HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-08-17; Planning Commission; Resolution 59511
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5951
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM TO SUBDIVIDE AND GRADE 8 1.3 1 ACRES INTO
49 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND THREE OPEN SPACE LOTS
ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF
RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD ALONG THE CITY’S EASTERN
BOUNDARY IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE
11.
CASE NAME: SHELLEY PROPERTY
CASE NO.: GPA 03-1 1/ZC 03-09/CT 02-1 7/HDP 02-081
HMPP 05-04
WHEREAS, Fair Oaks Valley, LLC, “Developer/Owner,” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
That portion of the east half of Lot 6 of Rancho Las Encinitas,
in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California, according to Map thereof No. 848, filed in the
Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, June 27,
1898. (APN 223-061-01-00 and 223-061-02-00)
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program was prepared in conjunction with said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of August, 2005, hold
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
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
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Exhibit
“NOI” dated February 10, 2005, and “PII” dated January 31, 2005, attached
hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
1.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Shelley Property the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments
thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental
Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
d. based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PC RES0 NO. 5951 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th day of August 2005, by the Commissi
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez,
Heineman, Montgomery, and Whitton
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Cardosa * JEFFRE N. SEGALL, airperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
DON NEU
Assistant Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5951 -3-
- City of Carlsbad
RECIRCULATED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME:
CASE NO:
SHELLEY PROPERTY
GPA 03-1 1/ZC 03-09/CT 02-17/HDP 02-08/HMPP 05-04
PROJECT LOCATION: Southeast of Rancho Santa Fe Road and Melrose Drive along the City’s eastern
boundary in the southeast quadrant of the City and bounded to the east by the County of San Diego, to the south by City of
Encinitas and to the north and west by Villages of La Costa Master Plan area.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of a General Plan Amendment to the RLM and OS land use designations
to delineate the boundaries of the HMP open space preserve and allocate the permitted density to the developable portion of
the property, a Zone Change to ensure consistency with the General Plan, and a Tentative Subdivision Map, and Hillside
Development Permit to grade and subdivide 49 single family, 10,000 square foot (minimum) lots and three open space lots on
81 acres located southeast of Rancho Santa Fe Road along the City’s eastern boundary in the southeast quadrant of the City.
Grading would occur on approximately 26.6 acres or 33% of the site to create the subdivided single family lots and associated
infrastructure. An earthen vegetated swale will be located within the preserve to ensure water quality, and a sewer line will
bisect the southern portion of the preserve. A trail is proposed on existing dirt paths through the property from the northern to
southern boundaries where connections will be made to trails within the County and the City of Encinitas. The City will
require an irrevocable offer of dedication for 102’ of public right-of-way across the preserve from the eastern project
boundary to the eastern property boundary to enable the extension of a General Plan Circulation Element arterial roadway
(Melrose Drive) at some future date. Because the County of San Diego, which abuts the property to the east, and the City of
Encinitas, which abuts the property to the south, have indicated that their General Plans include no future circulation arterial
roadway connections to a roadway through the Shelley property, construction of the roadway is not proposed or required.
The project is proposing to connect an 8” gravity sewer to an existing line located within the Leucadia Wastewater District
(LWD) service area. The property is currently within the LWD sphere of influence; therefore it is necessary for LWD to
process documents required by LAFCO to annex the property into its service area. This annexation was anticipated for sewer
facilities to serve the project by the City’s applicable Zone 11 Local Facilities Management Plan.
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 (EL4 Part 2) identified potentially significant
effects on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows:
Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant
effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project.
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).
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.
0
0
A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning
Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008.
ADOPTED: ADDroved September 27,2005. pursuant to Citv Council Resolution No. 2005-294
n
DON NEU
Assistant Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
- City of Carlsbad
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLAkATION
CASE NAME:
CASE NO:
SHELLEY PROPERTY
GPA 03-1 11ZC 03-091CT 02-17/HDP 02-08IHMPP 05-04
PROJECT LOCATION: Southeast of Rancho Santa Fe Road and Melrose Drive along the City’s eastern
boundary in the southeast quadrant of the City and bounded to the east by the County of San Diego, to the south by
City of Encinitas and to the north and west by Villages of La Costa Master Plan area.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of a General Plan Amendment to the RLM and OS land use
designations to delineate the boundaries of the HMP open space preserve and allocate the permitted density to the
developable portion of the property, a Zone Change to ensure consistency with the General Plan, and a Tentative
Subdivision Map, and Hillside Development Permit to grade and subdivide 49 single family, 10,000 square foot
(minimum) lots and three open space lots on 81 acres located southeast of Rancho Santa Fe Road along the City’s
eastern boundary in the southeast quadrant of the City. Grading would occur on approximately 26.6 acres or 33% of
the site to create the subdivided single family lots and associated infrastructure. An earthen vegetated swale will be
located within the preserve to ensure water quality, and a sewer line and access road will bisect the southern portion
of the preserve. A trail is proposed on existing dirt paths through the property from the northern to southern
boundaries where connections will be made to trails within the County and the City of Encinitas. The City will
require an irrevocable offer of dedication for 102’ of public right-of-way across the preserve from the eastern project
boundary to the eastern property boundary to enable the extension of a General Plan Circulation Element arterial
roadway (Melrose Drive) at some future date. Because the County of San Diego, which abuts the property to the
east, and the City of Encinitas, which abuts the property to the south, have indicated that their General Plans include
no future circulation arterial roadway connections to a roadway through the Shelley property, construction of the
roadway is not proposed or required.
The project is proposing to connect an 8” gravity sewer to an existing line located within the Leucadia Wastewater
District (LWD) service area. The property is currently within the LWD sphere of influence; therefore it is necessary
for LWD to process documents required by LAFCO to annex the property into its service area. This annexation was
anticipated for sewer facilities to serve the project by the City’s applicable Zone 11 Local Facilities Management
Plan.
PROPOSED DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above
described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the
Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EL4 Part 2)
identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made
by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public
review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the
environment would OCCLU, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the
project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative
Declaration will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad City Council.
A copy of the initial study (EL4 Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments
from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of the
date of this notice.
The proposed project and Mitigated Negative Declaration are subject to review and approvalladoption by the City of
Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council. Additional public notices will be issued when those public
hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Ann Hysong in the Planning Department at (760) 602-
4622.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD
PUBLISH DATE FEBRUARY 10,2005
FEBRUARY 10,2005 THROUGH MARCH 9,2005
@ 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
CASE NO: GPA 03-1 1/ZC 03-09/CT 02-1 7MDP 02-08MMPP 05-04
DATE: December 19,2003
Revised: January 3 1,2005
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
CASE NAME: Shelley Property
LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Van Lynch, (760) 602-4613
PROJECT LOCATION: Eastern terminus of Camino Juniper0 in the southeastern corner
of the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County. APN 223-061-01 and 02
PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: Robert Ladwia, Ladwia Design
Group, Inc.. 703 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 300, Carlsbad, CA 92009
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RL/OS
ZONING: R-1-40,000
OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (Le., permits,
financing approval or participation agreements): USFWSEDFG
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
The site is located southeast of Rancho Santa Fe Road along the City’s eastern boundary
in the southeast quadrant where it is surrounded to the north by open space, to the south
by large lot residential development in the City of Encinitas, to the east by vacant land in
the County of San Diego, and to the west by future single-family development in Villages
of La Costa. Topographically, the property slopes moderately up fi-om the south to the
northeast with elevations ranging from 366’ to 690’ MSL. The City’s General Plan
designates the southern 60+ acres of the property for Residential Low (RL) density (0 -
1.5 ddacre) development with corresponding zoning of R-1-40,000, and the northern
20.5 acres of the property, which includes an 100’ wide San Diego Gas & Electric
transmission line easement that traverses the property from east to west, is designated for
Open Space. The open space is occupied by coastal sage scrub (CSS) habitat. The
remainder of the site, which has been disturbed by cattle grazing for many years, is
occupied by non-native grassland. An isolated north-south broken blue-line stream
extends approximately 1000’ north of the southern property line within the eastern
portion of the property; however, it no longer qualifies as Jurisdictional Waters of the
1 Rev. 07/03/02
U.S. because the drainage has been isolated by development to the south. A second east
to west drainage that bisects the northern portion of the property within existing open
space is Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.
The northern, eastern and southern portions of the site are designated as a hardline
preserve area in the City’s draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP). The project consists of
a General Plan Amendment to delineate the boundaries of the HMP open space preserve
and allocate the permitted density to the developable portion of the property, a Zone
Change to ensure consistency with the General Plan, a Tentative Subdivision Map and
Hillside Development Permit to grade and subdivide 49 standard single family, 10,000
square foot (minimum) lots and three open space lots on 81 acres. Grading would occur
on approximately 26.6 acres or 33% of the site to create the subdivided single-family lots
and associated infrastructure. An earthen vegetated swale will be located within the
preserve to ensure water quality, and a sewer line will bisect the southern portion of the
preserve. A trail is proposed on existing dirt paths through the property from the northern
to southern boundaries where connections will be made to trails within the County and
the City of Encinitas. The City will require an irrevocable offer of dedication for 102’ of
public right-of-way across the preserve from the eastern project boundary to the eastern
property boundary to enable the extension of a General Plan Circulation Element arterial
roadway (Melrose Drive) at some future date. Because the County of San Diego, which
abuts the property to the east, and the City of Encinitas, which abuts the property to the
south, have indicated that their General Plans include no fbture circulation arterial
roadway connections to a roadway through the Shelley property, construction of the
roadway is not proposed or required.
The Shelley project is proposing to connect an 8” gravity sewer to an existing line located
within the Leucadia Wastewater District (LWD) service area. The property is currently
within the LWD sphere of influence; therefore it is necessary for LWD to process
documents required by LAFCO to annex the property into its service area. This
annexation was anticipated for sewer facilities to serve the project by the City’s
applicable Zone 11 Local Facilities Management Plan.
2 Rev. 07/03/02
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.
0 Aesthetics 0 Geology/Soils Noise
0 Agricultural Resources HazardsMazardous 0 Population and Housing
0 Air Quality
Biological Resources [7 Recreation
Cultural Resources TransportatiodCirculation
Materials
0 Hydrology/Water Quality
0 Land Use and Planning
0 Mineral Resources
(XI Mandatory Findings of
0 Public Services
Utilities & Service Systems
Significance
3 Rev. 07/03/02
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0
IXI
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL, IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have “potentially significant impact(s)” on the
environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards
and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL,
IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing hrther is
required.
$nX 2/11 /or
Planning Director’s Signature Date
4 Rev. 07/03/02
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct
an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on
the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the
form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that
might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the
basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
“Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
“Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City
must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a
less than significant level.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significantly adverse.
Based on an “EM-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
adverse effect on the environment, but fl potentially significant adverse effects (a) have
been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR
or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a
supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required
by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no
additional environmental document is required.
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an
earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a
“Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
5 Rev. 07/03/02
e A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the
environment.
e If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid
preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to
less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior
to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless
Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be
prepared.
6 Rev. 07IQ3lQ2
e An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse
effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable
standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the
adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations”
for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3)
proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or
(4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance
for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in
reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should
be given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant.
7 Rev. 07fQ3f02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a State scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
11. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - (In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model-1 997 prepared by the California
Department of Conservation as an optional model to use
in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would
the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless Impact
[XI 0
0 0 Ix1
0 0 IXI
0 0 [XI
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or 0 0 Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a 0 0 Williamson Act contract?
Involve other changes in the existing environment, 0 which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
111. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied
upon to make the following determinations.) Would the
project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 0
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute 0 0
applicable air quality plan?
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
cl [XI
0 IXI
0 IXI
IXI
[XI
8 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation Incorporated
0 0 IXI 0 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 0 concentrations? Ixl
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial 0 0 number of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the
project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or 0 IXI through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, o aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations or by California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally 0 protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filing, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any 0 native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances 0 0
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat c] o
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally 0 0 sensitive?
0 IXI
0 0
IXI 0
IXI 0
IXI 0
0 IXI
Ixl 0
0 Ixl
9 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a historical resource as defined in 0 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of an archeological resource pursuant to 9 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?
IV. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide,
lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or
collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 -
1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use
of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless Impact
0 0 IXI
0 0 IXI
0 0 IXI
0 0 IXI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IXI 0
IXI 0
IXI 0
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 (XI
10 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
IV. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -
Would the project:
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
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?
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
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?
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?
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?
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
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?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless Impact
0 0 Ixl
0 0 Ixl
0 0 Ixl
0 0 IXI
0
0
0
0
0
0 IXI
0 €24
0 Ixl
IXI 0
0 IXI
11 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless Impact
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with ground water recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local ground water table
level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
0 0 Ixl
0 Ixl
0 Ixl
0
0
0
0
c) Impacts to groundwater quality?
d) 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?
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in
a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
0 0
0 0 0 Ixl f) 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!
g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 0
0
0
cl
0 1xI
0 IXI h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation
map?
0 0 IXI
0 IXI
i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures,
which would impede or redirect flood flows? 0
0 j) 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?
0
0 0 IXI
0 IXI
k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface
waters.
12 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 Ix) m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals,
pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics,
nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash)
into receiving surface waters or other alteration of
receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
0
0 n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction?
0 0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water
body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d)
list?
0
0 p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater
receiving water quality objectives or degradation of
beneficial uses?
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
0 0 o 0
CI c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation 0
plan or natural community conservation plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
0 a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region
and the residents of the State?
0
o 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?
0
X. NOISE - Would the project result in:
IXI 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?
0
IXI b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise
levels?
IXI
El
0 Ix)
0 Ix)
[XI
Ix1
0 Ix)
0 IXI
0 0
0 o
13 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise 0
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in 0
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?
X. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered government facilities, a need for
new or physically altered government facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0 0
LessThan No
Significant Impact
Impact
IXI
0 0
0 IXI
0 IXI
IXI
0 IXI
0 IXI
14 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
XIV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project:
Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
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?
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Result in inadequate emergency access?
Result in insufficient parking capacity?
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn-
outs, bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the
project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which would
cause significant environmental effects?
Potentially
Significanl
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless Impact
0 0 IXI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(XI 0
(XI 0
0 IXI
0 IXI
El
0 El
0 IXI
(XI
0 IXI
Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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?
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
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?
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs?
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
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?
Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumula-
tively considerable” means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable hture projects?)
Does the project have environmental effects, which
will cause the substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
EARLIER ANALYSES
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated 0 0 0 IXI
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 IXI
0 0
0 IXI
0 (XI
0 IXI
o (XI
[XI
0
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)@). In this case a discussion should identify the following on
attached sheets:
16 Rev. 07/03/02
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
17 Rev. 07/03/02
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
AESTHETICS -Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less than Significant Impact - The project site is not located in proximity to a scenic corridor
and minimal visual impacts will result from future development of single family homes that
are surrounded by an open space preserve area on three sides.
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?
No Impact (b & c)- The project site is undeveloped and partially disturbed by past cattle grazing
activity. There are no scenic resources on the site. The proposed land subdivision and
grading will occur within this previously disturbed area and will not degrade the visual
character or quality of the site. There are no visually significant trees, rock outcroppings, or
vegetation that could be damaged ftom future development of the site. Future single-family
homes will be required to comply with the City’s development standards that ensure high
quality design and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhoods. Therefore, the project
will not damage scenic resources or degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings.
b) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
No Impact - The proposed single-family lots will not create significant new sources of light and
glare. Two-thirds of the site will remain undeveloped and lighting produced by future single-
family homes and street lighting that is adjacent to similar development will be minimal.
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
b) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact - The project site is not considered Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland
of Statewide Importance. Therefore, the proposed project will not convert farmland to a non-
agricultural use.
a) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
18 Rev. 07/03/02
No Impact - The site is designated by the General Plan for Residential Low density development
and is not subject to a Williamson Act contract.
b) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their
location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-
agricultural use?
No Impact:
residential lots.
The project consists of the subdivision of residentially designated land into
AIR QUALITY-Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a federal and state
non-attainment area for ozone (O3), and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less
than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PMlo). The periodic violations of national Ambient Air
Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland
foothill areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be
undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is
embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution
Control District (APCD) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG).
A plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of
updating the 1991 state-mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other
California non-attainment areas having serious ozone problems and used to create the California
State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by the Air Resources Board (ARB) after
public hearings on November gfh through lofh in 1994, and was forwarded to the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly
regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996.
The proposed project relates to the SIP andor RAQS through the land use and growth
assumptions that are incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth
assumptions are based on each city’s and the County’s general plan. If a proposed project is
consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the project presumably has been anticipated with
the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that the project would
not have an adverse regional air quality impact.
Section 15125Q3) of the State of California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines
contains specific reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed
project and the applicable air quality management plan. Transportation Control Measures
(TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set forth the steps needed to
accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California Air
Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS
which include the following:
0
0
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?
19 Rev. 07/03/02
The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a
RAQS is being implemented. The project is consistent with the growth assumptions of the City’s
General Plan and the RAQS. Therefore, the project is consistent with the regional air quality
plan and will in no way conflict or obstruct implementation of the regional plan.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
Less Than Significant Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is in
the City of Oceanside. Data available for this monitoring site through April, 2002 indicate that
the most recent air quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (one
day in both 2000 and 2001) and one day in 2001 for the federal 8-hour average for ozone and one
day for the 24-hour state standard for suspended particulates in 1996. No violations of any other
air quality standards have been recorded recently. The project would involve minimal short-term
emissions associated with grading and construction. Such emissions would be minimized
through standard construction measures such as the use of properly tuned equipment and
watering the site for dust control. Long-term emissions associated with travel to and from the
project will be minimal. Although air pollutant emissions would be associated with the project,
they would neither result in the violation of any air quality standard (comprising only an
incremental contribution to overall air basin quality readings), nor contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation. Any impact is assessed as less than significant.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant
for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Air Basin is currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone
and suspended fine particulates. The proposed project would represent a contribution to a
cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As
described above, however, emissions associated with the proposed project would be minimal.
Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the proposed project, air quality would be
essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. According to the
CEQA Guidelines Section 15 130 (a)(4), the proposed project’s contribution to the cumulative
impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than significant.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
No Impact. As noted above, the proposed project would not result in substantial pollutant
emissions or concentrations. In addition, there are no sensitive receptors (e.g., schools or
hospitals) located in the vicinity of the project. No impact is assessed.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
No Impact. The construction of the proposed project could generate fumes fiom the operation
of construction equipment, which may be considered objectionable by some people. Such
exposure would be short-term or transient. In addition, the number of people exposed to such
transient impacts is not considered substantial.
20 Rev. Q7IQ3lQ2
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated:
The 8 1 -acre property contains a negotiated Habitat Management Plan (HMP) hardline preserve
area that is approximately 52.87 acres (not including 1.9 acres of trail) or two-thirds of the
property. The site is occupied by the following sensitive habitats and plant and animal species:
13.9 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat and 6.2 acres of disturbed coastal sage scrub habitat
located in the northern third of the property that is currently designated as permanent open space;
61.2 acres of non-native grassland (identified as sensitive habitat requiring mitigation by the
City’s HMP); 1,092 individuals of the San Diego Goldenstar (Muilla clevelandii) plant species,
which is a narrow endemic species required to be preserved by the City’s HMP; and two species
(San Diego sagewort and California adolphia) identified as a list 2 rare plant species by the
California Native Plant Society. Sensitive animal species that are also identified as HMP species
requiring conservation and management within HMP preserve areas were observed on the site
during several surveys conducted between 1999 and 2002. Species include the Rufous crowned
sparrow (single individual observed in 1999 survey only), California gnatcatchers, and San Diego
horned lizard (single individual observed in 1999 survey only). Sightings of gnatcatchers have
all occurred north of the power line easement within existing open space that is occupied by
coastal sage scrub habitat. At least two pairs of gnatcatchers are believed to occupy the site. A
recent survey of the site (April 27,2005) by Dossey and Associates did not identify any changes
to the previous vegetation mapping. The lack of grazing activity on the site hasn’t caused the site
to even begin reverting to coastal sage scrub.
Direct ImpactsMitiaation:
Biological impacts resulting from the project include 26.6 acres of non-native grassland within
the proposed development footprint and a 12,000 square foot strip (20’ x 600’) that will be
disturbed by installation of a sewer pipeline that extends to the southern property line. A trail
that occupies approximately 1.9 acres will also be built primarily along existing dirt roads in the
open space. A portion of the trail would also serve as a sewer access road for the sewer pipeline
mentioned above thereby avoiding further disturbance to non-native grassland. These impacts
will be mitigated through preservation of 32.7 acres within the preserve area south of the
SDG&E easement. Due to the presence of gnatcatchers within coastal sage scrub habitat on the
property, vegetation clearing activities shall take place outside of the breeding season for raptors
and gnatcatchers (February 15 to August 31). Prior to construction activity, the project will
conduct a raptor and gnatcatcher survey on the property to determine if there are any active nests.
If nests are located, a temporary 500 foot buffer shall be established between construction
activities and active raptor nests and a 300 foot temporary buffer for active gnatcatcher nests so
that nesting activities are not interrupted. If there are any White Tailed Kites in adjacent
developed areas, they will be detected during the raptor surveys, and a 500 foot buffer established
around them.
21 Rev. 07/03/02
The non-native grassland area is presumed to originally be a coastal sage scrub habitat based on
the surrounding plant communities and indicator species present. If a coastal sage scrub habitat
begins to emerge, the coastal sage scrub should be allowed to develop and replace the non-native
grassland.
A total of 1,092 San Diego Goldenstar plants were observed on the property. Impacts to this
narrow endemic plant species were avoided through a project redesign that avoids nearly all
individuals and limits direct impact to an estimated two individuals out of the 1,092 total
individuals observed in 2003, thereby preserving 99% of the San Diego Goldenstar observed
onsite. The Goldenstar will be separated from the landscaped slopes by a brow ditch drainage
structure to keep the hydrology of the preserve area from changing. Some populations will
remain within fire management zones for the project. Current circumstances wouldn’t require
any clearing for fire protection within those areas where the San Diego Goldenstar occurs. Any
future Zone 3 brush management within Open Space Lot A shall be done without disturbing the
ground and shall require a biological monitor. Activities in the proximity to the San Diego
Goldenstar shall occur between July 1 and November 30, when the plant is not expected to have
foliage above the ground and no heavy equipment will be used that may compact the soil.
Project CC&Rs shall be required to incorporate these restrictions. Preservation of the San
Diego sagewort and California adolphia is not required by the MHCP or HMP; therefore; it is
assumed that mitigation through preservation of native habitats within the habitat preserve areas
incorporates these species.
Temporary Impactshlitigation:
Temporary impacts include 1.7 acres of non-native grassland within the HMP preserve area
resulting from grading of slopes outside the subdivision footprint and a 40’ x 200’ drainage
swale extending from the eastern boundary of the subdivision into the preserve area. The swale
is a permanent structure made of natural material designed to slow, clean and desilt the run-off
from portions of the subdivision. The swale is compatible with the open space in that it would be
entirely of earthen construction beyond the initial outfall. The swale would be planted with
native grasses and possible riparian species if sufficiently wet. All of the temporary impacts
would be within the proposed preserve area. In summary, the temporary impacts would involve
grading, excavating and/or installing the improvements mentioned above and mitigation would
consist of revegetating the impacted areas with native grassland. A revegetation plan shall be
prepared and approved by the City and wildlife agencies prior to commencement of work.
Indirect Impactshlitigation:
Brush Management: The areas requiring Zones 1 and 2 brush management are entirely within
the development footprint. Thinning of shrubbery (Zone 3) brush management is required;
however, currently there is no area within Zone 3 that has any shrubs and certainly not enough
density to warrant thinning. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated to the San Diego Goldenstar
from Zone 3 brush management. Should Zone 3 brush management become necessary in the
future, the thinning shall be done with a biological monitor and without disturbing the ground.
Activities shall occur between July 1 and November 30, when the plant is not expected to have
foliage above the ground and no heavy equipment will be used that may compact the soil.
22 Rev. Q7IQ3lQ2
Drainage and Erosion: Temporary impact areas within the HMP preserve will be revegetated
with native plants to reduce/prevent erosion problems. This includes graded slopes and the swale
for desiltation. This is compatible with the HMP and no significant impacts are anticipated.
Landscaping: The temporary impact areas from grading will be revegetated with San Diego
County native plant species. The sewer line impacts will be passively restored to native
grasslands. These adjacent areas will be incorporated into the preserve. No significant impacts
are anticipated.
Lighting: All street lighting adjacent to the preserve will be from low pressure sodium sources
and, to whatever extent possible without compromising safety, directed away from the preserve
area. This is compatible with the HMP and no significant impacts are expected.
Fencing: All existing fencing within the preserve shall be dismantled and removed. Portions of
the boundary of the preserve area should be fenced with public access points that will limit
access and reduce overall impacts from residents and pets without preventing passive enjoyment
of the preserve area. Fence plans shall be approved by the USFWS prior to approval of final
landscape plans. This is compatible with the HMP and a positive impact is anticipated.
Signane: General signage shall be provided at the public access points noting that the area is a
preserve and explaining the rules of HMP preserve areas. A public information kiosk where land
managers can post notices regarding the preserve shall be placed at a public access point. This is
required by the HMP and will benefit the preserve. A positive impact is anticipated.
Exotic Species: Use of native species for landscaping in areas adjacent to the preserve shall be
required. Use of invasive exotics shall be excluded from all other project landscape plans.
Project CC&Rs shall be required to incorporate Lists A & B of the California Exotic Pest Plant
Council’s list of “Exotic Pest Plants of Greatest Ecological Concern in California as of October
1999” to avoid in individual landscape plans. This is compatible with the HMP and no
significant impacts are anticipated.
Noise: No construction activity with noise in excess of 60 dB shall occur within 300 feet of an
active gnatcatcher nest or 500 feet of an active raptor nest between February 15 and August 31.
If activities occur with sound levels exceeding 60 dB, measures shall be taken to reduce the
sound to less than 60 dB at the edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat. This is compatible with the
HMP and no significant impacts are anticipated.
Rock crushing activities required for grading shall be done on Lot 40 of the Shelley Tentative
Map which is roughly 800 feet from any coastal sage scrub habitat. The acoustical analysis
performed by Pacific Noise Control states that noise generated by the crusher would be 82 dB at
a distance of 50 feet. Therefore, an additional 750 foot buffer shall be provided to ensure an
adequate distance is provided for the purpose of avoiding excessive noise impacts within open
space areas occupied by coastal sage scrub habitat.
Blasting at the site shall be done outside the breeding season if it is within 300 feet of gnatcatcher
habitat.
23 Rev. 07/03/02
In accordance with the HMP, the project shall be conditioned to require a Conservation
Easement, an appropriate natural lands management organization, management plan and funding
mechanism as follows:
As a condition of this approval, applicant must comply with the requirements of all
regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over the project and any mitigation requirements of
the environmental documents for the project. Pursuant to Government Code section 65871
and Carlsbad Municipal Code Title 20, Chapter 20.04, section 20.04.140 applicant shall
grant a conservation easement for the conservation, protection, and management of fish,
wildlife, native plants and the habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of
certain species thereof, in accordance with the City’s adopted Habitat Management Plan.
Prior to recordation of the final map or prior to issuance of a grading permit, whichever
occurs first, the Developer shall take the following actions to the satisfaction of the Planning
Director in relation to the open space lot(s):
a. Select a conservation entity, subject to approval by the City, that possesses the necessary
qualifications to hold title to the open space lot(s) and manage it for conservation
purposes.
b. Prepare a Property Analysis Record (PAR) or other method acceptable to the City for
estimating the costs of management and monitoring of the open space lot(s) in
perpetuity.
c. Based on the results of the PAR, provide a non-wasting endowment or other financial
mechanism acceptable to the Planning Director and Wildlife Agencies, to the selected
conservation entity in an amount sufficient for management and monitoring of the open
space lot(s) in perpetuity.
d. Concurrent with recordation of the final map, transfer fee title to the open space lot(s) to
the selected conservation entity.
HMP Hardline Equivalency Assessment:
As a result of the project redesign, the proposed HMP hardline is slightly altered so that the
overall preserve area is increased in size due to the discovery of San Diego Goldenstar within the
previously negotiated development boundaries. The HMP preserve area has increased from
52.16 acres to 54.75 acres, or 2.59 acres. (Acreages within easements that bisect the preserve
will be deducted from the total preserve acreage upon recordation of the conservation easement).
The San Diego Goldenstar is identified as an HMP narrow endemic plant species requiring
preservation. The revised hardline boundary is drawn to avoid the San Diego Goldenstar within
the northeastern portion of the subdivision and to encroach slightly into the existing hardline
boundary along the eastern and southern boundaries. In accordance with the City’s draft HMP
amendment process, Equivalency Findings are necessary to adjust the hardline boundary.
The applicant has gone to great lengths to redesign the project since the original hardline was
established, with the result that the current project impacts only 26.6 acres permanently and 1.9
acres temporarily. The original design impacted 28.3 acres permanently and 3 acres temporarily.
Upon completion, there will be more acreage available for corridors and open space than the
original design. These modifications to the hardline will result in a biologically more friendly
design for the project than what was previously proposed. As a result, the project is proposing to
alter the hardline to accommodate the new design. In Figure 3, the existing hardline is shown in
pink, and the proposed permanent impact areas (new hardline) is shown in blue. This project is
proposing to revise the pink line to the blue line in order to accommodate the biological superior
24 Rev. 07/03/02
design. A sewer line will also be installed below the trail easement in the southern portion of the
property. Allowing for this design will improve the overall biology and better protect the
biological resources at the site.
HABITAT/ TEMPORARY PERMANENT HMP SPECIES IMPACTS IMPACTS MITIGATION
AND/OR
RATIO
Coastal Sage
Scrub 0.0 0.0 2: 1
Disturbed
Coastal 0.0 0.0 2: 1
Sage Scrub
The following table identifies impacts, HMP mitigation requirements, and proposed preservation
and revegetation acreages (mitigation) for the project.
MITIGATION MITIGATION
REQUIRED PROPOSED: *
Preservation
0.0 of 13.9 acres
Preservation
0.0 of
6.2 acres
25 Rev. 07/03/02
HABITAT/
SPECIES
Non-Native
Grassland
San Diego
Goldenstar
1,092 plants
(All inside HMP
preserve)
Total
TEMPORARY
IMPACTS
1.9 acres
1.9 acres
non-native
grassland
PERMANENT
IMPACTS
26.6 acres
2 plants
26.6 acres
non-native
grassland
2 San Diego
golden star
HMP
MITIGATION
AND/OR
RATIO
0.5: 1
95%
preservation
inside
Focused
Planning Area
NIA
MITIGATION
REQUIRED
13.3 acres
Avoidance
and
minimization
13.3 acres
non-native
grassland
95%
preservation
MITIGATION
PROPOSED: *
Preservation
of
32.7 acres
(34.6 after
native
grassland
revegetation
of areas
temporarily
imnacted
1.090 (inside
preserve)
Preservation of
13.9 acres of
Coastal Sage
Scrub Habitat
and 6.2 acres
of Disturbed
Coastal Sage
Scrub
Preservation of
32.7 acresl34.6
acres after
temporary
impacts are
revegetated
Preservation of
(99.8%) 1,090
San Diego
Goldenstar
*A revegetation plan shall be prepared and approved by the City and wildlife agencies and a
biological monitor shall be present during project construction and implementation to ensure
compliance with the above mitigation measures for direct, indirect, and temporary impacts.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
26 Rev. 07/03/02
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
Less than Significant Impact (b & c) - A sewer line with trail above are proposed to be
constructed across a drainage in the southern portion of the property that is shown as a broken
blue line stream on the US Geological Survey map and surveyed in 1999 as approximately 2,400
feet long and consisting of .08 acre of Jurisdictional Waters. However, at the point of the
proposed temporary sewer line impact, there is no clear bed or bank for the stream. It is a swale
with some evidence of surface flow; a few small ephemeral flow lines less than six inches deep,
none more than a foot wide, can be found between the grasses. A few individuals of obligate
wetland species, wrinkled rush, was found during the 2001 surveys but not observed in 2002
within the swale. There is clearly not a preponderance of hydrophytic vegetation; therefore no
impacts are identified to wetland habitats. The biological analysis of the site determines that the
drainage south of the property on the downstream end is cut off from any surface water
attachment to any existing drainages; therefore, the drainage has been isolated from any adjacent
Jurisdictional Waters and no longer qualifies as Jurisdictional Waters of the US due to its
isolation. A second drainage that runs across the northern portion of the property from east to
west is defined as Jurisdictional Waters of the United States. This drainage is within the existing
open space area, and it will not be impacted by the proposed development.
In summary, no jurisdictional waters of the US will be impacted by this project. Notification to
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) shall be required due to the past presence of
wrinkled rush. Due to the site being disturbed and the impacts to the drainage being minimal,
there would not be any anticipated significant impacts from the proposed action. The project
shall consult with the US ACE regarding the jurisdictional waters determination.
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?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated - The project site contains a
negotiated HMP hardline preserve area that consists of approximately two-thirds of the 8 1 -acre
property. The proposed development will permanently disturb approximately 26.6 acres of non-
native grassland within the western portion of the site that abuts approved development in the
City of Carlsbad, however, the remaining non-native grassland and all of the existing coastal
sage scrub habitats will remain undisturbed within the habitat preserve area which connects to
existing habitat preserves/open space along the northern, eastern, and southern property lines.
No trees will be removed or impacted by this project and there will be no impact to any potential
white tailed kite nesting areas as that type of habitat does not occur on the property. If
construction is planned during the bird breeding season (February 15 through August 31), the
applicant will be required to conduct gnatcatcher and raptor surveys prior to any construction
activity. If raptor nests are located, a 500 foot buffer shall be established between construction
activities and the nest so that nesting activities are not interrupted. If gnatcatcher nests are
located, a 300’ buffer shall be established. If there are any white tailed kites in adjacent
developed areas, they will be detected during the raptor surveys, and a 500’ buffer established
around them. The project therefore provides connections for and avoids significant impacts to
the movement of any established native resident or migratory wildlife species.
27 Rev. 07/03/02
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such
as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact - The project is consistent with the preservation and mitigation requirements of the
City’s Habitat Management Plan which is used as a standard of review for biological impacts.
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?
Less Than Significant Impact - The project is consistent with the preservation and mitigation
requirements of the City’s Habitat Management Plan which is used as a standard of review for
biological impacts. (See discussion above and under “Land Use & Planning,” Item I).
g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive?
No Impact - The only drainage and/or wetland habitat identified on the site as Jurisdictional
Waters of the US occurs along the northern property line within existing open space. The area is
also part of the negotiated HMP hardline preserve area; therefore, no environmentally sensitive
tributary areas would be impacted by the project.
CULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource
as defined in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological
resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
No Impact (a, b, & d) - The project site is an undeveloped site that has been disturbed by cattle
grazing for many years. According to the cultural resource survey of the property performed by
Affinis Environmental Services, there are no recorded archaeological sites and no evidence of
historical or archeological resources were found on the project site.
No Impact (c) - According to the City’s geologic maps, the likelihood of paleontological
resources at the site is very low.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS -Would the project:
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
28 Rev. 07/03/02
1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of
a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Less than Significant Impact (a.i. to a.iii.) - There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
zones within the City of Carlsbad and there is no other evidence of active or potentially active
faults within the City. However, there are several active faults throughout Southern California,
and these potential earthquakes could affect Carlsbad. The project site is located in an area of
stable soil conditions and the risk of seismic-related ground failure or liquefaction is minimal.
Although the area may be subject to moderate to severe ground shaking, the risk fiom ground
shaking is not significant when structures are built pursuant to the Uniform Building Code
(earthquake standards).
b) Landslides?
No Impact - According to the “Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation” of the property prepared
by Geocon, no landslides were encountered nor are any known to exist on the site.
c) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
No Impact -According to the US Department of Agriculture, Soil Survey - San Diego Area,
December 1973, the project site contains soils that have high erosion limitations, as do most soil
types in Carlsbad. The project’s compliance with standards in the City’s Excavation and Grading
Ordinance that prevent erosion through slope planting and installation of desiltation basins or
other temporary means will avoid substantial soil erosion impacts.
d) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
No Impact - The geotechnical analysis performed for the site by Geocon revealed that no
significant geotechnical problems exist that could result in exposure to unsafe conditions, and
that the site is favorable for the proposed development provided the recommendations
summarized in the preliminary geotechnical report are followed.
e) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
No Impact- The geotechnical analysis performed for the site by Geocon revealed that no
significant geotechnical problems exist that could result in exposure to unsafe conditions, and
that the site is favorable for the proposed development provided the recommendations
summarized in the preliminary geotechnical report are followed.
29 Rev. 07/03/02
f) 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?
No Impact - The project site is an undeveloped site surrounded by existing and planned urban
development. The project includes a sewer connection to an existing sewer main at the southern
property line.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment?
No Impact (a, b, c & d) - The project consists of a single-family residential subdivision;
therefore, no hazardous materials would be used or generated by the project. The site is not
included on a list of hazardous materials sites
e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact (e & f) - The project is located outside the McClellan Palomar Airport influence
area. The Carlsbad Airport Land Use Plan (CLUP) specifies the areas subject to safety hazards,
i.e., the flight activity zone and the crash hazard zone. The development is not located within
either of these zones; therefore a significant safety hazard would not result from the development
of single-family homes.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact - The private residential development does not interfere with the City’s emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
30 Rev. 07/03/02
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?
Less than Significant Impact - The project is surrounded by native and non-native vegetation.
The project complies with City standards requiring 60’ fire suppression zones that create buffers
between high fuel native species and residential structures. The project has also included fire
resistive construction and fire sprinklers in high exposure areas.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project:
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (Le., 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)?
Impacts to groundwater quality?
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?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially
increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner,
which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
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?
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
No Impact (a, b, c, d, e, f & g) - The project site is located in an area where development will
not have a significant impact to groundwater. The project will install a public storm drain system
necessary to convey the developed 100 year flows for the existing offsite areas and onsite
improvements from the subject development. Post condition runoff for the project is less than
pre-condition and will not necessitate any requirement for onsite detention facilities. Desiltation
will be required per the State Water Resource Quality Control Board to include necessary de-
pollutant devices, and the project includes a desiltation swale at the southeastern corner of the
development for this purpose. The project is conditioned to require a Storm Water Management
Plan (SWMP) that will ensure that it is designed and constructed in compliance with the City’s
NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity
issued by the State Water Resources Control Board and the San Diego NPDES Municipal Storm
Water Permit issued to San Diego County and Cities by the California Regional Water Quality
31 Rev. 07/03/02
Control Board. Therefore, the project will not violate any water quality standards, deplete
groundwater supplies or quality, substantially alter existing drainage patterns, cause substantial
erosion or flooding, or significantly impact the capacity of stormwater drainage systems.
h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
delineation map?
i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or
redirect flood flows?
No Impact (h & I) - The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area
according to the Flood Insurance Rate Map. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in
housing or structures within a 100-year flood hazard area.
j) 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?
k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No Impact (j & k) - According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and
Mapping Study, November 1992, the project site is not located within any dam failure inundation
area, or area subject to inundation by seiche or tsunami. Therefore, the project will not result in
exposing people or structures to significant risk from flooding as a result of a dam failure, or
from inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters.
m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum
derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and
trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface
water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during
or following construction?
0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the
Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list?
p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality
objectives or degradation of beneficial uses?
No Impact (1, m, n, o & p) - The project site is not located adjacent to any body of water.
Drainage from the site is subject to the City’s drainage and storm water pollution control
standards (NPDES and best management practices), which ensure that sediment and pollutants
from any development of the site will not discharge into any downstream receiving surface
waters. Also, the City’s drainage and storm water pollution control standards ensure that
development does not reduce water quality of any marine, fresh or wetland waters or
32 Rev. 07/03/02
groundwater. The project design includes a desiltation swale that will receive runoff from the
project, and the project will be conditioned to prepare a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP)
to ensure that City standards are met.
LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact - The project site is located along the eastern City boundary where it is bounded to
the east by vacant land in the County of San Diego and to the south by existing estate lot
development in the City of Encinitas. Small lot single family residential development in the
Villages of La Costa Master Plan is approved to the west of the proposed subdivision. The
proposed development will be separated from the adjacent jurisdictions by a minimum 300’ wide
HMP preserve area. Future residential development of the site on minimum 10,000 square foot
lots will be compatible and integrate well with the approved La Costa Oaks south small lot single
family development to the west.
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?
Less than Significant Impact - The project is currently General Plan designated for Residential
Low (RL) (0 - 1.5 dwelling unitdacre) density development and zoned R-1-40,000, requiring
minimum 40,000 square foot single-family residential lots. The proposed density of .86 dwelling
units per acre for the 49 lot subdivision is within the 0 - 1.5 dwelling unit/acre density range and
slightly below the Growth Management growth control point of 1 dwelling unitlacre. The project
is therefore 7 units below the maximum of 56.67 dwelling units permitted by the RL growth
control point. The growth control point was used by the Department of Housing and Community
Development for the purpose of calculating the City’s compliance with “fair share’’ Housing
Element law. However, consistent with Program 3.8 of the City’s certified Housing Element, all
of the dwelling units, which were anticipated toward achieving the City’s fair share allocation but
are not utilized by developers in approved projects, are deposited in the City’s Excess Dwelling
Unit Bank. These excess dwelling units are available for allocation to other projects through
density transfers, density bonuses and General Plan Amendments. Accordingly, there is no net
loss of residential unit capacity.
Two-thirds of the site will be preserved in open space as a HMP habitat preserve area requiring
development to occur within the remaining one-third of the property. A General Plan
Amendment is proposed to redesignate the HMP preserve area to Open Space and redesignate the
remainder of the property to Residential Low Medium (RLM) (0 - 4 du/acre) density for the
purpose of permanently transferring density from the entire site to the proposed development
area. A Zone Change is also proposed to redesignate the property to the R-1-10,000 and Open
Space (0-S) zoning designations to ensure zoning consistency with the proposed General Plan
designations.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
33 Rev. 07/03/02
Less Than Significant Impact - Approximately two-thirds of the project site is identified by the
City’s Habitat Management Plan (HMP) as a negotiated hardline habitat preserve located within
Core Area 7. The property is further identified as Figure 23 within the HMP. The proposed
hardline is slightly altered so that the overall preserve area is increased in size due to the
discovery of San Diego Goldenstar within the previously negotiated development boundaries,
The San Diego Goldenstar is identified as an HMP narrow endemic plant species requiring
preservation. In accordance with the City’s HMP amendment process, Equivalency Findings
must be made. (See the Biological Resources section of this document for the Equivalency
Findings). The project is consistent with the HMP hardline preserve area requirements in that it
preserves two-thirds of the site, avoids disturbance to 100% of the coastal sage scrub habitat,
preserves 99.8% of the sensitive (narrow endemic) San Diego Goldenstar plant species existing
on the site, and exceeds the required .5:1 mitigation ratio for disturbance to non-native grassland
through onsite preservation and native grassland revegetation of 34.6 acres within the preserve
area.
MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of
future value to the region and the residents of the State?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan?
No Impact (a & b) - According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and
Mapping Study, November 1992, the project site does not contain any mineral resources;
therefore, the project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or
mineral resource recovery site.
NOISE -Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable
standards of other agencies?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
The Noise Element of the General Plan specifies that sixty (60) dB CNEL is the exterior noise
level to which all residential units should be mitigated, and that interior noise levels should be
mitigated to 45 dB CNEL. According to the noise assessment performed for the project, exterior
noise levels for units along Calle Junipero, a circulation arterial roadway, would range up to 71
dB thereby exceeding the City’s standard of 60 dBA CNEL exterior noise level. Mitigation
necessary to reduce exterior rear yard noise levels to 60 &A CNEL consists of construction of a
combination of 1 foot - 4 foot high berms and maximum 6 foot high masonry noise walls with a
surface density of 3.5 pounds per square foot with no openings or cracks on Lots 1, and 8-21 to
be located as shown on the tentative map. If two story homes are located on Lots 1 , 8-22, and 49,
prior to issuance of building permits, an interior noise analysis will be required to determine
appropriate mitigation to reduce interior noise levels to 45 dBA. Mitigation to accomplish the
interior noise standard will most likely require air-conditioning and/or mechanical ventilation and
34 Rev. 07/03/02
possibly sound rated windows. Noise mitigation would not be required if Camino Juniper0
terminates within the City of Carlsbad.
Temporary Impact
Rock Crushing and Blasting: A portable rock crusher would be used onsite during construction.
The crushing operation would begin with a front loader picking up material and dumping the
material into a primary crusher. Electric power would be provided by a diesel engine generator.
The closest homes would be located near the southwestern portion of the site. These homes are
currently being constructed. Based on noise measurements that have been conducted for portable
rock crushing operations, the rock crushing activity would generate a one-hour average noise
level of approximately 82 dB at 50 feet. Assuming the rock crusher is operated during the
daytime hours for a period of ten hours each day, the CNEL would be approximately 82 dB at 50
feet. To mitigate noise levels resulting from the rock crushing operation to the 60 dB standard at
the backyards of the off-site residences, the rock crushing operation shall be located on Lot 40 of
the Shelley Tentative Map, which is located approximately 500 feet from the nearest future
residence. This conservatively assumes an attenuation of 5 dB that would result from solid
masonry walls constructed at the rear property lines of the off-site residences.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or
groundbourne noise levels?
Less Than Significant Impact - Blasting: Blasting may be required during construction if rock
encountered during grading cannot be ripped by bulldozers. According to the noise analysis,
construction blasting generates a maximum noise level of approximately 94 dB at a distance of
50 feet. The blast is generally perceived as a dull thud, rather than as a loud explosion. The
closest homes to the on-site limits of grading would be located more than 60 feet away.
Assuming blasting activities are conducted adjacent to the closest home, the maximum noise
level would be approximately 92 dB. This noise level would be noticeable, but would not result
in a significant noise impact because of the infrequent nature of blasting. Vibration levels
associated with blasting would vary. Ground-borne vibration is influenced by the soil conditions
and the receiving building. Vibration source levels associated with construction blasting are
typically a peak particle velocity of approximately 0.80 inches per second at a distance of 25 feet.
At a distance of 60 feet, peak particle velocity would be approximately 0.2 inches per second.
The U.S. Bureau of Mines has set a peak particle velocity “safe blasting limit” of 2.0 inches per
second from single events such as dynamite blasts. According to sources reviewed as part of the
noise analysis, there is virtually no risk of building damage below this level. This vibration level
would be perceptible to people, but because of the infrequent nature of blasting, it would result in
a less than significant vibration impact.
c)
d)
A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project?
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Less Than Significant Impact - The single-family housing development will increase the
ambient noise level above existing noise levels, however, residential development will not
’ generate substantial increases in noise. Periodic increases in ambient noise levels will occur with
the grading operation, however, the project will be required to comply with the City’s Grading
35 Rev. 07/03/02
Ordinance which imposes timing and noise limitations to avoid substantial noise impacts.
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?
No impact (e & f) - The project is not located within 2 miles of a public airport or private
airstrip. The site lies outside of the McClellan-Palomar Airport Influence area and the noise
notification area as specified by the Carlsbad Airport Land Use Plan (CLUP).
POPULATION AND HOUSING -Would the project:
a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
No Impact - The project is located on a site that is adjacent to an approved Master Plan
development in the City of Carlsbad and existing development in the City of Encinitas with road
and utility infrastructure that the proposed subdivision will extend to provide vehicular access
and utility connections. Although the General Plan Circulation Element identifies a major
arterial roadway extending to the southern or possibly eastern property lines of the property, the
adjacent jurisdictions have indicated that their respective General Plan Circulation Elements do
not identi@ an arterial roadway in the vicinity of the project. Since no plans exist for the
potential extensiodconnection of a major roadway beyond the Carlsbad City boundary, an
irrevocable offer of dedication for the right-of-way will be required as part of the final
subdivision map in the event that some future connection is planned, however, no roadway
construction will be required as part of the project. Therefore, the project is not growth inducing
with respect to residential development or infrastructure.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact (b & c)- The project site is undeveloped. Therefore, the project will not displace any
existing housing or people.
PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need
for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain
36 Rev. Q7lQ3lO2
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for
any of the public services:
i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities?
No Impact (ai to a.v.) -The project site is located within Local Facilities Management Zone
(LFMZ) 1 1. The provision of public facilities within LFMZ 1 1, including fire protection, parks,
libraries and other public facilities, has been planned to accommodate the projected growth of
that area. Because the project will not exceed the total growth projections anticipated within
LFMZ 11, all public facilities will be adequate to serve residential development on the site.
Therefore, the project will not result in substantial adverse impacts to or result in the need for
additional public facilities.
RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
No Impact (a & b) - As part of the City’s Growth Management Program (GMP), a performance
standard for parks was adopted. The park performance standard requires that 3 acres of
Community Park and Special Use Area per 1,000 population within a park district (quadrant)
must be provided.
The project site is located within Park District #4 (Southeast Quadrant). The necessary park
acreage to achieve the GMP standard (3 acres/1,000 population) for Park District #4 was based
upon the GMP dwelling unit limitation for the Southeast Quadrant. Existing and planned public
parks in the southeast quadrant are adequate to satisfy the additional demand resulting from the
49 lot residential subdivision in accordance with the GMP.
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC-Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street system?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project will generate 490 Average Daily Trips (ADT), 38
AM (12 in, 26 out) peak hour trips, and 48 PM (34 in, 14 out) peak hour trips. This traffic will
primarily utilize Rancho Santa Fe Road as the main route to access the proposed project.
Existing traffic on this arterial is 29,600 ADT (2002) between San Elijo Road and Cadencia
Street and is based on traffic counts provided by the City for the La Costa Town Square project.
37 Rev. 07/03/02
The design capacity of Rancho Santa Fe Road affected by the proposed project is 40,000
vehicles per day. The project traffic would represent 1.6% and 1.2% of the existing traffic
volume and the design capacity, respectively. While the increase in traffic from the proposed
project may be slightly noticeable, the street system has been designed and sized to accommodate
traffic from the project and cumulative development in the City of Carlsbad. The proposed
project would not, therefore, cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. The impacts from the proposed project are,
therefore, less than significant.
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion management agency for designated
roads or highways?
Less Than Significant Impact. SANDAG acting as the County Congestion Management
Agency has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport
Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The
Existing and Buildout average daily traffic (ADT) and Existing LOS on these designated roads
and highways in Carlsbad is:
Existing ADT* Buildout ADT*
Rancho Santa Fe Road 15-32 ‘‘A-C” 28-43
El Camino Real 2 1-50 “A-C” 32-65
Palomar Airport Road 10-52 “A-B” 29-77
SR 78 120 “F” 144
1-5 183-198 “D” 2 19-249
*The numbers are in thousands of daily trips.
The Congestion Management Program’s (CMP) acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard is
“E”, or LOS “F” if that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (e.g., SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS “F”
in 1990). Accordingly, all designated roads and highways are currently operating at or better
than the acceptable standard LOS.
Note that the buildout ADT projections are based on the full implementation of the region’s
general and community plans. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan and,
therefore, its traffic was used in modeling the buildout projections. Achievement of the CMP
acceptable Level of Service (LOS) “E” standard assumes implementation of the adopted CMP
strategies. Based on the design capacity(ies) of the designated roads and highways and
implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at acceptable level(s) of service in the
short-term and at buildout.
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?
No Impact. The proposed project .does not include any aviation components. The project is
consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the McClellan-Palomar Airport. It would
not, therefore, result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No
impact assessed.
38 Rev. 07/03/02
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses?
No Impact. All project circulation improvements will be designed and constructed to City
standards; and, therefore, would not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent
with the City’s General Plan and zoning. Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an
incompatible use. No impact assessed.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of
the Fire and Police Departments. No impact assessed.
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
No Impact. The proposed project is not requesting a parking variance. Additionally, the project
would comply with the City’s parking requirements to ensure an adequate parking supply. No
impact assessed.
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)?
No Impact. The project is a single family residential development that does not require
bike racks.
UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS -Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water
Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would
cause significant environmental effects?
No Impact (a & b) - The project site is located within Local Facilities Management Zone
(LFMZ) 1 1, which is served by the Encina wastewater treatment facility. Wastewater treatment
capacity has been planned to accommodate the projected growth of Zone 1 1. Because the project
will not exceed the total growth projections anticipated within LFMZ 1 1, wastewater treatment
capacity will be adequate to serve residential development on the site. Therefore, the project will
not result in substantial adverse impacts to or result in the need for additional wastewater
treatment facilities.
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities
or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
39 Rev. 07/03/02
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?
No Impact (c, d & e) - All public facilities, including sewer, water, drainage facilities and
wastewater treatment capacities, have been planned and designed to accommodate the growth
projections for the City at build-out. The proposed residential land use will not result in growth
that exceeds the City’s growth projections; therefore, water, drainage, and sewer facilities, and
wastewater treatment capacities will not be exceeded. No unmitigated environmental effects will
result from construction of sewer and water transmission lines and storm drains to serve the
subdivision in accordance with LFMZ 11. The project proposes to construct an 8” PVC sanitary
sewer that will connect to an existing line at the property’s southern boundary. The existing line
is located in the Leucadia Wastewater District (LWD) service area. The annexation of the
Shelley property, which is currently located within the Leucadia Wastewater District (LWD)
sphere of influence, into the LWD service area is required prior to development. Documents are
currently being processed through LAFCO to complete the annexation. Impacts to the physical
environment resulting from the construction of the sewer line are addressed in the biological
section of this document.
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?
No Impact (f & g) - Existing waste disposal services contracted by the City of Carlsbad are
adequate to serve the proposed 49 lot residential subdivision without exceeding landfill
capacities. Future residential development resulting from the proposed land subdivision will be
required to comply with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated - Through preservation of an HMP preserve area
on two-thirds of the site, the project will not degrade the quality of the physical environment.
Although disturbance to 26.6 acres of non-native grassland and two San Diego Goldenstar will
result from the project, mitigation through onsite preservation within the preserve at ratios and
percentages that far exceed the HMP mitigation requirement will avoid substantial reductions of
non-native grassland and San Diego Goldenstar.
40 Rev. 07/03/02
There are no historic structures on the site and there are no known cultural resources on the site.
Therefore, the project will not result in the elimination of any important examples of California
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?)
Less than Significant Impact - San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projects
regional growth for the greater San Diego area, and local general plan land use policies are
incorporated into SANDAG projections. Based upon those projections, region-wide standards,
including storm water quality control, air quality standards, habitat conservation, congestion
management standards, etc, are established to reduce the cumulative impacts of development in
the region. All of the City’s development standards and regulations are consistent with the
region-wide standards. The City’s standards and regulations, including grading standards, water
quality and drainage standards, traffic standards, habitat and cultural resource protection
regulations, and public facility standards, ensure that development within the City will not result
in a significant cumulatively considerable impact.
There are two regional issues that development within the City of Carlsbad has the potential to
have a cumulatively considerable impact on. Those issues are air quality and regional
circulation. As discussed above, the proposed project will result in residential development,
which represents a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions
throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with residential
development would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with
residential development of the site, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the
residential development is implemented. Therefore, the impact is assessed as less than
significant.
Also, as discussed above, the County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) has designated
three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway
segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The CMA has determined, based
on the City’s growth projections in the General Plan, that these designated roadways will
function at acceptable levels of service in the short-term and at build-out. The project is
consistent with the City’s growth projections, and therefore, the cumulative impact from the
project to the regional circulation system is less than significant.
With regard to any other potential impact associated with the project, City standards and
regulations will ensure that residential development on the site will not result in a significant
cumulatively considerable impact.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated - Development of the site will
comply with City development standards designed to avoid substantial adverse environmental
effects to residents. The project site is located in an area where human beings could be exposed
41 Rev. 07/03/02
to 60 - 71 dBA CNEL noise levels generated by a major arterial roadway. As discussed above,
City standards require: 1) noise attenuation to reduce exterior noise levels to 60 dBA CNEL; and
2) interior noise levels to be mitigated to the 45 dBA CNEL standard. The project will be
conditioned to require a combination of berms and noise walls along property lines abutting
public rights of way, disclosure notices, and measures to reduce interior noise levels will be
incorporated into future residential units. Temporary impacts resulting from rock crushing will
be mitigated through locational mitigation measures to avoid excessive noise exposure.
Residential development on the site will be required to comply with all applicable federal, state,
regional and City regulations, which will ensure the development of the site will not result in an
adverse impact on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10
Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994.
“Biological Resources Report for the Shelley Property” prepared by Dossey &
Associates, dated July 23, 2002 and Letter dated June 10, 2003 regarding San Diego
Goldenstar;
Letter from Dossey & Associates dated March 11, 2004 in response to Wildlife Agency
Comment Letter dated February 2,2004;
“Biological Resources Report for the Shelley Property” prepared by Dossey &
Associates, Revised December 12,2004.
“Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation” prepared by Geocon, Inc., dated November 27,
2001.
“Preliminary Hydrology Report for Shelley Property”, prepared by Buccola Engineering,
Inc., dated August 2,2002.
“Shelley Property - Environmental Noise Assessment”, prepared by Pacific Noise
Control, dated July 17,2002 and addendum;
“Shelley Property - Environmental Noise Assessment” prepared by Pacific Noise
Control, dated December 1 , 2004.
“Leucadia Wastewater District, Fair Oaks Valley Annexation” letter dated December 8,
2004.
Letter from Dossey & Associates dated May 6, 2005 in response to Wildlife Agency
Comment Letter dated March 1 1 , 2005.
42 Rev. 07/03/02
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
1. Biological Mitigation:
HABITAT/
SPECIES
Coastal Sage
Scrub
Disturbed
Coastal
Sage Scrub
Non-Native
Grassland
San Diego
Goldenstar
TEMP.
IMPACTS
0.0
0.0
1.9 acres
1,092
plants
(inside
HMP
preserve)
PERMANENT
IMPACTS
0.0
0.0
26.6 acres
2 plants
HMP
MITIGATION
AND/OR
RATIO
2: 1
2: 1
0.5: 1
95%
preservation
inside
Focused
Planning Area
MITIGATION
REQUIRED
0.0
0.0
13.3 acres
Avoidance
and
minimization
MITIGATION
PROPOSED:
Preservation
of 13.9 acres
onsite
Preservation
of
6.2 acres
onsite
Preservation
of
32.7 acres
onsite (34.6
after
revegetation
of areas
temporarily
impacted with
native grasses
99.8%
preserved
43 Rev. Q7lQ3lQ2
HABITAT/
SPECIES
Total
TEMP.
IMPACTS
1.9 acres
non-native
grassland
PERMANENT
IMPACTS
26.6 acres
non-native
grassland
2 San Diego
golden star
HMP
MITIGATION
AND/OR
RATIO
N/A
MITIGATIO
N
REQUIRED
13.3 acres
non-nat ive
grassland
90%
preservation
MITIGATION
PROPOSED:
Preservation of
13.9 acres of
Coastal Sage
Scrub Habitat
and 6.2 acres
of Disturbed
Coastal Sage
Scrub onsite
Preservation of
32.7 acresl34.6
acres after
native
grassland
revegetation of
areas
temporarily
impacted.
Preservation of
(99.8%) 1,090
San Diego
Goldenstar
0 In accordance with the HMP, the project shall be conditioned to require a Conservation
Easement, an appropriate natural lands management organization, management plan
and funding mechanism as follows:
As a condition of this approval, applicant must comply with the requirements of all
regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over the project and any mitigation requirements
of the environmental documents for the project. Pursuant to Government Code section
65871 and Carlsbad Municipal Code Title 20, Chapter 20.04, section 20.04.140
applicant shall grant a conservation easement for the conservation, protection, and
management of fish, wildlife, native plants and the habitat necessary for biologically
sustainable populations of certain species thereof, in accordance with the City’s adopted
Habitat Management Plan.
Prior to recordation of the final map or prior to issuance of a grading permit, whichever
occurs first, the Developer shall take the following actions to the satisfaction of the
Planning Director in relation to the open space lot(s) which are 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 the
necessary qualifications to manage the open space lot(s) for conservation
purposes.
0
44 Rev. 07/03/02
b.
C.
d.
e.
Prepare a Property Analysis Record (PAR) or other method acceptable to the City
for estimating the costs of management and monitoring of the open space lot(s) in
perpetuity.
Based on the results of the PAR, provide a non-wasting endowment or other
financial mechanism acceptable to the Planning Director in an amount sufficient
for management and monitoring of the open space lot(s) in perpetuity. The non-
wasting endowment shall be legally structured such that it shall transfer to the
City if the City accepts the Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate fee title to the open
space lot(s).
Record a Conservation Easement over the open space lot(s) which includes an
Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate fee title to the open space lot(s) in favor of the City.
Prepare an Interim Management Plan which will ensure adequate management of
the open space lot(s) until such time as a permanent preserve management plan is
prepared and approved by the City.
Brush Management: Any fbture Zone 3 brush management within Open Space Lot A
shall be done without disturbing the ground and shall require a biological monitor.
Activities in the proximity to the San Diego Goldenstar shall occur between July 1 and
November 30, when the plant is not expected to have foliage above the ground and no
heavy equipment will be used that may compact the soil. Project CC&Rs shall be
required to incorporate these restrictions.
Drainage/Erosion/Landscaping/Avoidance of Exotic Species: Temporary impacts within
the HMP preserve area adjacent to the subdivision boundary shall be revegetated with
native species. Use of invasive exotics shall be excluded from all other project landscape
plans. Project CC&Rs shall be required to incorporate the HMP List of Exotic Species to
avoid in individual landscape plans.
The Developer shall provide the Wildlife agencies with a proposed landscaping plan for
review and approval prior to grading permit issuance.
The Developer shall provide the Wildlife agencies with a proposed fencing plan for
review and approval prior to the final landscape plan approval.
Noise:
o No construction activity with noise in excess of 60 dB shall within 300 feet of an
active gnatcatcher nest or 500 feet of an active raptor nest between February 15
and August 3 1. If activities occur with sound levels exceeding 60 dB, measures
shall be taken to reduce the sound to 60 dB at the edge of the coastal sage scrub.
o Rock crushing activities shall be done on Lot 40 of the Shelley Tentative Map to
ensure an adequate buffer is provided for the purpose of avoiding excessive noise
impacts within open space areas occupied by coastal sage scrub habitat.
o Blasting at the site shall be done outside the breeding season if it is within 300
feet of gnatcatcher habitat.
45 Rev. 07/03/02
0 Bird Breeding Season: Vegetation clearing activities shall take place outside the breeding
season for raptors and gnatcatchers (February 15 to August 31). Prior to construction
activity, the project will conduct a raptor and gnatcatcher survey on the property to
determine if there are any active nests. If nests are located, a temporary 500’ buffer shall
be established between construction activities and active raptor nests and a 300 foot
temporary buffer for active gnatcatcher nests so that nesting activities are not interrupted.
If there are any White Tailed Kites in adjacent developed areas, they will be detected
during the raptor surveys, and a 500’ buffer established around them.
e The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) shall be notified regarding the
need for a Streambed Alteration Agreement prior to construction due to the past presence
of wrinkled rush within a drainage swale.
2. Noise Mitigation
0 Construct a combination of 1 ’ to 4’ high berms and maximum 6’ high masonry noise
walls at 40’ setback line along Calle Junipero if the roadway is connected to, and
provides through circulation for, properties to the east of the project in either the
County of San Diego or Encinitas. Additionally, if two story homes are located on
these lots, prior to issuance of building permits, an interior noise analysis will be
necessary to determine appropriate mitigation to reduce interior noise levels to
45dBA. Mitigation to accomplish the interior noise standard will most likely require
air-conditioning and/or mechanical ventilation and possibly sound rated windows. No
mitigation would be required if Camino Junipero terminates within the City of
Carlsbad.
0 The rock crushing operation shall be located on Lot 40 of the Shelley Tentative Map.
This conservatively assumes an attenuation of 5 dE3 that would result from solid
masonry walls constructed at the rear property lines of the off-site residences.
46 Rev. 07/03/02
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES
47 . Rev. 07/03/02