andfederal agencies where wetland regulatory authority exists. Mitigation ratios for HMP Group B-F habitats are based on Table 11 ofthe City's HMP (page D-113). It should be noted that College Boulevard - Reach A and the Basin BJare City approved projects; thus, city projects that impact Type D, E and F habitats and require offsite mitigation, will not pay the in Ueu fee and will mitigate at the Lake Calavera Mitigation Bank, as available. If lands are not available at the Lake Calavera Mitigation Bank, the in Ueu fee will be required, in lieu fees are based on the City's Development Processing Fee Schedule, effective September I, 2008 and updated July L 2009." Piease confirm tiie accuracy of tiiis footnote and its applicability to the proposed College Boulevard Mitigation Project. 32. I-IMP compiiance requires Projects be designed to avoid wetiands to the maximum extent practicable. As noted in tiie BTR, Section D6 ofthe HMP (pg. D-90) states tiiat Projects fhat affect wetiands must demonstrate that the impacts: (i) Cannot be avoided by a feasible altemative; (ii) Have been minhnized to the maximum extent possible; (iii) Would be mitigated in ways that assure no net loss of habitat value and function. Based on the foregoing criteria, and any other applicable standards or policies, please discuss and analyze: A. What altemative wetiand mitigation projects were considered, including but not limited to the lower unpact, lower cost Bepton-Dartford/Lubliner wetiand mitigation project tiiat was approved by tiie City, USACE, CDFifeG & RWQCB in 2010. Poge 7 B. As designed and approved, tiie 2010 Lubimer wetiand mitigation project (which was inexplicably abandoned/terminated by the current Applicant/West), pro-vided over 3 acres of high quality wetiand mitigation (creation and enhancement) utilizing floodway and flood plain land adjacent to the Agua Hedionda Creek, without radicalfy altering the creek or substantially impact existing wetland habitat, as is proposed by the current West Project. The West/ECNS property also offers several acres of floodway and flood piam land outside of and adjacent to the Agua Hedionda Creek that could be designed and utilized for wetland mitigation, with minimal impacts and at a much lower cost. C. The Applicant's/West's property, formerly part of hs Dos Colinas project, located adjacent to the Agua Hedionda Creek and the Terraces Apartments, offers opportunhies for wetiand mitigation and a bio-retention basin -with much less environmental impact and at a lower cost. D. What altemative upland/CSS mitigation properties were considered, Le. the Bepton-Dartford/Lublmer property, the Basin BJ site, the Lake Calavera Mitigation Bank. E. Upland/CSS mitigation can be achieved through purchase of "credits" in approved mitigation banks, or payment of m-lieu fees, at lower costs and without causmg new impacts. 33. The reqdred wetiand mitigation is reportedly 2.40 acres and tiie required upland (CSS) mitigation of 5.22 acres can be satisfied through altematives that are less impactfijl, less costiy, and offer higher probability of success and/or higher quality existing habitat The proposed Project would impact approx. 15 acres overall (of a 17.44 acre site) includmg the grading and reconfiguring of a natural creek and the reduction of floodway and flood plain function and values, while pro-vidmg no guarantee of habitat creation success. Please analyze and discuss how these facts are consistent with the above referenced HMP standards, Section D6 (pg. D-90), or any pther applicable regulatory provision or policy. 34. As noted, tiais proposed Project is mtended to satisfy mitigation requirements for off- site infrastmcture (College Blvd.+Basin BJ) in LFMP Zone 15 and the Applicant is seekmg reimbursement for the costs of this Project from Zone 15 property owners through its proposed LFMP Zone 15 financing program. Accordingly, please anafyze and discuss the relative cost v benefit value of tiiis Project by comparing its estimated costs with tiie estimated costs of the avaiiabie mitigation altematives. 35. Please discuss and analyze when focussed surveys should be conducted for projects of this magnitude and why they are or are not appropriate or necessary for this ProjecL 36. El Camino Real is a designated Scenic Corridor; please discuss and analyze the Project impacts to this Scenic Corridor, Please include identification and analysis of any visual/view-shed impacts arising from the removal, relocation or killing of existmg mature trees and plants and replacing a narrow natural single creek with a wide manufactured dual- channel basin. Poge 8 37. The Project proposed for the 17.44 acre ECNS property will substantially alter the local community character. The ECNS property' is currently a rural equestrian and open space amenity that is consistent witii and serves as the gateway uito the Sunny Creek rural estate specific plan (SPI91) area. In its cun-ent state, tiie 17.44 acre ECNS property provides substantial natural wetland, riparian, floodway and flood plam habitat fimction and value as well as a high demand regional service (equestrian). The proposed Project -wilfreplace tiiis unique and appealing historic land use with a large graded, manufactured and landscaped basin that substantially alters the natural environs as well as the flow and fimction of tiie Agua Hedionda Creek. Please discuss and analyze the impacts to community character and appropriate mitigation. 38. Please discuss and analyze, with reference to tiie relevant regulatory standards or policies, how a landowner removmg trash from flieir own property constitutes "habitat enhancement" or "mitigation" for development impacts. 39. The Project, particvilarly flie Parcel B bio-retention basin and flie Parcel C mitigation site, (a) is intended to support the previously approved Zone 15 College Blvd.+BJ Basin project (EIR 98-02); (b) is reportedly allowed to cause significant environmental impacts pursuant to flie HMP "critical infrastructure" exemption; and, (c) is dependent on funding/ financmg through an LFMP Zone 15 financing program tiiat is not yet fonned or approved and is widely opposed by many of tiie Zone 15 property o-wners. Given these facts, please discuss iffhovf flie Project entitiements, approvals and/or permits will be subject to and/or conditioned upon (i) completion of a Zone 15 LFMP fmancmg program, (ii) the constiruction of College Blvd.+Basin BJ, (iii) tiie recordmg of an open-space easement over proposed parcels B & C, and (iv) tiie fimding of an endowment for perpetual maintenance and management ofthe mitigation and open space. Pag«9 ATTACHMENT 10 Ccityof Carlsbad May 27, 2015 Michele A. Staples, Esq. Jackson DeMarco Tidus Peckenpaugh 2030 Main St 12th Floor Irvine, CA 92614 SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION Dear Ms. Staples: ' Thank you for your comment letter dated May 6, 2015, submitted on behalf of Mandana Cal Co. ("Mandana), responding to the Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the College Boulevard Mitigation project. The following provides a list of your comments (in /to//c) and staffs response to the comments in your letter. Comment 1: The following comments on the Draft Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") for the College Boulevard Mitigation Project ("Project") are submitted on behalf of Mandana Cal Co. ("Mandana"), the owner of approximately 195 acres of land in the Zone 15 Local Facilities Management Plan area, northeast ofthe intersection of College Boulevard and El Camino Real. Response: Carisbad acknowledges receipt of this comment. No changes were made to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 2: As discussed below, the Project may result in significant adverse impacts, both individually and cumulatively, that are not disclosed, analyzed or mitigated in the MND. Response: This comment states conclusions without providing evidence to support those conclusions. The Initial Study prepared for the Project, and included in the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND"), analyzed the potential ofthe Project to result in impacts on 17 specific environmental factors. Potentially significant impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, and hazards/hazardous materials were identified. However, the proposed mitigation measures, which were agreed to by the applicant prior to release of the draft MND for public review, would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where no significant impact would occur [CEQA §21080(C); CEQA Guidelines §15070(a)]. Therefore, no changes were made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 3: Under the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code § 21000, et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000, et seq.), an environmental impact report ("EIR") must be prepared due to the Project's potential unmitigated significant impacts. Community & Economic Development Planning Division 11635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-73141 760-602-46601 760-602-8560 f | www.carlsbadca.gov RESPONSE TO COMMENTS-JACKSON DEMARCO TIDUS PECKENPAUGH GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10- COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION May 27, 2015 Paee 2 Response: This comment provides conclusions without providing evidence to support those conclusions. The Initial Study prepared for the Project and included in the draft MND analyzed the potential of the Project to result in impacts on 17 specific environmental factors. Potentially significant impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, and hazards/hazardous materials were identified. However, the proposed mitigation measujes, which were agreed to by the applicant prior to release of the draft MND for public review, would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where no significant impact would occur [CEQA §21080(C); CEQA Guidelines §15070(a)]. With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the Project will have no significant effect on the environment. Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") is not required. No changes were made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 4: As detailed in the April 27, 2015 BENTEQ letter that was submitted to you, the MND and its supporting technical reports include inconsistent descriptions ofthe Project, inconsistent information and figures in their analyses, and other deficiencies, making it impossible to understand how the City has concluded that the Project will not result in significant adverse impacts. Response: The Project Description of the MND cleariy outiines the scope of the College Boulevard Mitigation project. Please refer to city staff response dated May 27, 2015 to the April 27, 2015 BENTEQ letter, attached to this letter for additional information. Comment 5: The reader attempting to understand the scope ofthe Project and the City's analysis of its potential environmental impacts is unable to follow "the 'analytic route the ... agency traveled from evidence to action'." Because ofthe numerous internal inconsistencies, omissions, and errors, the MND is not "sufficient to allow informed decision making." (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 404.). Response: This general comment provides conclusions without providing evidence to support those conclusions. The Initial Study prepared for the Project, and included in the draft MND, analyzed the potential of the Project to result in impacts on 17 specific environmental factors. For each of the 17 factors, Carisbad defines the thresholds of significance applicable to the factor, describes the facts of the Project related to each threshold, which is based on studies prepared by registered professionals (i.e., substantial evidence), analyzes the facts in the context ofthe threshold, and makes a determination (i.e., conclusion) of potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation incorporated, less than significant, or no impact [CEQA Guidelines §15063(c),(d)]. Potentially significant impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, and hazards/hazardous materials were identified. However, the proposed mitigation measures, which were agreed to by the applicant prior to release of the draft MND for public review, would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where no significant impact would occur [CEQA §21080(C); CEQA Guidelines §15070(a)]. With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the Project will have no significant effect on the environment. No changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 6: The MND text and supporting technical studies include differing project descriptions. For example, the project area described in the MND totals 17.44 acres (16.43 net acres), while the project area described in the supporting Alden Environmental, Inc. Biological Technical Report ("BTR") includes a much larger project impact area totaling 27 acres. (Compare Initial Study, p. 1, with BTR, p. 1.) 4 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS-JACKSON DEMARCO TIDUS PECKENPAUGH GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10-COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION May 27, 2015 Page 3 Response: Staff acknowledges and concurs with this comment. The BTR was prepared to analyze the impacts to biological resources associated with the development of College Boulevard Reach A and Basin BJ, os well as the impacts associated with the implementation ofthe proposed College Boulevard Mitigation project, and is therefore broader than the scope of the project. The reduced scope and location is clearly defined in the MF^D. The project description included in the draft MND is consistent within the analysis, in the MND, including the Initial Study, and the Notice of Intent, fhe project description satisfies the requirements of CEQA [CEQA Guidelines §15071(a)]. The issues raised are not related to an environmental issue pursuant to CEQA nor are they at variance with the existing content of the draft MND. No changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 7: As stated in McQueen v. Board of Directors of the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District (202 Cal. App. 3d 1136, 1143), "An accurate project description is necessary for an intelligent evaluation of potential environmental effects of a proposed activity." An incomplete project description necessarily renders all further analyses and determinations ineffectual. Response: Staff disagrees with this comment; the project description in the MND and the supporting analysis throughout the document clearly define the scope ofthe College Boulevard Mitigation project. The comment does not identify the aiteged inconsistencies or any omissions in the project description. Therefore, no changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 8: Without a clear definition of the activities to be undertaken, the CEQA process cannot ensure that all impacts of the Project have been analyzed and mitigated to the extent feasible because the ultimate extent of project activities is not fully defined. It is critical that the Project Description be as clear and complete as possible so that the public is provided a meaningful opportunity to comment and the City and responsible agencies may make informed decisions regarding the proposed Project. Response: Please see the response to Comment No. 7. No changes were made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 9: The inconsistencies, omissions and errors in the MND do not support a finding that all impacts of the Project have been analyzed and mitigated to a level below significance. Response: This comment provides conclusions without providing any evidence to support those conclusions. The Initial Study prepared for the Project and included in the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration analyzed the potential of the Project to result in impacts on 17 specific environmental factors. Potentially significant impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, and hazards/hazardous materials were identified. However, the proposed mitigation measures, which were agreed to by the applicant prior to release of the draft MND for public review, would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where no significant impact would occur [CEQA §21080(C); CEQA Guidelines §15070(a)]. Therefore, no changes were made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this general comment. Comment 10: An EIR must be prepared and circulated for public review and comment that remedies the numerous errors, inconsistencies and deficiencies detailed in the BENTEQ letter. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS-JACKSON DEMARCO TIDUS PECKENPAUGH GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION May 27, 2015 Page 4 . _ Response: No evidence was received to substantiate this conclusion. Pursuant to the MND and supporting documentation, with the implementation of the mitigation measures, all potential environmental impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. Therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required. No changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. ^ Comment 11: The MND says that the zoning designation of the Project's Parcel D is to be changed to allow residential development as part of the City's separate General Plan Update process. Response: As discussed in the MND, the existing General Plan Land Use and zoning designations for Parcel D are proposed to remain as Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM) and Limited Control (L-C), respectively, as part of the proposed College Boulevard Mitigation project. While the General Plan Update (Update) has not been approved at this time (i.e., not considered by the Planning Commission or City Council as ofthe date of this letter), the Update currently proposes to change the General Plan Land Use and zoning designations for APN 209-060-72 (i.e., southern parcel of College Boulevard Mitigation project, a portion of which is proposed as Parcel D) from Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM, 0-4 dwelling units per acre) and Limited Control (L-C) to Residential, 8-15 dwelling units per acre (R-15) and Residential Density Multiple (RD-M). However, please be advised that staffs position on this recommendation has not been released to the public at this time. The comment does not request than any changes be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 12: The Project Itself advances the development of Parcel D by subdividing it to make it a new legal parcel, and filling it to raise it out of the flood plain and create new, developable acreage. Response: The subdivision of the Project property is included in the project description to facilitate the creation of the habitat mitigation site (i.e., proposed Parcel C); the future habitat boundaries extend beyond the current boundaries of the Open Space (OS) land use designation and minor subdivision is required to ensure that Parcel C is placed in a separate OS lot. Two additional parcels are proposed to be designated as Open Space for agriculture (Parcel A) and a detention basin for College Boulevard Reach "A" (Parcel B). The remaining area. Parcel D, is proposed to remain as-is, designated as RLM and L-C. As discussed in the MND and supporting technical studies, the restoration and creation of wetlands habitat on Parcel C requires that a portion ofthe parcel be lowered in elevation. The soil proposed to be removed from Parcel C will be placed within the proposed fill areas for the development of College Boulevard Reach A. The soil will not be placed as fill on Parcel D or any other portion ofthe Project site. Due to the implementation of the habitat mitigation project on proposed Parcel C, which will increase the capacity ofthe floodway, a majority of Parcel D will no longer be located in the floodplain; this does not equate to "development." Parcel D is located within a Standards Area of the Habitat Management Plan ("HMP") and is proposed to remain as such as part of the proposed project. If a development application is submitted to develop Parcel D, the application will be reviewed for compliance with the HMP, Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. The city acknowledges that removing Parcel D from the floodplain eliminates a hindrance for development which currently exists in Zone 15 of the HMP. However, this does not guarantee that the parcel can be fully developed. Any application submitted to develop Parcel D will have to be reviewed on its own merits, will be subject to CEQA, and will require concurrence from the Wildlife Agencies. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS-JACKSON DEMARCO TIDUS PECKENPAUGH GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10-COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION May 27, 2015 Page 5 No changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment nor are any requested. Comment 13: The MND says that Parcel D will ultimately be developed, and that the Project results in a development yield of 18.5 dwelling units. However, the MND does not evaluate or mitigate the potential environmental impacts of developing residential units on Parcel D on grounds that "no development is proposed at this time". (MND, pp. 2,11, 28, 53, 54.) Response: As required by CEQA, staff acknowledges the existing setting in the MND and discloses that, given the existing residential General Plan Land Use designation (RLM), it is anticipated that Parcel D will be developed at some time in the future. However, no development is proposed on Parcel D as part of the proposed College Boulevard Mitigation project (please see Comment 12 above). Therefore, no environmental analysis is required. No changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 14: CEQA requires that the City define the Project broadly to ensure a complete analysis of impacts resulting from future expansion or where the future expansion will likely change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects (Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376,395-396). Response: The MND accurately describes and analyzes the proposed project and impacts which are likely to result from that project. No changes were made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 15: An EIR must be prepared for public review and comment to discuss, analyze and mitigate the potential impacts ofthe ultimate residential development of Parcel D. Response: Please see the responses to Comments 3,12, and 13. No development is proposed on Parcel D. Further, the General Plan Land Use and zoning designations are proposed to remain the same for Parcel D. Therefore, there is not a proposed density or intensification of use to analyze. Finally, as discussed in the MND, the potential overall residential development area ofthe Project site is proposed to be reduced, not increased, through the creation of the three (3) open space parcels. Therefore, no changes were made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 16: Otherwise, the potential impacts ofthe ultimate residential development must at least be evaluated as part of the cumulative impacts analysis. Such impacts would include both temporary construction impacts and long term impacts to environmental resources, including, but not limited to, aesthetic/visual, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, biological resources, drainage, flood plain, noise, population, public services/facilities, public infrastructure, traffic, water supply, land use, inconsistency with surrounding agriculture, and cumulative impacts with other existing and proposed projects in the same vicinity and with the pending General Plan Update. Response: No development is proposed on Parcel D. The draft MND addresses the Project's potential impacts to the 17 environmental factors listed in the draft MND. The analyses address both potential direct and cumulative impacts, as stated in the draft MND. Therefore, no changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS-JACKSON DEMARCO TIDUS PECKENPAUGH GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10-COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION May 27, 2015 Page 6 , Comment 17: It is imperative that the potential Impacts of Parcel D's residential development be addressed now. To do otherwise would violate the intent and purpose of CEQA on two fronts. First, it would constitute improper piece-mealing of the proposed Project (CEQA Guidelines §15003(h)). Second, it would violate CEQA's requirement that environmental analysis be conducted as early as possible in the planning process (CEQA Guidelines §15004(b)). In the absence of such an analysis, the MND fails to disclose the Project's potential significant Environmental impacts and leaves those impacts unmitigated. Response: No residential development is proposed on Parcel D at this time; therefore, there are no potential impacts to analyze. Any future development proposed on Parcel D would require an independent analysis pursuant to CEQA. The possible future development of Parcel D is not required to be considered because a commitment has not been made to develop Parcel D; there are no development plans to review; and, it is purely speculative at this point. The intent of CEQA would not be served by speculating about the potential environmental consequences of the uncertain future development of Parcel D. Therefore, no changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of these comments. Comment 18: An EIR must be prepared to evaluate and mitigate the potential environmental. Impacts of the Project as a whole, including the intended residential development of Parcel D. Response: No development is proposed on Parcel D. The Initial Study prepared for the College Boulevard Mitigation project, and included in the draft MND, analyzed the potential of the Project to result in impacts on 17 specific environmental factors. Potentially significant impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, and hazards/hazardous materials were identified. However, the proposed mitigation measures, which were agreed to by the applicant prior to release of the draft MND for public review, would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where no significant impact would occur [CEQA §21080(C); CEQA Guidelines §15070(a)]. With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the Project will have no significant effect on the environment. Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") is not required. No changes were made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 19: Under CEQA section 21068, a significant environmental impact is defined as "a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment. Because there is substantial evidence in the record to support a "fair argument" that the Project may have a significant adverse effect on the environment, CEQA requires preparation of an EIR instead of a MND (Citizens for Responsible & Open Government v. City of Grand Terrace (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1323,1331; Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359,1399-1400). Response: No substantial evidence has been submitted to support a "fair argument" that the Project may have a significant impact on the environment. Pursuant to CEQA, substantial evidence "means enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15384, subd. (a)) Substantial evidence includes "facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts" (/cf., subd. (b)), but not "[ajrgument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly erroneous or inaccurate, or evidence of social or economic impacts which do not contribute to or are not caused by physical impacts on the environment." {Id., subd. (a).) In the absence of a specific factual foundation in the record, speculation by non-experts regarding the consequences of a project do not constitute substantial evidence. ^1, RESPONSE TO COMMENTS - JACKSON DEMARCO TIDUS PECKENPAUGH GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10- COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION May 27, 2015 Page 7 : Further, where the initial study identifies potential significant effects on the environment but revisions in the project plans 'would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur' and there is no substantial evidence that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment, a mitigated negative declaration may be used. Therefore, no changes were made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 20: Additionally, the numerous inconsistencies and deficiencies detailed in the BENTEQ letter must be corrected in the EIR to provide a meaningful opportunity for public comments. Response: Please refer to the attached city staff response to the BENTEQ letter, dated May 27, 2015, which is incorporated herein by reference. Thank you for providing comments on the College Boulevard Mitigation project. Should you have any additional questions, please contact the project planner. Shannon Werneke, at (760) 602-4621 or by email at shannon.werneke@carlsbadca.gov. Sincerely, DON NEU, AlCP City Planner DN.'SW:bd Enc: BENTEQ Response to Comments letter, dated May 27, 2015 Wildlife Agency Concurrence letter, dated May 18, 2015 c: Mike Howes Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney File Copy Data Entry /Vl ATTACHMENT 11 Jackson I DelVlarco I Tidus May 6,2015 A LAW C 0 .R P O R A T I 0 N Direct Dial: Email: Reply to: File No: 949.851.7409 mstaples@Jcltplaw.com In/ine Office 7616/122588 VIA E-MAH. (Shannon.Werneke@,carlsbadca.gov) AND U.S. MAIL Ms. Shannon Wemeke CityofCarlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 Re: Draft Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for College Boulevard Mitigation Project Dear Ms. Wemeke: The follo-wmg comments on tiie Draft Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") for tiie CoUege Boulevard Mitigation Project ("Projecf) are submitted on behalf of Mandana Cal Co. ("Mandana"), tiie owner of approxunately 195 acres of land ui tiie Zone 15 Local Facihties Management Plan area, northeast of tiie mtersection of College Boidevard and El Camino Real. As discussed below, the Project may result in significant adverse impacts, both mdividually and cumulatively, tiiat are not disclosed, analyzed or mitigated m flie MND. Under flie CaUfomia Envuonmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code § 21000, et seq.) and tiie CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000, et seq.), an envhronmental impact report ("EIR") must be prepared due to tiie Project's potential unmitigated significant impacts. 1. Information in the MND and Supporting Technical Studies Must Be Corrected. As detailed m the April 27,2015 Benteq letter tiiat was submitted to you, tiie MND and its supporting technical reports include inconsistent descriptions ofthe Project, mconsistent information and figures ui fliek analyses, and other deficiencies, making it unpossible to imderstand how flie City has concluded fliat the Project -will not resuh m significant adverse impacts. The reader attemptmg to understand flie scope of flie Project and the City's analysis of its potential environmental impacts is unable to follow "tiie 'analytic route tiie ... agency traveled from evidence to action'." Because of the numerous intemal mconsistencies, omissions, and errors, flie MND is not "sufficient to allow mformed decision making." {Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376,404.) Irvine Office 2030 Main Street, Suite 1200 In/ine, California 92614 1949.752.8585 f 949.752,0597 Westlake Village Office 2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 200 Westlake Village, Califomia 91361 1805.230.0023 f 805.230.0087 www.jdtplaw.com 1253612.2 Ms. Shannon Wemeke CityofCarlsbad May 6,2015 Page 2 The MND text and supporting technical studies include differing project descriptions. „ For example, the project area described in the MND totals 17,44 acres (16.43 net acres), while the prpject area described in the supporting Alden En-viroiunental, Inc. Biological Technical Report ("BTR") includes a much larger project impact area totaling 27 acres. (Compare Initial Study, p. 1, -with BTR, p. 1.) As stated in McQueen v. Board of Directors of the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District (202 Cal. App. 3d 1136,1143), "An accurate project description is necessary for an intelligent evaluation of potential environmental effects of a proposed acti-vity." An incomplete project description necessarily renders all further analyses and 'deifenniriatibris ineffectual. %ilhout a 61ear definition of the activities to be undertaken, the CEQA process cannot ensure that all impacts of the Project have been analyzed and mitigated to the extent feasible because the ultimate extent of project activities is not fijUy defined. It is critical that the Project Description be as clear and complete as possible so that the public is provided a meaningfiil opportunity to comment and the City and responsible agencies may make informed decisions regarding the proposed Project. The mconsistencies, omissions and errors in the MND do not support a finding that all impacts ofthe Project have been analyzed and mitigated to a level below significance. An EIR must be prepared and circulated for public review and comment that remedies the numerous errors, inconsistencies and deficiencies detailed in the Benteq letter. 2. An EIR Must be Prepared to Analyze the Residential Development of Parcel D as Part of the Proiect or as Part of a Cumulative Impacts Analysis. The MND says that the zoning designation of the Project's Parcel D is to be changed to allow residential development as part of the City's separate General Plan Update process. The Project itself advances the development of Parcel D by subdi-viduig it to make it a new legal parcel, and filling it to raise it out of the flood plain and create new, developable acreage. The MND says that Parcel D will ultimately be developed, and that the Project restflts in a development yield of 18.5 dwelling units. However, the MND does not evaluate or mitigate the potential enviroiunental unpacts of developing residential imits on Parcel D on grounds that "no development is proposed at this time". (MND, pp. 2,11, 28, 53, 54.) CEQA requires that the City define the Project broadly to ensure a complete analysis of unpacts resulting from fiiture expansion or where the fixture expansion will likely change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects {Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 395-396). An EIR must be prepared for public review and comment to discuss, analyze and mitigate the potential impacts of the ultimate residential development of Parcel D. Otherwise, the potential impacts of the tfltimate residential development must at least be evaluated as part of the cimiulative unpacts analysis. Such impacts woidd uiclude both temporary constraction impacts and long term impacts to environmental resources, including, but not limited to, aesthetic/visual, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, biological resources, drainage, flood plain, noise, population, public 1253612.2 SO Ms. Shannon Wemeke CityofCarlsbad May 6,2015 Page 3 services/facilities, public mfrastiructiire, traffic, water supply, land use, inconsistency witii surrounding agriculture, and cumulative unpacts -with oflier existing and proposed projects m flie same -vicmity and with the pendmg General Plan Update. It is unperative fliat flie potential unpacts of Parcel D's residential development be addressed now. To do otiierwise would violate the intent and purpose of CEQA on two fronts. First, it would constitute unproper piecemealing ofthe proposed Project (CEQA Guidehnes §15003(h)). Second, it would violate CEQA's requfrement that envfronmental analysis be conducted as early as possible uj flie plannmg process (CEQA Guidelines § 15004(b)). In the ' ^s^ce~bf Stwih M analysis, the MND fails to disclose the Projecf's jiotential significant envfronmental impacts and leaves those impacts unmitigated. An EIR must be prepared to evaluate and mitigate the potential envfronmental impacts of the Project as a whole, includmg the intended residential development of Parcel D. 3. The MND Is Inadequate. An EIR Must Be Prepared and Circulated for Public Re-yiew and Comment. Under CEQA section 21068, a significant envfronmental unpact is defined as "a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change m the envfronment." Because there is substantial evidence in flie record to support a "fafr argument" fliat the Project may have a significant adverse effect on the envfronment, CEQA requires preparation of an EIR mstead of a MND {Citizens for Responsible & Open Government v. City of Grand Terrace (2008) 160 Cal.App.4tii 1323, 1331; Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4tii 1359,1399-1400). Additionally, the numerous uiconsistencies and deficiencies detailed m the Benteq letter must be corrected in flie EIR to provide a meaningful opportunity for public comments. 4. Conclusion. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the MND. Please contact us if you would like to discuss the above comments in greater depth. Sincerely, Michele A. Staples Enclosures MASrlaj 1253612.2 Ms. Shannon Wemeke CityofCarlsbad May 6,2015 Page 4 cc: Kathy Dodson, Assistant City Manager (kathy.dodson@carlsbadca.gov) * Gary Barberio, Assistant Manager (garv.barberio@carlsbadca. gov) * Celia A. Brewer, City Attomey (CeUa.Brewer(S),carlsbadca. gov)* Chuck McBride, Dfrector of Finance (Chuck.McBride(a),carlsbadca. gov)* Aaron Beanan, Senior Accountant (Aaron.Beanan@carlsbadca. gov)* Pat Thomas, PubHc Works Dfrector (Pat.Thomas@.carlsbadca. gov)* Don Neu, City Planner (don.neu(g),carlsbadca.gov)* Da-vid De Cordova, Principal Planner (david.decordova(g),carlsbadca. gov)* Glen Van. Peski, Conuntmity aiid Econornic Development Directo (Glen.VanPeski@carlsbadca.g6v) * Jeremy Riddle, Associate Engineer (Jeremv.Riddle(gicarlsbadca. gov)* *via email, with Attachments 1253612.2 ATTACHMENT 12 Ccity of Carlsbad May 27, 2015 Diane Nygaard On Behalf of Preserve Calavera Dandd2@peoplepc.com SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION Dear Ms. Nygaard: Thank you for your email dated May 6, 2015 received in response to the Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe College Boulevard Mitigation project. The following provides a list of your comments (in /to//c) and staffs response to the comments in your email. Comment 1: We appreciate that this project will result in a 100' buffer on both side of the reconfigured Agua Hedionda Creek (AHC) which is clearly an improvement However it appears that this comes at a potentially high cost- greatly expended development on the reconfigured buildable parcel that this project will also create. Response: This comment provides conclusions without providing substantial evidence to support those conclusions. As discussed in the draft MND, due to the implementation ofthe habitat mitigation project on proposed Parcel C (9.23 gross acres/8.81 net acres), which will increase the capacity ofthe floodway, a majority of Parcel D will no longer be located in the floodplain; this does not equate to "development." Parcel D is located within a Standards Area of the Habitat Management Plan ("HMP") and is proposed to remain as such as part of the proposed project. If a development application is submitted to develop Parcel D, the application will be reviewed for compliance with the HMP, Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. Carlsbad acknowledges that removing Parcel D from the floodplain eliminates a hindrance for development which currently exists in Zone 15 of the HMP. However, this does not guarantee that the parcel can be fully developed. Any application submitted to develop Parcel D will have to be reviewed on its own merits, will be subject to CEQA, and will require concurrence from the Wildlife Agencies. In addition, as part of the College Boulevard Mitigation Project, the applicant is proposing to deposit 4.57 units into Carisbad's EDUB. Units must be deposited because a portion of the existing property is proposed to be rezoned from RLM to OS and permanently preserved as open space. No changes were made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 2: The MND has failed to properly identify the significant indirect impacts associated with all of the related changes associated with it We see this as piecemealing of a project In the absence of a complete understanding of the entire project it really is not possible to determine if the complete project increases or reduces overall impacts and consequently if it is an improvement or not ^ Community & Economic Development Planning Division 11635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-73141760-602-46601760-602-8560 f | www.carlsbadca.gov Response to Comments, Preserve Calavera GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION May 27, 2015 Page 2 Response: This comment provides conclusions without providing substantial evidence to support those conclusions. No development is proposed on Parcel D; therefore; therefore, there are no physical impacts to analyze on Parcel D. The Initial Study prepared for the Project and included in the draft MND analyzed the potential of the Project to result in impacts on 17 specific environmental factors. Potentially significant impactSat to biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, and . hazards/hazardous materials were identified. However, the proposed mitigation measures, which were agreed to by the applicant prior to release of the draft MND for public review, would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where no significant impact would occur [CEQA §21080(C); CEQA Guidelines §15070(a)]. Therefore, no changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 3: Furthermore the more extensive issues associated with the entire project could require a full EIR. Response: This comment provides conclusions without providing substantial evidence to support those conclusions. The Initial Study prepared for the Project and included in the draft MND analyzed the potential of the Project to result in impacts on 17 specific environmental factors. Potentially significant impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, and hazards/hazardous materials were identified. However, the proposed mitigation measures, which were agreed to by the applicant prior to release of the draft MND for public review, would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where no significant impact would occur [CEQA §21080(C); CEQA Guidelines §15070(a)]. With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the Project will have no significant effect on the environment. Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") is not required. No changes were made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 4: Impacts to Sycamore Woodland and Southern Willow scrub require mitigation. The Sycamore Woodland and Southern Willow Scrub communities that comprise this riparian community should be left intact. Not to the "maximum extent feasible" because it appears it would all be grubbed and graded away and replaced with a habitat restoration site. Leaving trees/shrubs intact, will necessitate leaving a 5-10' raised island in the newly reconfigured streambed, where the Western edge of AHC now resides, and grading behind the tree line on the existing Eastern boundary of AHC. This would be appropriate mitigation for this significant effect of reconfiguring AHC and will provide the necessary nesting and perching cover for sensitive birds until the restoration project matures in 5-10 years. These trees are now 50-80 years old. Grading them away and leaving a replanted, exposed streambed would be a significant impact to a riparian corridor Whether such impacts are temporary or permanent is often hard to determine. Response: The mitigation proposal would avoid impacts to Agua Hedionda Creek as shown in Figures 8 and 9 ofthe BTR (Alden 2015) and the College Boulevard - Reach A and Basin BJ Project Mitigation Plan (Alden 2015). The existing creek channel would not be graded or deepened nor would it be diverted/split. Rather, the existing banks of the streambed would be pulled back to widen the channel bottom. The existing trees rooted within the channel will remain. In addition, the mitigation effort would not reduce the amount or quality of native riparian habitat within the mitigation area. The intent is to improve (enhance) and expand the existing habitat. Currently, much ofthe mapped habitat is a canopy oftrees over the existing equestrian center facilities (corrals, roads, buildings, etc.). The grading in this area will remove these developed/disturbed areas under the tree canopy and provide for a much larger wetiand/riparian habitat. rS\ gO Response to Comments, Preserve Calavera GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION May 27, 2015 Page 3 [ : Presently there are 28 western sycamore, 18 arroyo willow, and three (3) black willow trees within the wetland habitat mitigation area. Trees other than those rooted within the channel that cannot be avoided during site preparation will be replaced by the plant palette shown on Figure 10 of the BTR (Alden 2015) to restore and create both wetland and upland habitats. The plant palette provided for in Figure 10 reflects the species that occur within the mitigation site. One-gallon and five-gallon container stock will be planted, and impacted willow trees will be spread in the wetiand/riparian portion ofthe mitigation area so that they can root and grow into trees again. The mitigation plari included installing container stock at a rate of 100, western sycamore trees per acre; 100, arroyo willow trees per acre; and 100, black willow trees per acre. All of these container stock plants were planned to be one-gallon size. The mitigation plan and BTR have since been revised to increase 50 ofthe western sycamore tree from one-gallon to 5-gallon size to help facilitate faster establishment of habitat. Following implementation of the mitigation, there would be an additional 310 sycamore, 310 arroyo willow, and 310 black willow trees within the 3.1 acre wetiand habitat mitigation area. While not the intent of the mitigation plan, if all 50 of the existing trees were to be removed, the planting of the 930 trees would result in an 11:1 replacement ratio of sycamore trees, a 17.2:1 replacement ratio of arroyo willow trees; and a 103.3:1 replacement ratio of black willow trees on the mitigation site. Even if all of the trees were removed in order to effectively implement the mitigation, the replacement trees (and inclusion of five-gallon specimens) would more than compensate for any temporal loss of mature trees and would result in a net gain in habitat quantity and quality over time. Presently, the 9.23-acre mitigation site supports 1.93 acres of wetland/riparian vegetation (0.72 acre of southern willow scrub, 1.17 acres of sycamore woodland, and 0.04 acre of disturbed wetland). Following implementation ofthe mitigation, there would be an additional 1.32 acres of wetland/riparian habitat re-established/created on the site (freshwater marsh adjacent to the central portions of the creek that experience steady water flows to riparian scrub and forest habitats along the periphery of the wetland mitigation area) with an additional 1.78 acres of existing wetland/riparian habitat enhanced. The number oftrees planted (including the spreading of any cut willows); the re-establishment/creation of 1.32 acres of wetland/riparian habitat; and the enhancement of existing wetland/riparian habitat through the removal of trash, cement, and other materials that have been dumped within and adjacent to the stream over time, will greatly enhance Agua Hedionda Creek and result in a net gain in habitat quantity and quality overtime. The mitigation plan and BTR for the project (Alden Environmental, Inc., both dated March 26, 2015) provide details of the impacts of implementing the mitigation and the mitigation proposed for those impacts, where required. Mitigation measures are also detailed in the MND within the discussion of each environmental factor and again in a single list at the end ofthe MND. As stated in the MND, Standard Impact Mitigation Measures from Appendix A of the Guidelines for Biological Studies as well as the other mitigation measures listed in the MND would be implemented to avoid/minimize impacts to trees during grading. Mitigation Measure BIO-17, specifically, requires that: a. The qualified Project biologist shall review grading plans (e.g., all access routes and staging areas) and monitor construction activities throughout the duration of the Project to ensure that all practicable measures are being employed to avoid incidental disturbance of habitat and any target species of concern putside the Project footprint. Q Response to Comments, Preserve Calavera GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION May 27, 2015 Page 4 b. Construction monitoring reports shall be completed and provided to the City summarizing how the Project is in compliance with applicable conditions. The Project biologist shall be empowered to halt work activity, if necessary, and to confer with City staff to ensure the proper implementation of species and habitat protection measures. ca- Therefore, no changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 5: Since this is being done to move the floodplain to create developable land on Parcel D, if impacts cannot be completely avoided they must be mitigated. Response: Please see the Response to Comment No. 1. Comment 6: Will this project destroy the sycamore woodland riparian community or not? If so. Cumulative and project level impacts should be considered and this cannot be done by'separating the mitigation from development of the parcel. Response: Please see Response to Comment No. 4. Comment 7: This also may trigger the need for an E.I.R. Response: This comment provides conclusions without providing substantial evidence to support those conclusions. The Initial Study prepared for the Project and included in the draft MND analyzed the potential of the Project to result in impacts on 17 specific environmental factors. Potentially significant impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, and hazards/hazardous materials were identified. However, the proposed mitigation measures, which were agreed to by the applicant priorto release of the draft MND for public review, would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where no significant impact would occur [CEQA §21080(C); CEQA Guidelines §15070(a)]. With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the Project will have no significant effect on the environment. Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") is not required. No changes were made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 8: - CRAM evaluations should be included as part of on-going monitoring CRAM (CA Rapid Assessment Method) and Riverine Bio Assessment should be done prior to any work impacting the stream, and at yearly intervals as a form of monitoring stream and surrounding environs. Response: A CRAM evaluation (including that for riverine wetlands) is one method for assessing mitigation site suitability that usually is called for by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and/or California Department of Fish and Wildlife during the permitting process. To date, these agencies have not required a CRAM evaluation for the mitigation site. The Hydraulic Analysis prepared for the mitigation project (Lyle Engineering, January 2015) concluded that grading associated with the habitat mitigation will increase flow conveyance volume in the floodplain areas, and flow velocities post-project will be lower or equal to pre-project conditions within the proposed narrowing of the low-flow channel. Flow velocities would be significantly reduced because of the shallower depths that would be spread across the Agua Hedionda Creek channel bottom. Therefore, the Hydraulic Analysis, along with the presence of currently degraded wetiand/riparian habitat, demonstrates site suitability for the wetland/riparian habitat mitigation on Parcel C. \ \ Response to Comments, Preserve Calavera GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION May 27, 2015 Pages The mitigation effort is subject to five years of monitoring and maintenance. If the mitigation fails to meet the Year 5 standards after the full monitoring term, a specific set of remedial measures would be developed and implemented, and the monitoring and maintenance period would be extended until all Year 5 standards are met. Only when the entire mitigation site has attained the Year 5 standards would the entire site be signed off by the permitting agencies. The criteria to be measured over th% monitoring period include container stock survival, native species richness, native species cover, and weed cover. Annual monitoring would occur each fall in the wetiand/riparian mitigation area, and the criteria would be measured using quantitative transect data using the point intercept line transect sampling methods described in the California Native Plant Society's Field Sampling Protocol (Saw/yer and Keeler-Wolf 1995). These methods are widely-accepted as a way to track mitigation success, and it is expected that they will provide enough information to determine success without CRAM evaluations. Therefore, no changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 9: - grading in a floodplain. Page 32 states "...The grading proposed in the floodplain is acceptable because it is associated with a mitigation project which will improve the biological value of AHC." Actual language is that grading in a floodplain is acceptable for a public works project, not in an area being MITIGATED for a public works project. We think this is an important distinction that has not been addressed. Response: The overarching goal of the floodplain regulations contained within the HMP, specifically within Zone 15 (page D-79), is to conserve all riparian areas on-site. As discussed in the MND, the intent of the proposed College Boulevard project is to enhance the quality and size of the riparian area adjacent Agua Hedionda Creek; it is a mitigation project and no structures are proposed. Pages 24 - 32 of the draft MND provide a detailed discussion of how the proposed project is consistent with the Habitat Management Plan (HMP). Pursuant to the HMP (page E-4), if the wildlife agencies concur that the conservation measures are consistent with the Zone, the project shall be considered consistent with the HMP. The city received concurrence from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Wildlife Agencies) on May 18, 2015 (please see attached letter). Therefore, no changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 10: -pg. 47 lists 73,300 cubic yards of fill. Correct to 470 cubic yards of fill as stated elsewhere in document Response: Carlsbad acknowledges this comment and typographical error. The correct amount of grading, as described in the project description of the MND, is 73,300 cubic yards of cut and 470 cubic yards of fill, which results in the export of 72,830 cubic yards of material. Comment 11: - Potential Hydrology/Water Quality impacts Pg. 4 should list Hydrology/Water Quality as a potentially significant impact. Reconfiguring the entire stream, if you lose the entire riparian plant community, is significant Response: As discussed in the MND, the bottom of Aqua Hedionda Creek will not be reconfigured nor will the entire riparian community be removed. Please see response to Comment No. 4. The MND accurately cites a "less than significant impact with the incorporation of mitigation" as it relates to Response to Comments, Preserve Calavera GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION May 27, 2015 Page 6 Biological Resources and the potential impacts to the riparian plant community. In addition, a "less than significant impact" was concluded for Hydrology and Water Quality. No mitigation measures were required. Comment 12: We could not find a clear statement in the hydrology stydy that indicated adequate assessment of potential downstream impacts from this dredging. Response: The Project cannot be categorized as dredging because dredging removes deposited sediment from a body of water. This project removes upland soils adjacent to the streambed to widen the channel and expand the wetland area. Any potential hydraulic and/or erosion Impacts associated with widening ofthe channel were provided in the "Agua Hedionda Creek Hydraulic Analysis for College Boulevard Mitigation Site", prepared by Lyle Engineering. Per the analysis, widening of the channel results in an increased the carrying capacity of the Agua Hedionda channel. The results of the study show the proposed channel velocity is reduced from existing velocities to a non-erosive velocity of less than 6 feet per second (fps). No changes were made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 13: Sediment in AHC requires downstream dredging of channel near Cannon & El Camino Real. Will tripling the width of AHC across project site cause more deposition of sediment downstream? Response: Please see Response to Comment No. 12. Comment 14: We could not think of other local projects where streambeds have had such major alteration to the floodplain, impacting the function of the water body, with an apparent primary objective to increase the buildable area of an adjacent parcel. Response: Comment noted. The primary objective of the Project is to satisfy the mitigation measures for EIR 98-02 to create 2.4 acres of wetiand for the construction of a public improvement (College Boulevard and Detention Basin BJ). As discussed in the MND, the proposed habitat mitigation project will improve (enhance) and expand the existing riparian habitat. Therefore, the function of the waterbody in this area will be also be improved as a result of the implementation of the project. No changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 15: - why is this not being integrated with the General Plan Response: The proposed project is unrelated to the General Plan Update. The primary intent of the proposed College Boulevard Mitigation project is to mitigate the impacts to biological resources associated with the development of College Boulevard Reach A &. Basin BJ. A General Plan Amendment is required as part ofthe Project application because the future habitat boundaries extend beyond the limit ofthe existing OS land use designation. The expanded OS area will allow for the natural habitat to be placed in a separate lot (Parcel C) and preserved in perpetuity. In addition, an OS General Plan Land Use designation is proposed for Parcels A (agricultural lot) and B (College Boulevard Reach A detention basin). No changes were made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. ,0 Response to Comments, Preserve Calavera GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION May 27, 2015 Page 7 Comment 16: Assuming this MND and approvals are secured, the Proposed Carlsbad General Plan update would change zoning on parcel D to RMH (8-15 du/acre). Post stream reconfiguration would allow Parcel D = 5.78 acres x 11.5 du/ac = 66 units (if built at the GCP of 11.5 du/ac). If low/moderate income housing is added and units come out ofthe EDUB the number of units could be: 5.78 xl5 = 86 du. It is disingenuous to distribute documents saying this isfor^lS units, when it appears the intent is for 66- 86. Furthermore the draft GP has exceeded the Growth management Plan number of allowed residential units for this NE quadrant Increasing the number of units for this parcel would seem to further exacerbate the number of units that will need to be cut before the new GP is adopted. Please clarify how changes to units with this project will be addressed in the GP. Taking action in advance ofthe more comprehensive review with the GP precludes considering a true comparison between Alternative A, leaving the zoning as is (with development east of Agua Hedionda Creek) and the stream and riparian habitat intact and Alternative B, allovving the stream to be reconfigured to change the delineation ofthe flood plain and free up Parcel Dfor higher density housing. Response: Please see the response to Comment No. 15. The College Boulevard Mitigation Project and the General Plan Update process are unrelated. Comments on the Proposed General Plan Update are outside the scope ofthe draft MND for the proposed habitat mitigation project. Further, this comment is speculative based on the General Plan Update process which is still being reviewed by city staff. The issues raised are not related to an environmental issue pursuant to CEQA. Therefore, no changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 17: - potential historic/cultural impacts There is a cultural and historic loss of perhaps the only remaining horseback riding/training stable in our community. This should be evaluated as a potential impact. Response: Comment noted. This comment provides conclusions without providing substantial evidence to support those conclusions. The thresholds of significance for potential impacts to cultural resources are listed and analyzed on Page 40 of the MND. Mitigation measures CULTURAL-1 AND CULTURAL-2 would reduce any potentially significant impacts to a level below significance. Therefore, no changes were made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 18: - Hazardous Materials TPH - Diesel states disposal will be to an appropriate landfill. State landfill and confirm it has capacity to receive this hazardous waste material. Arsenic, states EPA range of .15mg/kg to 3.89 mg/kg with .67mg/kg in 10 samples found on site. Even though this may be lower than State Average background level it should be removed along with any lead or asbestos that may be found. Response: No substantial evidence was submitted to support the request that the arsenic should be removed in conjunction with the lead and asbestos. Pursuant to the Phase II Environmental Assessment dated March 19, 2015, and as analyzed on Page 48 of the MND, the highest concentration of arsenic found in the soil on the project site (3.89 mg/kg) is below the naturally-occurring background concentration in California (up to 11 mg/kg). Further, as stated in the MND, if the soil will be exported from the site, the soil may be reused within the San Diego region in accordance with the RWQCB Conditional Waiver No. 8. This excludes the soil which had detectable concentrations of TPH. Staff is in the process of confirming with the applicant which landfill the soil with the TPH-Diesel will be disposed. No changes were made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Response to Comments, Preserve Calavera GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION May 27, 2015 Page 8 Comment 19: - HMP consistency determination should be provided in advance of project approvals Since project site is in an HMP Standards Area the timeline for approval of the MND should be moved back to allow for public review of HMP consistency findings for parcels B & Cto remove them from the Standards Area. Such a determination is essential to determine if project impacts have been peoperly evaluated. Please clarify when this essential document will be made available. Response: Please see attached HMP Concurrence letter received from the Wildlife Agencies on May 18, 2015. No changes were made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 20: - Air quality. Air Quality data stops in 2011, please provide more current data. The sampling stations are far offin Escondido and on Camp Pendleton; San Diego County is, at times in non- attainment on Ozone and Particulates. Please add construction equipment will have aftermarket pollution emission controls. Response: The comment is correct in stating that the monitoring data referenced on page 10 of the MND was measured at the Escondido and Camp Pendleton stations between 2009 and 2011. The monitoring data from these two stations was provided for information purposes only. Neither the air quality nor the climate change analyses are dependent on the information. Therefore, including data from other monitoring stations or other years, would have no impact on the conclusions included in the MND. As the project site will be vacant after the grading activities, the proposed project site will not generate any long-term stationary or mobile source emissions. The proposed project's only air quality emissions would be generated during the construction phase. The most recent version of the CalEEMod model (Version 2013.2.2) was used to calculate the construction emissions associated with grading the habitat mitigation area. As shown in the Short-Term Regional Construction Emissions table on page 11 ofthe MND, the emissions generated during the construction phases would not exceed any of the County's thresholds. In addition, as shown in the GHG Construction Emissions table on page 46 of the MND, the project's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would not exceed the threshold of 2,500 MT of C02e/year. Therefore, mitigation measures, such as aftermarket pollution emission controls, are not required for the proposed project. No changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. Comment 21: The entire project should fully consider the impacts of leaving the stream as is and developing 25 units on parcel C vs. reconfiguring AHC and moving the floodplain to make Parcel D developable at the Proposed Revised General Plan zoning of RMH (8-15 du/ac) or a capacity of 66-88 units. This MND has failed to adequately identify, evaluate or mitigate for what is really a much larger project Response: Alternatives are not required to be analyzed as part ofthe proposed project, which required the preparation of an MND. No residential development is proposed on Parcel D at this time and the existing General Plan Land Use and Zoning designations are proposed to remain as-is, as part of the proposed habitat mitigation project; therefore, there are no potential impacts to analyze. Any future development proposed on Parcel D would require an independent analysis pursuant to CEQA. The possible future development of Parcel D is not required to be considered because a commitment has Response to Comments, Preserve Calavera GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION May 27, 2015 Page 9 ; not been made to develop Parcel D; there are no development plans to review; and, it is purely speculative at this point. The interit of CEQA would not be served by speculating about the potential environmental consequences ofthe uncertain future development of Parcel D. Therefore, no changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment. s Thank you for providing comments on the College Boulevard Mitigation project. Should you have any additional questions, please contact the project planner. Shannon Werneke, at (760) 602-4621 or by email at shannon.werneke@carisbadca.gov. Sincerely, DON NEU, AlCP City Planner DN:SW:bd Enc: Wildlife Agency HMP Concurrence letter, dated May 18, 2015 c: Mike Howes Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney File Copy Data Entry ATTACHMENT 13 From: DandD <dandd2@peoplepc,com> Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 1:12 PM To: Shannon Werneke Subject: Comments On MND College Mitigation Ms Wemeke These comments on the MND for GPA 14-02/ZG 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - eOLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION are submitted on behalf of Preserve Calavera, We appreciate that this project will result in a 100' buffer on both side ofthe reconfigured Agua Hedionda Creek (AHC) which is clearly an Improvement. However it appears that this comes at a potentially high cost- greatly expended development on the reconfigured buildable parcel that this project will also create. The MND has failed to properly identify the significant indirect impacts associated with all ofthe related changes associated with it. We see this as piecemealing of a project. In the absence of a complete understanding of the entire project it really is not possible to determine if the complete project increases or reduces overall impacts and consequently if it is an improvement or not. Furthermore the more extensive issues associated with the entire project could require a full EIR. The following are our specific comments : - impacts to Sycamore Woodland and Southem Willow scmb require mitigation The Sycamore Woodland and Southern Willow Scrub communities that comprise this riparian community should be left intact. Not to the "maximum extent feasible" because it appears it would all be gmbbed and graded away and replaced with a habitat restoration site. Leaving trees/shmbs intact, will necessitate leaving a 5-10' raised island in the newly reconfigured streambed, where the Westem edge of AHC now resides, and grading behind the tree line on the existing Eastern boundary of AHC. This would be appropriate mitigation for this significant effect of reconfiguring AHC and wili provide the necessary nesting and perching cover for sensitive birds until the restoration project matures in 5-10 years. These trees are now 50-80 years old. Grading them away and leaving a replanted, exposed streambed would be a significant impact to a riparian corridor. Whether such impacts are temporary or permanent is often hard to detemnine. Since this is being done to move the floodplain to create developable land on Parcel D, if impacts cannot be completely avoided they must be mitigated. Will this project destroy the sycamore woodland riparian community or not? If so. Cumulative and project level impacts should be considered and this cannot be done by separating the mitigation from development of the parcel. This also may trigger the need for an E.I.R. - CRAM evaluations should be included as part of on-going monitoring CRAM (GA Rapid Assessment Method) and Riverine BioAssessment should be done prior to any work impacting the stream, and at yeariy intervals as a form of monitoring stream and surrounding environs. - grading in a floodplain Page 32 states "...The grading proposed in the floodplain is acceptable because it is associated with a mitigation project which will improve the biological value of AHC," Actual language is that grading in a floodplain is acceptable for a public.works project, not in an area being MITIGATED for a public works project. We think this is an important distinction that has not been addressed. pg. 47 lists 73,300 cubic yards of fill. Correct to 470 cubic yards of fill as stated elsewhere in document. - Potential Hydology/Water Quality impacts Pg. 4 should list Hydrology/Water Quality as a potentially significant impact. Reconfiguring the entire stream, if you lose the entire riparian plant community, is significant. .We could not find a clear statement in the hydrology study that indicated adequate assessment of potential downstream impacts from this dredging. Sediment in AHC requires downstream dredging of channel near Cannon & El Camino Real. Will tripling the width of AHC across project site cause more deposition of sediment downstream? We could not think of other local projects where streambeds have had such major alteration to the floodplain, impacting the function of the water body, with an apparent primary objective to increase the buidable area of an adjacent parcel. - why is this not being integrated with the General Plan Assuming this MND and approvals are secured, the Proposed Carisbad General Plan update would change zoning on parcel D to RMH (8-15 du/acre). Post stream reconfiguration would allow Parcel D = 5.78 acres x 11.5 du/ac = 66 units (if built at the GCP of 11.5 du/ac). If low/moderate income housing is added and units come out of the EDUB the number of units could be: 5.78 x 15 = 86 du. It is disingenuous to distribute documents saying this is for 15 units, when it appears the intent is for 66-86, Furthermore the draft GP has exceeded the Growth management Plan number of allowed residential units for this NE quadrant. Increasing the number of units for this parcel would seem to further exacerbate the number of units that will need to be cut before the new GP is adopted. Please clarify how changes to units with this project will be addressed in the GP, Taking action in advance ofthe more comprehensive review with the GP precludes considering a tme comparison between Aiterrnative A, leaving the zoning as is (with development east of Agua Hedionda Greek) and the stream and riparian habitat intact and Alternative B, allowing the stream to be reconfigured to change the delineation ofthe flood plain and free up Parcel D for higher density housing. - potential historic/cultural impacts a There is a cultural and historic loss of perhaps the only remaining horseback riding/training stable in our community. This should be evaluated as a potential impact. - Hazardous Materials TPH - Diesel states disposal will be to an appropriate landfill. State landfill and confirm it has capacity to receive this hazardous waste material. Arsenic, states EPA range of ,15mg/kg to 3.89 mg/kg with .67mg/kg in 10 samples found on site. Even though this may be lower than State Average background level it should be removed along with any lead or asbestos that may be found,- - HMP consistency determination should be provided in advance of project approvals Since project site is in an HMP Standards Area the timeline for approval ofthe MND should be moved back to allow for public review of HMP consistency findings for parcels B & C to remove them from the Standards Area. Such a detennination is essential to determine if project impacts have been property evaluated, Piease clarify when this essential document will be made available, - Air quality Air Quality data stops in 2011, please provide more current data. The sampling stations are far off in Escondido and on Camp Pendleton; San Diego County is, at times in non-attainment on Ozone and Particulates, Please add construction equipment will have aftermarket pollution emission controls. The entire project should fully consider the impacts of leaving the stream as is and developing 25 units on parcel C vs. reconfiguring AHC and moving the floodplain to make Parcel D developable at the Proposed Revised General Plan zoning of RMH (8-15 du/ac) or a capacity of 66-88 units. This MND has failed to adequately identify, evaluate or mitigate for what is really a much larger project. Thank you for considering these comments. Diane Nygaard On Behalf of Preserve Calavera ATTACHMENT 14 SAN LUIS REY BAND OF MISSION INDIANS 1889 Sunset Dnve • Vista, California 92081 760-724-8505 • FAX 760-724-2172 www.slrmissionindians.org QT May 15, 2015 Shannon Werneke Assistant City Planner VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Planning Division Shannon.Werneke@carlsbadca.gov City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA92008 RE: COMMENTS ON THE NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION PROJECT (GPA 14-02, ZC 14-01, HDP 14-14, SUP 14-03, MS 14-10) Dear Ms. Wemeke: We, the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians ("Tribe"), have received and reviewed the City of Carlsbad's ("City's") Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") and all of its supporting documentation as it pertains specifically to the protection and preservation of Luiseno Native American cultural resources that may be located within the parameters of the College Boulevard Mitigation Project's ("Project's") described boundaries. After our review, the Tribe believes that with the incorporation of additional measures of mitigation for cultural resources as proposed in this comment letter, the Project should be allowed to proceed as planned. As you are aware, we are a northem San Diego County Tribe whose traditional territory includes Camp Pendleton, the current cities of Oceanside, Carlsbad, Vista, San Marcos and Escondido, as well as the unincorporated communities of San Diego County, such as Fallbrook, Bonsall and Valley Center. The Tribe is resolute in the preservation and protection of cultural, archaeological and historical sites within all these jurisdictions. It is the Tribe's understanding that the Project will provide for the enhancement and preservation of sensitive wetiand and riparian habitat at, as well as the creation of new wetiand, riparian and upland habitat areas adjacent to, Agua Hedionda Creek. The Project Area is located north of the intersection of College Boulevard and Sunny Creek Road, south of the intersection of Cannon Road and College Boulevard ("Project Location and/or Project Site"). In addition, the Project proposes to demolish existing stmctures on the property and to subdivide two parcels within the Project Area into four parcels, with one parcel being set-aside for a future housing development. This Project is located within the jurisdiction of the City of Carlsbad. Tribal Comments Regarding College Boulevard Mitigation Project, Carisbad, CA Page 1 I. THE PRESENCE OF A NATIVE AMERICAN MONITOR DURING ALL EARTH DISTURBING ACTIVITIES IS JUSTIFIED, AND AS SUCH, NATIVE AMERICAN MONITORS SHOULD BE CONTRACTED WITH DURING THIS PROJECT. Luiseiio Native American monitors should be utihzed during ground and/or earth disturbing activities for this Project as stated in tiie Project MND. The Tribe has reviewed the MND for this Project, as well as conducted our own research of the Tribe's Sacred Land Files and has spoken with our Tribal Elders regarding the significance of tiie Project Area. As stated in the MND, Native American sacred sites are known to be within close proximity to the Project Site and tiiere is a high probability that our Luiseno cultural resources may be negatively impacted by this Project. The Tribe is also aware of additional sacred sites not included in tiie Project MND evaluation fliat are in close proximity to the Project Site; however, it is flie Tribe's belief tiiat those sites will not be negatively impacted by this Project. The Tribe is also aware that an archeological pedestrian survey was conducted for this Project to evaluate the Project's impact to Native American cultural resources; however, is disappointed that a Luiseno Native American monitor was not present during such survey. Given the above, flie Tribe does believe that evidence of our ancestors habitation may be found during the ground disturbing activities proposed for this Project, and tiierefore tiie Tribe agrees witii the City tiiat a Luiseno Native American monitor must be present during ground disturbing activities. II. SLR STRONGLY RECOMMENDS AND REQUESTS THAT ADDITIONAL MEASURES OF MITIGATION BE ADOPTED BY THE CITY IN ORDER TO LESSEN ANY ADDITIONAL NEGATIVE IMPACT TO OUR LUISENO NATIVE AMERICAN CULTURAL RESOURCES. In addition to tiie Project landowner/developer entering into a Cultural Resources Treatment and Tribal Monitoring Agreement, or otherwise known as a Pre-Excavation Agreement, with the Tribe prior to the commencement of any ground dismrbing activities for the Project, the MND should reflect additional measures of mitigation in order to lessen any additional negative impact to our Luiseno Native American cultural resources. A. The MND Should Reflect That Anv and AU Uncovered Artifacts of Native American Cultural Importance Should Be Retumed to tiie Tribe, and/or the Most Likelv Descendent and NOT BE CURATED. It is the religious belief custom, and practice of tiie Tribe to repatriate all cultural resources that are unearthed during ground disturbing activities. Therefore, any plans to curate any such items would blatantiy disregard the respect due to these cultural resources. Instead, any such items should be retumed to the Tribe and/or the Most Likely Descendant, if applicable, as determined by the Native American Heritage Commission. Currentiy, CULTURAL-1(g) of tiie MND requires that tiie collected cultural resources be curated. The Tribe is strongly opposed to this mitigation measure. The Tribe requests that this mitigation measure be removed from tiie Tribal Comments Regarding College Boulevard Mitigation Project, Carlsbad, CA Page 2 Final MND and respectfully requests that our sacred Luiseno cultural resources be retumed to the Tribe so that they may be repatriated in accordance with our spiritual and traditional behefs. This Project is located within the traditional and aboriginal territory of our Tribe and our sister Luiseiio tribes. The Tribe considers all cultural items found in this area to belong to their ancestors, and the ancestors of their sister tribes. This request should be included in the Final MND. B. Native American Monitors And Archaeological Monitors Should Have Joint Authoritv To Temporarily Divert And/or Halt Constmction Activities. Archaeologists and Native American monitors are trained to perform different analysis of cultural resources. For instance, in the case of determining the significance of isotopes we believe adamantly that any determination as to whether the deposits are "non-significant" should be left to the archaeologist and the Native American monitor and that both should agree on the deposit's insignificance. Both entities should agree due to the fact that each professional weighs the deposits differentiy based on their training and beliefs. An archaeologist looks at the deposits value for research purposes and its scientific worth. Whereas, a Native American monitor looks at the deposits importance as it relates to its religious and spiritual significance and the items Luiseno culmral relevance. Each opinion is equally important and both should be taken in equal consideration. Therefore, when including additional mitigation measures for Cultural Resources in the Final MND, it is the Tribe's request that CULTURAL-1(f) be amended to include that any determination regarding the amount to be recovered and the means of recovery be done so in coordination with ±e Luiseno Native American monitor. Moreover, the Tribe respectfully requests that the following language of CULTURAL- 1(e) and CULTURAL-2(c) be modified and/or amended prior to the adoption of this MND to clearly state that both monitors will have the authority to divert or temporarily halt ground disturbing activities if a resource needs to be evaluated more closely. Currently, the CULTURAL-1 states, "In the event that previously unidentified cultural resources are discovered, the archaeologist shall have the authority to divert or temporarily halt ground disturbance operation in the area of discovery to allow evaluation of potentially significant cultural resources." The Tribe suggests that this sentence and/or mitigation measure be clarified, to include that both the archaeological monitor and the Luiseiio Native American monitor shall have the authority to divert or temporarily halt ground dismrbance operation in the area of discovery to allow evaluation of potentially significant culmral resources." It is imperative that Native American monitors share in the responsibility of temporarily halting ground disturbing activities when a cultural resource or archaeological resource are discovered in order for the resource to be properly identified and not destroyed by heavy machinery. Therefore, the Tribe respectfully requests that the language authorizing the temporary halting of ground disturbing activities be modified as herein stated. Tribal Comments Regarding College Boulevard Mitigation Project, Carlsbad, CA Page 3 C. The Tribe Must Be Consulted If A Significant Culttual Resource And/or Unique Archaeological Resource Is Discovered During Ground Dismrbing Activities. If a significant cultural resource and/or unique archaeological resource are uneartiied during ground disturbing activities for tiiis Project, tiie Tribe respectfuUy requests tiiat tiiey be notified and consulted witii in regards to tiie respectful and dignified treatment of tiiose resources. The Tribe's preference will always be for avoidance and tiiat tiie resource be protected and preserved in perpetuity as provided for in CEQA. If however, relocation and/or a data recovery plan is autiiorized by the City as tiie Lead Agency, tiie Tribe respectfully requests tiiat as a condition of any aufliorization, flie Tribe be consulted regarding tiie drafting and fmaUzation of any such recovery. These resources are evidence of our ancestors' lost history and, as such, we must have a voice and be a part of how tiiose resources are treated and preserved for future generations. Furthermore, when cultural resources are discovered during flie Project, if the archaeologist coUects such resources, a Luiseno Native American monitor must be present during any testing or cataloging of those resources. AdditionaUy, if flie archaeologist does not coUect flie cultural resources that are uneartiied during tiie ground dismrbing activities, tiie Luiseiio Native American monitor, may in tiiefr discretion, collect said resources and provide tiiem to tiie Tribe for respectful and dignified treatment in accordance witii tiie Tribe's cultural and spiritual ttaditions. Cunrentiy the MND is sUent in regards to "what" is to happen to tiiose items not collected, as reflected in CULTURAL 1 (d). Therefore, it is tiie Tribe's recommendation that tiiese items be given to tiie Tribe so fliat tiiey may be repatriated at the site on a later date. D. When Suspected Native American Remains Are Unearthed. Those Remains Should Remain hi Situ And Protected Until The Most Likelv Descendant Can Be Detennined Bv The Native American Heritage Commission. CULTURAL-1 (e) addresses the possibiUty of tiie discovery of Native American Human Remains. If Native American remains and/or associated burial goods are unearthed during tiie Project, and prior to a Most Likely Descendant being determined by the Native American Heritage Commission, it is flie Tribe's request fliat flie ancestral remains be kept in situ (in place), or in a secure location in close proximity to their discovery and that a forensic anfluopologist perform their analysis of the remains on-site in tiie presence of a Luiseno Native American monitor. Any transportation of flie ancesttal remains would be considered by the Tribe as disrespectful and undignified tteatment. Therefore, flie Tribe requests fliat in addition to flie strict adherence to flie protocol stated in the Califomia Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and CaUfomia Public Resource Code Sectioii 5097.98, tiie Final MND reflect that if Native American remains are discovered, the Native American remains shaU be kept in situ, or in a secure location in close proximity to where fliey were found, and tiiat the analysis of tiie remains occur only on-site in the presence of a Luiseiio Native American monitor. Tribal Comments Regarding College Boulevard Mitigation Project, Carlsbad, CA Page 4 HI. LASTLY, ONLY "CLEAN FILL" SHOULD BE UTILIZED DURING THIS PROJECT The Tribe is opposed to any undocumented fiU being used during the proposed development. It is unclear from the MND whether fill will be imported to the site and/or exported from the site. In the event the "fill" wiU be imported into the Project area, the Tribe requests that any proposed use of fill be clean of culmral resources and documented as such. It has been a practice of many in the constmction profession to utilize fill materials that contained cultural resources from other "unknown" areas thereby contaminating the potential culmral landscape of the area being filled. This type of fill material is unacceptable. Moreover, if the fill material is to be utilized from areas within the Project Site, such as from the creek bed, then the Tribe requests that that soil be analyzed and confirmed by an archeologist and/or Luiseno Native American monitor that such soil and/or fill material does not contain cultural resources. A requirement that fill material be absent of any and all cultoral resources should therefore be included as an additional mitigation measure of the Final MND. IV. CONCLUSION The San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians appreciates this opportunity to provide the City of Carlsbad with our comments for the College Boulevard Mitigation Project in Carlsbad, CA. The Tribe hopes the City will adopt the mitigation measures for Cultoral Resources as herein requested and that they will appear in the Final MND. As always, we look forward to working with the City to guarantee that the requirements of the CEQA are rigorously applied to this Project and all projects. We thank you for your continuing assistance in protecting our invaluable Luiseno cultural resources. Sincerely, Merri Lopez-Keifer Chief Legal Counsel cc: Melvin Vemon, Tribal Captain Carmen Mojado, Secretary of Government Relations and President of Saving Sacred Sites Tribal Comments Regarding College Boulevard Mitigation Project, Carlsbad, CA Page 5 7^ ATTACHMENT 15 C. (.-. City of Carlsbad May 7,2015 MAY 11 2015 CityofCarlsbad Planning Division Plannmg Commission 1200 Carlsbad ViUage Drive Carlsbad. CA 92008 RE: GPA 14-02/ZC 15-04 SUP 14-03 HMP 14-02 MS 14-10 College Boulevard Mitigation Dear Commission Members, We, as owners of tiie Rancho Milagro property m Zone 15, are writing in support of flie referenced project, which is proposed to mitigate envfronmental inpacts relatmg to the construction of College Boulevard between Sunny Creek Road and Cannon Road. We understand that the proposed project wiU provide a total of nearly 9 acres of wetiand and upland habitat as weU as additional open space for agriculture and -water quality uses. This large unproved area -will be contiguous to natural open space in the adjacent Dos Colinas planned community, resulting in a significant habitat en-vfronment The design for the wetiands portion of the project -will add a second channel for Agua Hedionda Creek and should pro-vide a broad habitat area for plants and wildlife. This project wiU augment the current narrow creek alignment with a second source of water, resulting m significantly enhanced potential for the growth of native plants in the wetiand envfronment which will be protected in perpetuity through an endo-wment to fhe San Diego Habitat Conservancy. Please vote to approve this desirable wetlands aud uplands en-vfronment project Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Warren LyaU Lyall Enterprises, Inc. 15524 Highway 76 Pauma Valley, CA 92061 May 11,2015 ^^OHC^O- ^^mi^S^id Owners' Association, Inc. 5200 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California 92010-7118 Phone: (760) 438-0333 . Fax: (760) 438-1808 ATTACHMENT 16 City of Carlsbad MAY 1 5 2015 Planning Division City of Carlsbad Planning Commission 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: GOA 14-02/ZC 15-04 SUP 14-03/HMP 14-10 College Boulevard Mitigation Dear Commission Members, We are writing on behalf of the Board of Director's for the Rancho Carlsbad Owners' Association, Inc. to express the Board's support of flie above reference project, which is proposed to mitigate envfronmental impacts relating to the constraction of College Boulevard between Sunny Creed Road and Caimon Road. Our organization prefers the new proposed location to tiiat which was considered several years ago as part of Basin BJ. The cunrentiy proposed project should pro-vide a large area of both wetiands and uplands habitat in tiie immediate vicinity of our community and we urge the Planning Commission to approve the project at it upcoming Public Hearing. We also support this plan for the flood water mitigation benefit to our community. Minor, though it is, any -v\adening or retention of upsfream flows help our situation. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very tmly yours. 'Sandra Hunsicker President ^BiU Amold / Chafrperson \ Extemal Relations Committee. ATTACHMENT 17 Board of Dfrectors Maureen Simons. Chairman lan McDaniel Vlce-chalr Graham Beatty Treasurer Dee Sodano Secretary Jim Brubaker Michael Gazzano Kimberly Holmes Sara Ruber Karen McClune Becky Moore Eric Munoz Rebecca Richards Sam Ross Tim Sisk Wendy V\/iegand Staff Lisa Rodman Execufive Director Samantha Richter Discovery Center Operations Director Katie Harding Administrative Manager Morgan Wofford Trail Development Manager May 22, 2015 Howes, Weiler & Associates Mike Howes 2888 Loker Ave. East, Ste. 317 Carlsbad, CA 92010 GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 The Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation (AHLF) is a non-profit organization tiiat promotes lagoon stewardship, water reoeation, and engages the community ttirough educational programs and outreach efforts. The role of AHLF Is typically not to take supporting or opposing positions on development projects but rather to remain neutral so that our focus remains on our mission. Projects that do affect lagoon or watershed environmental issues are within our sphere of interest. The subject project involves city roadway and drainage improvements that comprise the above-referenced College Boulevard Mitigation Project and our comments are specific to the realm of public improvements associated by the project, while remaining neutral on the merits of the development project itself. Thus in this spedfic context, and after review of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) published by the city for public review and comment, we see tiiat impacts will be generated for wetiand, riparian, coastal sage scnjb, and non-native grassland habitats with our direct watershed. Ukewise we note and have reviewed tiie con-espondlng Mitigation Measures associated with the MND tiiat in general temns will enhance and preserve these sensitive habitat types, along witii increased water quality protections, in accordance with dty requirements and related resource agency oversight and related actions. AHLF is in support of tiiese Mitigation Measures that aim to provide environmental protection witiiin our dty and watershed. Sincerely, Usa Rodman Executive Director Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation cc: Board of Directors b U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 2177 Salk A venue, Suite 250 Carlsbad, California 92008 760-431-9440 FAX 760-431-9624 In Reply Refer To: FWS/CDFW -SDG-1 OB209-15CP A024l Mr. Don Neu, City Planner City of Carlsbad ,, Community & Economic Development 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008-7314 Attention: Shannon Werneke, Associate Planner ATIACHMENT 18 California Department of Fish and Wildlife South Coast Region 3883 Ruffin Road San Diego, California 92123 858-467-420 l FAX 858-467-4299 MAY18 2015 Subject: Habitat Management Plan Consistency Findings for the College Boulevard- Reach A Mitigation Project, City of Carlsbad, California Dear Mr. Neu: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the California Department ofFish and Wildlife (Department), hereafter collectively referred to as the Wildlife Agencies, have reviewed your April 7, 2015, letter requesting concurrence that the College Boulevard Mitigation Project (project) in the City of Carlsbad (City) is consistent with the requirements and conservation standards ofthe City's Habitat Management Plan (HMP). The Wildlife Agencies previously concurred in our April 9, 2015, letter that the College Boulevard-Reach A Project is consistent with the HMP. However our letter did not address the mitigation site for the project. Our review of the project is based upon: the information provided in your letter; the draft mitigated negative declaration (MND), dated April 7, 2015; our knowledge of sensitive and declining vegetation communities in the County of San Diego; and our participation in regional conservation planning efforts including the City's HMP. The primary concern and mandate of the Service is the protection of public fish and wildlife resources and their habitats. The Service has legal responsibility for the welfare of migratory birds, anadromous fish, and endangered animals and plants occurring in the United States. The Service is also responsible for administering the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U .S.C. 1531 et seq.), including habitat conservation plans (HCP) developed under section lO(a)(l) of the Act. The Department is a Trustee Agency and a responsible Agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Sections 15386 and 15381, respectively. The Department is responsible for the conservation, protection, and management of the State's biological resources, including rare, threatened, and endangered plant and animal species, pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and administers the Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) program. The City is participating in the Department's NCCP and the Service's HCP programs through the implementation of its HMP. Mr. Don Neu (FWS/CDFW-SDG-IOB0209-15CPA0241) 2 The project site is located north ofthe intersection of College Boulevard and Sunny Creek Road, outside the Coastal Zone, and within a Standards Area in Local Facilities Management Zone (LFMZ) 15. Although the project site is not within a core or linkage area, as depicted on Figure 4 of the HMP, it includes a portion of Agua Hedionda Creek, an important east-west wildlife movement corridor (City, ESA, and CNLM 2015). The project will create, enhance, and preserve 3.1 acres of wetland/riparian habitat and 5.6 acres of coastal sage scrub in and adjacent to the creek as mitigation for the construction of College Boulevard -Reach A and associated detention basins. The project will also subdivide two existing legal lots (Parcels A and D, totaling 17.44 acres) into four legal lots with the following uses: • Parcel A (1.0 acre) will be used for agriculture/future garden and will remain as an HMP Standards Area; • Parcel B ( 1.12 acres) will become one of the bio-retention basins needed for the College Boulevard -Reach A project and will be removed from the HMP Standards Area. Construction of the bio-retention basin was addressed in our consistency findings letter for the College Boulevard-Reach A Project (FWS/CDFW-SDG-IOB0209-15CPA0166); • Parcel C (9.23 acres) will be used for the project and converted to an HMP Hardline Preserve Area; • Parcel D (6.09 acres) may be used for future residential development; however, no development is proposed at this time. The parcel will remain as an HMP Standards Area. In order to implement the project, the following habitats will be impacted on Parcel C: nonnative grassland (0.03 acre), agricultural lands (0.37 acre), eucalyptus woodland (0.67 acre), disturbed (5.28 acres), and ornamental (0.51 acre). These impacts will be mitigated through payment of the HMP in-lieu fee. All ofthe natural habitat created and enhanced on Parcel C will be conserved and managed in perpetuity by an entity approved by the City and Wildlife Agencies. A non-wasting endowment will also be established for its long-term management. LFMZ 15 Standards Area Goals The project is consistent with LFMZ 15 zone-specific standards as discussed below. • No coastal sage scrub habitat or federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) occurs on the project site. • No covered species will be impacted due to project implementation. • The project site is not located in Linkage Area Cor Core Areas 3 and 5; therefore, the standards that apply specifically to these areas do not apply to the proposed project. Mr. Don Neu (FWS/CDFW -SDG-1 OB0209-15CPA0241) • All wetland/riparian habitats on the project site are being conserved and no fill or development is proposed within the existing floodplain as part of the proposed project. • HMP-listed Narrow Endemic plants do not occur on the project site. Cc 3 • A small portion of the project site is currently used for agriculture. As a component of the proposed project, a 100-foot wide buffer of native habitat will be created along both sides of Agua Hedionda Creek. A portion of the bio-retention basin for the College Boulevard - Reach A project would be located in the northeast side of the buffer as a passive use. Essential stormwater control facilities, which include detention basins, are allowable passive uses in the buffer (TAlC 2010). In addition, the proposed project will restore coastal sage scrub well beyond the 1 00-foot riparian buffer on the northwest portion of the project site to form a better connection with the Dos Colinas Biological Conservation Easement. • No housing development is proposed in conjunction with the project; therefore, no fuel modification zones are required. • The project includes the removal of nonnative weed species, eucalyptus woodland, and ornamental plantings as part of the creation and enhancement of native riparian and upland vegetation. Also, disturbed areas and areas used for agriculture will be restored to native habitats. • Many of the HMP Adjacency Standards apply to residential and commercial developments that are constructed on the boundaries of the HMP Reserve. Since the proposed project involves only the creation and enhancement of native vegetation, these standards are not applicable. However, the proposed project will install erosion control BMPs, as required pursuant to the HMP, to ensure that any graded areas do not cause sedimentation of Agua Hedionda Creek, and permanent fencing and signs to prevent trespassing into the project site. Mitigation Ratios for Habitat Impacts As shown in Table 2 ofthe City's April 7, 2015, letter, no impacts to Habitat Groups A, B, C, or D will result from project implementation. The project will directly impact nonnative grassland, agriculture, eucalyptus woodland, ornamental, and disturbed vegetation. These vegetation communities are categorized as Habitat Group E and F in the HMP and are eligible to be mitigated through the payment of an in-lieu fee. Therefore, the proposed mitigation ratios are consistent with the requirements of the HMP. Covered Species-Least Bell's vireo The federally and state endangered least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus, vireo) is known to nest in riparian habitat upstream of the project site. The HMP includes species-specific measures Mr. Don Neu (FWS/CDFW-SDG-IOB0209-15CPA0241) 4 to protect the vireo, including restricting vegetation removal to outside the nesting season (March 15 to September 15), and limiting construction activities and noise levels within 500 feet of active vireo nests. The project will implement these measures and is, therefore, consistent with the HMP requirements to minimize impacts to covered species. (~ Based on the findings given above, the Wildlife Agencies concur that the project is consistent with all HMP mitigation LFMZ 15 and covered species requirements. We appreciate the City's efforts to ensure consistency with the HMP. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Lauren Kershek (Service) at 760-431-9440, extension 208 or Christine Beck (Department) at 858-637-7188. d)j~ Karen A .. ~bel Assistant Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Sincerely, ~~@__- Gail Sevrens Environmental Program Manager California Department of Fish and Wildlife Literature Cited [City, ESA, and CNLM] City of Carlsbad, Environmental Science Associates, and Center for Natural Lands Management. 2015. City of Carlsbad wildlife movement analysis final report. Prepared for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, San Diego, CA. [TAlC] Technology Associates. 2010. Guidelines for riparian and wetland buffers. Prepared for the City of Carlsbad, Planning Department. April 9. Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 2015 EXHIBITG Page2 1. GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 -COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION-Request for a recommendation of adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum; and a request for a recommendation of approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Hillside Development Permit, Special Use Permit, Habitat Management Plan Permit and Minor Subdivision to allow for the implementation of habitat mitigation associated with the development of College Boulevard Reach "A" on two parcels (APN 209-060-71, 72) totaling 17.44 acres (16.43 net acres) located north of the intersection of College Boulevard and Sunny Creek Road and south of the intersection of Cannon Road and College Boulevard, within Local Facilities Management Zone 15. The City Planner has determined that through the implementation of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum, the proposed project avoids the effects or mitigates the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the project "as revised" may have a significant effect on the environment. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 1 and stated Associate Planner Shannon Werneke would make the staff presentation. Ms. Werneke gave a detailed presentation and stated she would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Scully asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Siekmann asked about the letters of concern commenting that the project is piecemealing. Ms. Werneke stated staff did respond in writing to various letters as was indicated in the staff presentation. Staff does not consider this project to be piece-mealing. Ms. Werneke explained that Parcel D will have to be reviewed on its own merits if and when a development application is submitted. A parcel map was required for this project to create the mitigation site, Parcel C, which is recommended by the Habitat Management Plan (HMP) and the General Plan. Commissioner Siekmann inquired as to why was the choice made to do a mitigated negative declaration (MND) instead of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Ms. Werneke stated that all of the impacts can be reduced to a less than significant level, and there are no significant impacts associated with the project. Commissioner Siekmann asked what will happen if a residential project is proposed on Parcel D right next to this highly sensitive area. Ms. Werneke stated Parcel D is located in a standards area pursuant to the HMP and it is proposed to remain in the standards area as part of this project. When a development application is submitted to develop Parcel D it will have to be reviewed for compliance with the HMP and the adjacency standards. Commissioner Siekmann further asked if the wildlife agencies will be involved at that time. Ms. Werneke stated yes. Commissioner Siekmann asked what the difference is in reviewing the impacts if Parcel D is developed as residential. Ms. Werneke stated that as part of an EIR, staff would be able to consider alternatives which is not part of the MND process. As she previously indicated, Ms. Werneke mentioned that there are no development plans for Parcel D at this time so there is nothing for staff to analyze. Commissioner Siekmann asked what a "BTR" is. Ms. Werneke stated it is a Biological Technical Report and it was not attached to the staff report due to how large the document is; however, it is available electronically should anyone need to see it. Commissioner Montgomery asked staff to address the floodplain on Parcel D. Ms. Werneke stated there is no grading proposed on Parcel D. The floodplain line is being shifted to the north because of the grading that will be done on Parcel C. The capacity of the floodway is being improved such that the floodplain line will be shifted. Commissioner Montgomery asked if the subdivision of the site is being done so that there will not be any possible future biological impacts on Parcel D. Ms. Werneke commented that there is very little biological value left on Parcel D. Commissioner Montgomery asked if this project satisfies all the needs for College Boulevard to be developed. Ms. Werneke stated this project implements the biological mitigation resources for that improvement project. Commissioner Siekmann inquired about the garden on Parcel A and the possible use of pesticides. Ms. Werneke stated there is nothing in the mitigation measures that would prohibit the use of pesticides on Parcel A. Commissioner Siekmann asked if that is something the Commission can add. Ms. Werneke stated yes. Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 2015 Page 3 Commissioner Segall asked about the plantings of new trees. Ms. Werneke deferred the question to the applicant. Commissioner Segall asked if someone will be going into the creek to plant the new trees. Ms. Werneke stated no one will be going in to the creek; the trees will be planted beside the creek. Commissioner L'Heureux asked for clarification as to what has been approved to the west of the creek as it goes beyond Parcel C. Ms. Werneke stated that to the west is the Rancho Carlsbad Golf Course. There is also a single family parcel a little further to the west. Ms. Werneke further stated there is no mitigation to the west as it is the golf course. Commissioner Siekmann asked about the owner of the property because a code reminder in Resolution No. 7104 refers to condemnation. Ms. Werneke deferred to the applicant in regard to the ownership and further stated that the code reminder is a standard code reminder and there is no condemnation proposed as part of this project. Chairperson Scully asked if there were any further questions of staff. Seeing none, she asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. Mike Howes, Howes, Weiler, and Associates, 2888 Loker Ave East, Suite 217, Carlsbad, gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Greg Mason, biologist for the project, from Alden Environmental, 3245 University Avenue, San Diego, spoke regarding the biological aspects of the project. Chairperson Scully asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Segall asked how the new foliage will be watered. Mr. Mason stated that a temporary irrigation system will be installed above ground that will have ground sensors and timers. The system will be removed within 5 years. Commissioner Segall asked if the system will use recycled water. Mr. Mason stated that if that option is available, it will be used. Commissioner Siekmann asked Mr. Mason what "ECNS" stands for as noted in his response letter to Benteq. Mr. Mason stated it is Equestrian Center North and South. Commissioner Siekmann asked about the location of the basin. Mr. Mason stated Parcel B will have a smaller, water quality treatment basin; the larger College Boulevard Reach A project will also have a larger basin which is referred to as Basin BJ. Commissioner Siekmann asked about the ownership of the property. Mr. Howes stated the owner is Bent West LLC. Steve Powell, representing Bent West, LLC, project applicant, stated the owner is WP Golf and Equestrian LLC which is a West Partners held entity and is a separately held legal entity. WP Golf and Equestrian LLC owns both the north and south portions of the property and has agreed to donate the property for this purpose as part of the process of getting College Boulevard built. Commissioner Siekmann asked if notices had been provided to the horse owners. Mr. Powell stated yes. Commissioner L'Heureux asked who the members of the Bent West LLC are. Mr. Powell stated the LLC has two members: West Partners, LLC, who is the managing member of Bent West. Mr. Dennis O'Brien makes all decisions with regard to West Partners LLC. The other member is a company owned by David Bentley, who is a minority member of the LLC. Chairperson Scully asked if there were any other questions of the applicant or of staff. Seeing none, Chairperson Scully opened public testimony on Agenda Item 1. Bill Arnold, 3432 Don Ortega Dr., Carlsbad, representing Rancho Carlsbad, spoke in favor of the project stating that there will be quite a few benefits to the Rancho Carlsbad Owners Association, such as the issue of the floodplain, the construction of College Boulevard, and the construction of Basin BJ. David Bentley, 7449 Magellan Street, Carlsbad, stated that he feels the impacts are far excessive with this project and that the MND is inadequate. He stated he represents the owners of the Lubliner property which is next door to this project. The legal access to the Lubliner property is through this property. Commissioner Siekmann asked why Mr. Bentley is against the project. Mr. Bentley stated impacts, both environmentally and financially, are far excessive than what is needed. Commissioner Siekmann asked for suggestions for what should be done instead. Mr. Bentley commented there are a variety of things, and Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 2015 Page 4 that the experts can come up with alternatives. One idea would be to isolate a %acre of wetland mitigation on this property or enhance this property. Warren Kato, PO Box 537, Tustin, speaking on behalf of the Kato Family Trust and Kato Family LP, stated he objects to the plan and reiterated that the effect of the proposed impacts on the LFMP and the shifting of costs from this project to the other land owners in the area. Warren Lyall, 15524 Highway 76, Pauma Valley, owner of property known as Rancho Milagro, supports the project and see it as a benefit overall to the area to increase the wetland area. Michelle Staples, attorney at Jackson, DeMarco, Tidus and Peckenpaugh, 2030 Main Street Suite 1200, Irvine, representing the owners of Mandana KaiCo, stated they hold the same objections as Mr. Bentley and Warren Kato. She stated that the project is a waste of public funds and will create developable property. Chairperson Scully asked if there were any other members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Seeing none, she closed public testimony on Agenda Item 1. Mr. Neu addressed the Commission on the issue of the financing options. He stated that the Commission is not considering the issues of the financing for College Boulevard as that is something the Council considers. The Commission however is aware of the financing requirement of the Zone 15 property owners as it relates to College Boulevard. In terms of whether or not this is the appropriate time to be considering these given their difficulties in reaching agreement, applications for this project were submitted that have permit streamlining act deadlines. Staff believes they have completed adequate environmental review, and the Commission is not being asked to make decisions related to the financing as that is a separate process the Council will consider. When staff responds to questions, staff will be happy to address some of the other issues particularly those relating to the General Plan and the alternative with the 40% reduced density. They are separate issues that, at the end of the day, need to be resolved if approved developments in Zone 15 are to be constructed. Staff as well as the applicant has spent a considerable amount of time trying to work through some of these issues so that there is adequate mitigation for the road project, and that option is then open as an alternative to mitigate impacts of the road construction should the financing be worked out. Steve Powell stated that Mr. O'Brien, and Bent West LLC, is continuing to look at all the options and alternatives for the financing, including reimbursement opportunities; however, it is a complicated process. Cynthia Aldred, 2481 Congress Street, San Diego, attorney for the applicant, reiterated that CEQA states that if there is a project that has been designed to avoid any potential significant impacts, and there is no substantial evidence in front of the Commission that there are significant impacts with this project, then the MND is the correct document to use. There is no piecemealing with this project as there is the College Boulevard project and that project was analyzed in 2002 as has been pointed out in both the staff report and staff presentation. There was an EIR completed for that project and has been referred to frequently in the MND for this project. Because there is not a development project proposed on Parcel D, there is no way to weigh potential impacts because it would all be speculative since there is no project to analyze. Mr. Mason stated that this project has a calculated mitigation requirement of 2.4 acres. That number satisfies the requirement for the city through CEQA, the Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The applicant is pursuing permits through those three agencies. These agencies have a No Net Loss standard, and the mitigation ratio for this project is 3:1 ,·which means a project has to give 3 times as much as is impacted but at least one of those has to be created habitat so that there is no net loss. Jason Geldert, Engineering Manager, stated the access easement Mr. Bentley referred to is a private easement in that it is an agreement between the property owners. It is not for public use; it is for private access. The city does not address private easements in projects such as this one. Commissioner L'Heureux asked for further clarification. Mr. Geldert deferred to the project applicant's engineer. Ray Martin, Hunsaker and Associates, 9707 Waples, San Diego, directed the Commission's attention to a PowerPoint slide and provided more information regarding the access easement. Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 2015 Page 5 Commissioner Segall asked if the discussion was moot because it is an agreement between two separate parties. Assistant City Attorney Jane Mobaldi stated that was correct. Ms. Werneke stated that as far as Parcel D is concerned there is always the potential for development on a property. The code allows at least 25% of the parcel to be developed even if it were to be developed in the floodplain. However, at this time, there is no proposal for development on Parcel D and therefore CEQA analysis was not done. Commissioner Segall asked if an EIR will be completed if a proposal is submitted for development on Parcel D in the future. Ms. Werneke stated that until a proposal is submitted, staff cannot make any determinations as to the type of environmental review that will be required. Commissioner Siekmann asked about the pesticides. Mr. Powell stated the existing garden currently does not use pesticides. The parcel will be open space and deemed to be agriculture, and it will meet any city standards or criteria for agricultural use. Mr. Powell stated he has no problem with adding a condition to prohibit pesticide use on Parcel A. Commissioner Segall asked about the MND and the cumulative effects. Ms. Werneke stated that from an air quality and greenhouse gas standpoint, the applicant's professionals did do a cumulative analysis. For the rest of the environmental review, staff did not look at it from a cumulative standpoint. Commissioner Segall asked if the cumulative effects need to be analyzed based on CEQA. Ms. Werneke deferred to Ms. Mobaldi who stated you have to look at the direct and the indirect impacts of a project, and if they are less than significant, than an environmental review in an EIR is not required. There is an initial determination that needs to be made using a checklist of the various types of potential environmental impacts. If a project has those impacts, staff determines whether or not those impacts can be mitigated below a level of significance. If that is the case, it would be applicable to cumulative as well as direct impacts and an EIR does not need to be completed. Commissioner L'Heureux asked Mr. Neu about the timing of the project and the improvements to College Boulevard. Mr. Neu stated the timing is up to the applicant. This mitigation project is a necessary component to the construction of College Boulevard. DISCUSSION Commissioner Segall stated this is a complicated issue but he can support the project. He commented that he is not thrilled to lose equestrian uses in the city. Commissioner Montgomery stated he can support the project. His only concern is in regard to the financing in that the project is creating a developable parcel that will have a value while others in the area will be burdened with cost impacts. Commissioner Siekmann proposed an amendment to Bio-20 in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to refer to a biologist to ensure anything used on the land will not impact the hardline area. Mr. Neu stated there was similar condition included with the municipal golf course. She further stated she had great concerns about the potential for development of Parcel D and it being so close to the hardline area but it will be a vast improvement over what currently exists. She stated she can support the project. Commissioner L'Heureux commented that Zone 15 is a difficult area of the city. There are a multitude of land owners that are in different stages of development and yet under the city's growth management plan, they all have to come together and agree on financing, roads, and infrastructure. He stated that he is satisfied with the MND and believes it is adequate in this case. Commissioner L'Heureux stated he can support the project and can support adding a condition to Bio-20 regarding pesticide use on Parcel A. Chairperson Scully stated she can support the project and she can support an added condition to Bio-20. She added that she is concerned with the potential for development on Parcel D. Mr. Neu commented that Parcel D is currently zoned Limited Control and the parcel needs to be re-zoned in order to implement the General Plan, which is Residential Low Medium (RLM). The General Plan Update evaluated the lot at R-15 which would be a higher density. Staff is in the process of finalizing recommendations to the Planning Commission so that the Commission can ultimately recommend the Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 2015 Page 6 designation for that property. The Commission will see a recommendation from staff to retain the RLM but to change the zoning to R-1 to implement the General Plan. That action, if it ultimately is approved, would retain the same development potential that the current designation allows. Ms. Mobaldi proposed language to Bio-20 stating, "The agricultural activity on Parcel A shall not use chemical pesticides or fertilizers." Commissioner Segall asked if the wildlife agencies already addressed that issue with the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Ms. Werneke stated staff did not receive any comments on that particular mitigation measure. Mr. Neu added that many of the Commissions concerns are addressed in the water quality requirements. A motion was made by Commissioner Siekmann to amend Bio-20 as stated by Ms. Mobaldi. The motion passed 5-0. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner L'Heureux and duly seconded by Commissioner Segall that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 7102 recommending adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum; and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 7103 recommending approval of a General Plan Amendment (GPA 14-02) and Zone Change (ZC 14-01); adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 7104 recommending approval of Hillside Development Permit (HOP 14-04), Special Use Permit (SUP 14-03), and Minor Subdivision (MS 14-10); and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 7105 recommending approval of Habitat Management Plan Permit (HMP 14-02) based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein including the additional amendment to Bio-20 as stated by the Assistant City Attorney. VOTE: 5-0 AYES: Chairperson Scully, Commissioner L'Heureux, Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Segall and Commissioner Siekmann NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Anderson and Commissioner Black ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Scully closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 1. RECESS Chairperson Scully called for a 5 minute recess at 7:45 p.m. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Chairperson Scully called the meeting to order at 7:50p.m. with all Commissioners present, asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item and opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 2. 2. RP 14-22 -EL CORRAL -An appeal of the City Planner's decision to approve an Administrative Review Permit to allow for a delicatessen on property generally located at 3040 Carlsbad Boulevard in Land Use District 1 of the Village Review zone and within the Village Segment of the Local Coastal Program and Local Facilities Management Zone 1. The City Planner has determined that this project belongs to a class of projects that the State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the environment, and is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15303. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 2 and stated Associate Planner Austin Silva would make the staff presentation. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO: CITY CLERK DATEOFPUBUCHEARING: 7/,;urji'f> . SUBJECT: ~""' 6VJc:L fY\t..fyy-~h·E'rY'-/ LOCATION: . ~s~ v~..o Dv"\.1e, DATE NOTICES MAILED TO PROPERTY OWNER J_ /tS US. I / NUMBER MAILED: _ _:::58''--=-. ___ _ I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State .of California that I am employed by the City of Carlsbad and the foregoing is true and correct. CITY CLERK'S OFFICE ~~ . [tf!;jts-/;s-. (Signature) 1 (Dite) SENT TO FOR PUBLIC TION VIA E-MAIL TO: _fi Union Tribune . 0 CoastNews PUBLICATION DATE: Union Tribune. ___ 7-'-+-/_::_I~J-+---1--/;._SJ-t!!_ ____ ~~r 1 Coast News -----~-------------------- I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that I am employed by the City of Carlsbad in the City Clerk's Office and the foregoing is true and 00~ . Date: ] I rs-/cr I I (Signature) Attachments: 1) Mailing Labels 2) Notice w/ attachments NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chamber, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 28, 2015, to consider adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum; and approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Hillside Development Permit, Special Use Permit, Habitat Management Plan Permit and Minor Subdivision to allow for the implementation of habitat mitigation associated with the development of College Boulevard Reach "A" on two parcels (APN 209-060-71, 72) totaling 17.44 acres (16.43 net acres) located north of the intersection of College Boulevard and Sunny Creek Road and south of the intersection of Cannon Road and College Boulevard, within Local Facilities Management Zone 15 and more particularly described as: Northern Parcel, APN 209-060-71 That portion of Lot 'B' of Rancho Agua Hedionda in the County of San Diego, State of California, according to the map thereof, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, November 16, 1896. Said parcel being described as Parcel A of Certificate of Compliance recorded March 27, 2007 as instrument No. 2007-0205890 of official records. Southern Parcel, APN 209-060-72 That portion of Lot 'B' of Rancho Agua Hedionda in the County of San Diego, State of California, according to the map thereof No. 823, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, November 16, 1896. Said parcel being described as Parcel D of Certificate of Compliance recorded September 13, 2007 as instrument No. 2007-0603110 of official records Whereas, on June 3, 2015 the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission voted 5-0 (Commissioners Black and Anderson absent) to recommend adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum; and to recommend approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Hillside Development Permit, Special Use Permit, Habitat Management Plan Permit and Minor Subdivision to allow for the implementation of habitat mitigation associated with the development of College Boulevard Reach "A" on two parcels (APN 209-060-71, 72) totaling 17.44 acres (16.43 net acres) located north of the intersection of College Boulevard and Sunny Creek Road and south of the intersection of Cannon Road and College Boulevard, within Local Facilities Management Zone 15. The City Planner has determined that through the implementation of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum, the proposed project avoids the effects or mitigates the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the project "as revised" may have a significant effect on the environment. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the agenda bill will be available on and after July 24, 2015. If you have any questions, please contact Shannon Werneke in the Planning Division at (760) 602-4621 or §lli~IlQiJlJ8£i'IDJ~l2~!£@1J1~~~1Q~~Q.!;JX. If you challenge the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Hillside Development Permit, Special Use Permit, Habitat Management Plan Permit and/or Minor Subdivision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk's Office, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 CASE NAME: COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION PUBLISH: July 17, 2015 CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL NOT TO SCALE College Boulevard Mitigation GPA 14-02 I ZC14-01 I HOP 14-04 I SUP 14-03 I HMP 14-02 I MS 14-10 E~:JSJ Peel® labels Use Avery® Template 5160® ' II CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 6225 EL CAMINO REAL I CARLSBAD CA 92011 1, I I I J, II SAN DI-~GUITO ~CHOOL D~TRICT ---- 710 ENCINITAS BLVD I ENCINITAS CA 92024 1, ___ ------------------------- r CITY OF ENCINITAS 505 S VULCAN AV ENCINITAS CA 92024 CITY OF VISTA 200 CIVIC CENTER DR VISTA CA 92084 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE 3883 RUFFIN RD SAN DIEGO CA 92123 '>-------------------~-------------~~ SAN DIEGO LAFCO STE 200 9335 HAZARD WAY SAN DIEGO CA 92123 U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE STE 250 2177 SALKAV CARLSBAD CA 92011 ~~------------- CARLSBAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 5934 PRIESTLEY DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 ~'Jjquettes fadles a peler Utilisez le gabarit AVERv® 5160® I I l .6. -FeedPaper- I Bend alo111g line to 1 expose Pop-up EdgeTM J SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DISTRICT STE 250 255 PICOAV SAN MARCOS CA 92069. LEUCADIA WASTE WATER DISTRICT TIM JOCHEN 1960 LA COSTA AV CARLSBAD CA 92009 CITY OF SAN MARCOS 1 CIVIC CENTER DR SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949 VALLECITOS WATER DISTRICT 201 VALLECITOS DE ORO SAN MARCOS CA 92069 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD STE 100 2375 NORTHSIDE DR SAN DIEGO CA 92108-2700 AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 10124 OLD GROVE RD SAN DIEGO CA 92131 CA COASTAL COMMISSION ATIN KANAN! BROWN STE 103 7575 METROPOLITAN DR SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402 MICHAEL MCSWEENEY-BIA SD STE 110 9201 SPECTRUM CENTER BLVD SAN DIEGO CA 92123-1407 ------------------- ..6.. Sensde chargement Repliez a Ia hadiure afin de l reveler le rebord Pop-upMC j ENCINITAS SCHOOL DISTRICT 101 RANCHO SANTA FE RD ENCINITAS CA 92024 OLIVENHAIN WATER DISTRICT 1966 OLIVENHAIN RD ENCINITAS CA 92024 CITY OF OCEANSIDE 300 NORTH COAST HWY OCEANSIDE CA 92054 I.P.U.A. SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND URBAN STUDIES SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505 SD COUNTY PLANNING STE 110 5510 OVERLAND AV SAN DIEGO CA 92123-1239 SANDAG STE 800 401 B ST SAN DIEGO CA 92101 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION SAN DIEGO CO. AIRPORT AUTHORITY PO BOX 82776 SAN DIEGO CA 92138-2776 www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY Easy Peel® Labels Use Avery® Template 5160®/8160™ W P GOLF & EQUESTRIAN L L C 5796 ARMADA DR #300 CARLSBAD CA 92008 I BEPTON INVESTMENTS L L C I 3334 E COAST HWY #345 CORONA DL MAR CA 92625 DEAN SUSAN M REVOCABLE TRUST 03-31-97 1405 OCEAN CREST AVE : CARLSBAD CA 92011 i FORREST C & YVONNE M POOLE PSC 558 BOX 37 43 FPO AP 96375 I JOHN SHIBUYA I 2424 BADGER LN CARLSBAD CA 92010 LEE S & MICHELLE D MILLER 2432 BADGER LN CARLSBAD CA 92010 I LYALL ENTERPRISES INC 1 15529 HIGHWAY 76 i PAUMA VALLEY CA 92061 ! RALPH ASCHER 1520 LA PLAZA DR SAN MARCOS CA 92078 STANISLAV & HANA VLNA 5411 FOXTAIL LOOP CARLSBAD CA 92010 TERRACES AT SUNNY CREEK 2006 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD #113 CARLSBAD CA 92011 Etiquettes fac;les a peler . . :1 1 Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 5160®/8160Mc l "' .. -FeedPaper- Bend along line to i' expose Pop-up Edge™ ) ARTURO & YADIRA Y NAVARRO 5431 FOXTAIL LOOP CARLSBAD CA 92010 CHI H & SOON A LEE 10480 SILVERWOOD RD APPLE VALLEY CA 92308 DEFOREST-MEHAN FAMILY TRUST 11-16-09 5403 FOXTAIL LOOP CARLSBAD CA 92010 HERBERT K & LAURIE B HABERMANN 5419 FOXTAIL LOOP CARLSBAD CA 92010 KRISHNA & SESHA ADUSUMILLI 5415 FOXTAIL LOOP CARLSBAD CA 92010 LORA A ZAROFF 5430 FOXTAIL LOOP CARLSBAD CA 92010 MARCIA K SHIMEK -650 E SOLANA CIR SOLANA BEACH CA 92075 ROBERT & ORASA WELDON c 5439 FOXTAIL LOOP CARLSBAD CA 92010 TERRACES AT SUNNY CREEK HOMEOWNERS ASSN 57 40 FLEET ST #200 CARLSBAD CA 92008 THOMAS STANLEY & ELEANOR TRUST 06-10-11 P 0 BOX 131764 CARLSBAD CA 92013 - - A. Sens de charqement I R.epliez a Ia hachure afin de il reveler le rebord Pop-upMC j ® AVERY® 6240™ ! A, BENT -WEST LLC 5796 ARMADA DR #300 CARLSBAD CA 92008 DANIEL R & SORTER AMYL FITZPATRICK 5414 FOXTAIL LOOP CARLSBAD CA 92010 DWIGHT & DAWN VALLELY P 0 BOX 1548 CARLSBAD CA 92018 JACK A & ARLENE J RANDALL 5407 FOXTAIL LOOP CARLSBAD CA 92010 LARRY HERBINAUX 5402 FOXTAIL LOOP CARLSBAD CA 92010 LOUIS L LANGFORD 3300 NEEDLES HWY #115 LAUGHLIN NV 89029 MARTIN J & JOYCE M SPRING 1875 CANYON PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 ROBERT P & ROBINSON-KELLY KAREN R KELLY 2770 SUNNY CREEK RD CARLSBAD CA 92010 TERRACES AT SUNNY CREEK P 0 BOX 1310 OCEANSIDE CA 92051 TYLER & ERIN MITCHELL 5434 FOXTAIL LOOP CARLSBAD CA 92010 www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVEIRY : I A. Easy Peel® Labels Use Avery® Template 5160® /8160™ W P GOLF & EQUESTRIAN L L C 5796 ARMADA DR #300 CARLSBAD CA 92008 YOUNG FAMILY 2007 TRUST 12- 24-07 5410 FOXTAIL LOOP I CARLSBAD CA 92010 City. Clerk City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 I Etiquettes faciles a peler :! Utilisez le qabarit AVERY® 5160®/8160Mc :: lA -FeedPaper-- Bend along line to !I expose Pop-up Edge™ ~ W S L DOS COLINAS RIE L L C 5796 ARMADA DR #300 CARLSBAD CA 92008 Sens de rh:trnAmP.nt Repliez a Ia hachure afin de I' reveler le rebord PO!l·UPMC ] WAL-MART STORES INC 1301 SE 10TH ST BENTONVILLE AR 72712 www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVEIRY PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2010 & 2011 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of The San Diego Union Tribune Formerly known as the North County Times and UT North County and which newspaper has been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, for the City of Oceanside and the City of Escondido, Court Decree numbers 171349 & 172171, for the County of San Diego, that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpariel), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: July 17th, 2015 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Oceanside, California On This 17th, of July 2015 Jane Allshouse The San Diego Union Tribune Legal Advertising This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp Proof of Publication of NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your in-terest may be affected, that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Coun-cil Chamber, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 28, 2015, to consider adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Moni-toring and Reporting Program and Addendum; and approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Hillside Develop- ment Permit, Special Use Permit, Habitat Management Plan Permit and Minor Subdivision to allow for the Implementation of habitat mitigation associated with the development of College Boulevard Reach "A" on two parcels (APN 209..()6()-71, 72) total-ing 17.44 acres (16.43 net acres) located north of the intersection of College Boulevard and Sunny Creek Road and south of the in-tersection of Cannon Road and College Boulevard, within Local Facilities Management Zone 15 and more particularly described as: Northern Parcel, APN 209-4160-71 That POrtion of Lot 'B' of Rancho Ague Hedionda in the County of San Diego, State of California, according to the map thereof, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, November 16, 1896. Said parcel being described as Parcel A of Certificate of Compli-ance recorded March 27, 2007 as instrument No. 2007-0205890 of official records. Southern Parcel, APN 209-G60-72 That POrtion of Lot 'B' of Rancho Ague Hedionda in the County of San Diego, State of California, according to the map thereof No. 823, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, November 16, 1896. Said parcel being described as Parcel D of Certificate of Com-pliance recorded September 13, 2007 as instrument No. 2007-0603110 of official records .-------------------~ Whereas, on June 3, 2015 the City of Carlsbad Planning Commis-sion voted s-o (Commissioners Black and Anderson absent} to recommend adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Miti-gation Monitoring and RePOrting Program and Addendum; and to recommend approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Hillside Development Permit, Special Use Permit, Habitat Management Plan Permit and Minor Subdivision to al- low for the implementation of habitat mitigation associated with the development of College Boulevard Reach "A" on two parcels (APN 209-060.71, 72) totaling 17.44 acres (16.43 net acres) locat-ed north of the intersection of College Boulevard and Sunny Creek Road and south of the intersection of Cannon Road and College Boulevard, within Local Facilities Management Zone 15. The City Planner has determined that through the imple-mentation of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mit-Igation, Monitoring and RePOrting Program and Addendum, the proPOsed proiect avoids the effects or mitigates the effects to a POint where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the project "as revised" may have a significant effect on the environment. Those persons wishing to speak on this proPOsal are cordially in-vited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the agenda bill will be available on and offer July 24, 2015. If you have any ques-tions, please contact Shannon Werneke in the Planning Division at (760) 602-4621 or shannon.werneke@Carlsbadca.gov . If you challenge the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Hillside Development Permit, Special Use Permit, Habitat Management Plan Permit and/or Minor Subdivision In court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written corresPOndence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk's Office, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive. Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-0JIHMP 14-02/MS 14-10 CASE NAME: COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION C J:.Y..QE ARLSBAD-CJ OU IJ-----~""'-'-7l1U1<=---< City Council Agenda Item No. 15 College Boulevard Mitigation July 28, 2015 Staff: Shannon Werneke, Associate Planner Location Map EL C A M I N O R E A L BADGER LNRANCHO CARLSBAD DRFOXTAIL LPSUNNY CREEK R DCAMINO HILLS DRCOLLEGE BLWOLVERINE TR GPA 14-02 / ZC14-01 / HDP 14-04 / SUP 14-03 / HMP 14-02 College Boulevard Mitigation SITE MAPEL CAM REALC AR LSBAD VILL AG E D R C A RLSBA D BLL A COSTA AV PALOM AR AIRP ORT R D MELR OSE D RAVIARA P Y RANCHO S ANTA FE RDCOLL EGE BLEL CAMI NO REALCollege Blvd. Reach “A” BADGERLNWOLVERINETR EL C A M I N O R E A L SUNNYCREEKRD COLLEGE BLRE E F C R 0 300 600150 Feet GPA 14-02 / ZC14-01 / HDP 14-04 / SUP 14-03 / HMP 14-02 / MS 14-10 College Boulevard Mitigation Background •EIR 98-02;allowed for the construction of College Boulevard Reach “A”and Detention Basin “BJ” •Includes bridge over Agua Hedionda Creek •Biological mitigation required to construct improvements Existing Setting Existing Setting Existing Setting Existing Setting Site Plan Parcel A Parcel D Parcel B Parcel C Cross Section Proposed Grade Existing Grade General Plan Amendment EXISTING PROPOSED *Net gain of 5.44 acres of OS *Depositing 4.57 units into EDUB Zone Change EXISTING PROPOSED Hillside Development Permit Special Use Permit Existing Floodplain Proposed Floodplain Habitat Management Plan Permit EXISTING PROPOSED Environmental Review Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared 30-day notice, April 7-May 6, 2015 Potentially significant impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, and hazards/hazardous materials Mitigation proposed to reduce impacts to less than significant level Addendum to MND Cultural resource mitigation measures revised to address comments received from the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians No new significant impacts;recirculation not required Planning Commission Action Recommended approval June 3, 2015 (5-0); Mitigation measure BIO-20 modified to prohibit use of pesticides on Parcel A (future garden) Discussion re: Parcel D, proposed to remain vacant; no change to General Plan/Zoning; Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate environmental document Discussion re: access to Lubliner parcel on east side of future extension of College Blvd; temporary access easement exists 19 Project Consistency General Plan/Zoning -Preservation of open space -5.44-acre net gain of permanently-designated open space Habitat Management Plan -Wildlife Agency HMP concurrence received May 18, 2015 CEQA -Impacts reduced to less than significant level with the incorporation of mitigation Recommendation Introduce Ordinance No.CS-282 approving Zone Change ZC 14-01, and adopt Resolution No.2015-207 adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration,Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum and approving General Plan Amendment GPA 14-02,Hillside Development Permit HDP 14-04,Special Use Permit SUP 14-03,Habitat Management Plan Permit HMP 14-02, and Minor Subdivision MS 14-10 to allow for the implementation of habitat mitigation associated with the development of College Boulevard Reach “A”on two parcels (APN 209-060-71,72)totaling 17.44 acres (16.43 net acres)located north of the intersection of College Boulevard and Sunny Creek Road and south of the intersection of Cannon Road and College Boulevard,within Local Facilities Management Zone 15. Lubliner Aerial 22 Protect Impacts Exisung Ch311nel Histone Ch311nel Bottom Wetland Mfligabon Area (3.1 acres) 24 Parcel A Parcel D Parcel B Parcel C Correspondence Received •David Bentley,BENTEQ (response prepared) •Michele Staples (Mandana)(response prepared) •Diane Nygaard,Preserve Calavera (response prepared) •San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians •Lyall Enterprises (letter of support) •Rancho Carlsbad Owners Assoc.(letter of support) •Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation (letter of support) •Wildlife Agency HMP Concurrence,May 18,2015