HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-02-04; Planning Commission; Resolution 55541
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. 5554
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 ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF 58
AIRSPACE CONDOMINIUM UNITS ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LA
COSTA AVENUE, EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL AND WEST
OF CASTILLA WAY, WITHIN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 6.
CASE NAME: LA COSTA CONDOMINIUMS
CASE NO.: CT 02-28/SDP 03-18/CP 02-13/HDP 02-14
WHEREAS, Calso, LLC, “Owner/Developer,” has filed a verified application
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
Lot 185 of La Costa South Unit 1, in the City of Carlsbad, in
the County of San Diego, State of California, According to
Map Thereof No. 6117, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, June 3,1968
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with
said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 4th day of February 2004,
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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
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
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program according to Exhibit “MND,”
Exhibits “NOI” dated December 23, 2003, and “PII” dated December 9, 2003,
attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findinm:
1.
2.
The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and said comments
thereon, and Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (the Program), on file
in the Planning Department, prior to RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the
project; and
b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Program have been prepared in
accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the
State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of
Carlsbad; and
c. they reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
d. based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, the Planning Commission, finds
that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on
the environment.
The Planning Commission hereby finds that the Program is designed to ensure that
during project implementation the Developer and any other responsible parties implement
the project components and comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified in the
CEQA Findings and the Program.
Conditions:
1. Developer shall implement or cause the implementation of the La Costa Condominiums
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
2. This approval is granted subject to the approval of CT 02-28, SDP 03-18, CP 02-13 and
HDP 02-14 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission
Resolutions No. 5555,5556,5557 and 5558 for those other approvals incorporated herein
by reference. ...
...
...
...
PC RES0 NO. 5554 -2-
1
2
'I -
4
4
c
i
e
S
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 4th day of February 2004,
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson White, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman,
Montgomery, Segall, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MELISSA WHITE, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. H&A!MILL&k
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5554 -3 -
- City of Carlsbad
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME: La Costa Condominiums
CASE NO: CT 02-28/SDP 03-18/CP 02-13EIDP 02-14
PROJECT LOCATION: South Side of La Costa Avenue Between El Camino Real and Castilla Wav (APN -
2 16- 160-27)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Plan, Condominium
Pennit and Hillside Development Permit for the development of a 58-unit air-space condominium project. The site is
located on the south side of La Costa Avenue, between El Camino Real and Castilla Way and currently consists of a
vacant lot totaling 8.18 acres. The site is surrounded by an existing multi-family residential project to the west, a vacant
lot to the east, duplexes to the south and single-family residences to the north. Three tiers of buildings are proposed with
six, six-plex buildings, two three-plex buildings and four, four-plex buildings. Access to the site is fiom La Costa
Avenue and the project's internal private driveways will provide access to individual units. The buildings will not
exceed 35' in height and will comply with all standards of the RD-M Zone and Planned Development Ordinance. The
units will range in size from 1,340 to 2,016 square feet. A 14,330 square foot recreation area will be located in the
northeastern comer of the subject site. The northern property boundary, adjacent to La Costa Avenue, is a moderately
steep slope. The middle section of the site is relatively flat with very steep slopes located on the southwestern, southem,
and southeastern portions of the property.
DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above-described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental
Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) identified
potentially significant effects on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows:
Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant
effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on 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).
0 Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a
significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an
earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required.
A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on file in the
Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008.
ADOPTED: Atxi1 13.2004. tmrsuant to City Council Resolution No. 2004-096
ATnTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
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 DECLARATION
CASE NAME: La Costa Condominiums
CASE NO: CT 02-28/SDP 03-18/CP 02-13KDP 02-14
PROJECT LOCATION: South Side of La Costa Avenue Between El Camino Real and Castilla
Way (APN - 216-160-27)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Plan,
Condominium Permit and Hillside Development Permit for the development of a 58-unit air-space
condominium project. The site is located on the south side of La Costa Avenue, between El Camino Real
and Castilla Way and currently consists of a vacant lot totaling 8.18 acres. The site is surrounded by an
existing multi-family residential project to the west, a vacant lot to the east, duplexes to the south and
single family residences to the north. Three tiers of buildings are proposed with six, six-plex buildings,
two three-plex buildings and four, four-plex buildings. Access to the site is from La Costa Avenue and
the project’s internal private driveways will provide access to individual units. The buildings will not
exceed 35’ in height and will comply with all standards of the RD-M Zone and Planned Development
Ordinance. The units will range in size from 1,340 to 2,016 square feet. A 14,330 square foot recreation
area will be located in the northeastern comer of the subject site. The northern property boundary,
adjacent to La Costa Avenue, is a moderately steep slope. The middle section of the site is relatively flat
with very steep slopes located on the southwestern, southern, and southeastern portions of the property.
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
occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the project
“as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative
Declaration will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad City Council.
A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration are 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 approval/adoption by
the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council. Additional public notices will be issued
when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Saima Qureshy in the
Planning Department at (760) 602-4619.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD December 23,2003 to January 23,2003
PUBLISH DATE December 23,2003
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www. i car1 ~aiuary~B,~~o~a.US @
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CT 02-28/SDP 03-18/CP 02-13/HDP 02-14
DATE: December 9,2003
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
CASE NAME: La Costa Condominiums
LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad.
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Saima Oureshy - (760) 602-4619
PROJECT LOCATION: South Side of La Costa Avenue Between El Camino Real and Castilla
Way [AF" - 216-160-27)
PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: Calso. LLC 2683 Costebelle Avenue, La
Jolla. CA 92037
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RMH (1 1.5 du/ac)
ZONING: RD-M (Residential Density-Medium)
OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e.' permits, financing
approval or participation agreements): None
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
Request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map. Site Development Plan. Condominium Permit and
Hillside Development Permit for the development of a 58-unit air-space condominium proiect.
The site is located on the south side of La Costa Avenue. between El Camino Real and Castilla
Wav and currently consists of a vacant lot totaling 8.18 acres. The site is surrounded by an
existing multi-family residential proiect to the west. a vacant lot to the east, duplexes to the south
and single family residences to the north. Three tiers of buildings are urouosed with six. six-plex
buildinvs, two three-plex buildings and four, four-plex buildings. Access to the site is from La
Costa Avenue and the project's internal private driveways will provide access to individual units.
The buildings will not exceed 35' in height and will comply with all standards of the RD-M Zone
and Planned Development Ordinance. The units will range in size from 1,340 to 2,016 square
feet. A 14,330 square foot recreation area will be located in the northeastern comer of the subiect
site. The northern property boundary, adjacent to La Costa Avenue, is a moderatelv steep slope.
The middle section of the site is relatively flat with very steep slopes located on the southwestern,
southern, and southeastern portions of the property.
1 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 Geology/Soils
0 Agricultural Resources
0 Air Quality
0 Hazards/Hazardous Materials
0 HydrologyiWater Quality
0 Land Use and Planning
Mineral Resources
Biological Resources
0 Cultural Resources
0 Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Ix] Noise
0 Population and Housing
0 Public Services
0 Recreation
Transportatioflrafc
0 Utilities & Service Systems
2 Rev. 07/03/02
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0
IXI
0
0
0
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have
been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have “potentially significant impact(s)” on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis
as described on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects
that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required.
\2-/ \6 /03
Planner Signature Date Planner Signature
\2-/ \6 /03
Date
3 Rev. 07/03/02
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
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 (Em), Negative Declaration, or
to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported
by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to
projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source
document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
“Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not
significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies.
“Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.”
The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly
adverse.
Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the
environment, but potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier
EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a
supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental
document is required.
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR
if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable
standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made
pursuant to that earlier EIR.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or
any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment.
If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there
are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation
measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially
Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration
may be prepared.
4 Rev. 07/03/02
0 An EIR
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
EM-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.
be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to
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.
5 Rev. 07/03/02
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant No Impact Impact
1. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0
0 0 b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a State scenic highway?
om c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings? 0 0
d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
0 0 om
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- 1997 prepared by the California
Department of Conservation as an optional model to use
in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would
the project:
0 a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
OIXI
om
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 0 0
0 0 c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Fannland 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:
0
0
0
0
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? om
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
1510
6 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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)?
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
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?
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?
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?
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?
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
Impact tributary areas that are environmentally
sensitive?
Potentially Significant Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
0
0
0
Ixl
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than
Significant Impact
IXI
0
0
0
0
No Impact
0
IXI
IXI
0
IXI
OIXI
7 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi-
cance of an archeological resource pursuant to 8 15064.5?
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique pale
ontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving:
1.
11.
... 111.
iv.
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.
Strong seismic ground shaking?
Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
Landslides?
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
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?
Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - I-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
Potentially
Significant Impact
0
0
I7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Significant
Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact
Unless Less Than
0 o[XI
cl
0
0
[XI
0
Ixl
Ixl
Ixln
no
IXIO
on
8 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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?
VII. 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
Potentially Significant
Mitigation Significant No [ncorporated Impact Impact
Unless Less Than
0
0
0
0
0151
nIx1
om
0151
nIxI
0151
om
9 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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 whch 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?
Place housing with a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation
map?
Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures,
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface
waters.
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)?
Potentially
Significant Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
0 0 OB
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OB
BO
OH
10 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact o 0 IXIU n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or
wetland waters) during or following construction?
0 0 IXIO 0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired
water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section
303(d) list?
0 0 IXIO p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater
receiving water quality objectives or degradation of
beneficial uses?
M. LANDUSE 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?
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
0 0
0 0
0 0 c)
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? o 0 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?
XI. NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) 0 IXI
0 0
Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels
in excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of
other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise
levels?
0 0
0 0
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
nu
OIXI
Ixlo
Ixlo
11 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
Unless Less Than
0 om
0 OIXI
0
Potentially Significant Impact
0 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?
o 0 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?
MI. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
ON 0 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)?
0 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
0 0 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? 0
0
0
0
0
0
ii) Police protection?
0
0
iii) Schools?
om iv) Parks?
ON v) Other public facilities? 0
XIV. RECREATION
0 ON 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?
12 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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 vehcle 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:
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
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?
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?
13
Potentially Significant Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Significant
Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact
Unless Less Than
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IXIO
OH
01x1
OH
01x1
01x1
OIXI
OIXI
Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
0 0 OIXI 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? o 0 om
0 0 OIXI
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?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
0 0 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? o 0 b) 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?)
0 Ixl c) Does the project have environmental effects, which
will cause the substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
on
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or
more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,”
describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document
and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
14 Rev. 07/03/02
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is for a Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Plan, Condominium Permit and Hillside
Development Permit to allow for the development of 58 condominium units on an 8.18 acre site.
The project site is located on the south side of La Costa Avenue adjacent to and east of the Marbella Condominiums.
Three tiers of buildings are proposed. The two northernmost tiers (closest to La Costa Avenue) will have access
from Driveway “B”. The southernmost tier (with the highest elevation) will have access from Driveway “A”. The
Driveway “B” buildings include 2, tri-plexes and 6, six-plexes (one tri-plex and three six-plexes on each side of
Driveway “B”). The Driveway “A” buildings will consist of 4, four-plexes. The buildings will not exceed 35’ in
height and will comply with all standards of the RD-M Zone and Planned Development Ordinance. The units will
range in size from 1,340 to 2,016 square feet. A 14,330 square foot recreation area will be located in the
northeastern corner of the project site. The amenities in the recreation area include: swimming pool, spa, barbeque
area, bathroodchanging room, play equipment, and turf play area.
AESTHETICS
No Impact. The project will not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista since the site is located in an
urbanized area and will be constructed in compliance with the maximum 35’ height limitation allowed in the RD-M
zone and the archtectural guidelines contained in the Planned Development Ordinance. Development of the site
with a multi-family condominium project would be consistent with the surrounding development pattern.
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
No Impact. There will be no impact on agricultural resources due to the proposed project as the site is not
designated as or used as farmland. The subject site is zoned for multi-family residential development (RD-M) and is
not subject to a Williamson Act Contract. The project would not result in other changes to the environment that
would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. The project would be characterized as infill
development and has been surrounded by residential development for many years.
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 (03), and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter
(PM,o). 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 9th through 10th in 1994, and was forwarded to
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly
regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996.
The proposed project relates to the SIP andlor RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that are
incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city’s and the
County’s general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the project
presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that
the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact.
Section 15125(B) 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
15 Rev. 07/03/02
Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the
following:
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?
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 15130 (a) (4), the proposed project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considered
de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than significant.
d) 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 from the operation of construction
equipment, which may be considered objectionable by some people. Such exposure would be short-term or
transient. In addition, the number of people exposed to such transient impacts is not considered substantial.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
A Biological Resources Report and Impact Analysis was prepared for the proposed project by Affinis
Environmental Services in August 2002 and was updated in March, 2003. The report and update were based upon
surveys of the site conducted in May 2002 (a biological reconnaissance survey) and a literature review. The
Biological Resources Report identified four plant communities on the 8-acre project site and project impacts to those
communities as follows:
16 Rev. 07/03/02
I PROPOSED
HABITAT TYPE/
PLANT COMMUNITY
EXISTING IMPACTED
ACREAGE ACREAGE
Non-Native
GrasslandLandscaped
Coastal Sage Scrubhlixed
Chaparral
Landscaped
Disturbed Habitat
TOTAL
NON-IMPACTED
0.6 0.6
1.1 0.3
2.7 0.5
3.6 3.6
8.0 5.0
0 I
0
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. A Biological Resources Report and Impact Analysis was
prepared for the proposed project by Affinis Environmental Services in August 2002 and was updated in March,
2003. According to the report, no candidate, sensitive, or special status species have been identified on-site. No
California gnatcatchers were observed on or adjacent to the property during the surveys conducted in 2002. The
coastal sage scrublmixed chaparral (1.1-ac) found on the site is recognized as a sensitive community by local, state,
and federal resource agencies. The proposed project would avoid direct impacts to the coastal sage scrub found on
site, with the exception of possible disturbance to 0.3 acres of habitat from brush management and remedial grading.
The applicant will acquire 0.3 acres of mitigation credit in a pre-approved mitigation area or mitigation bank to
offset this impact.
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?
No Impact. No riparian, aquatic, or wetland habitat is present on the site. No habitat under the jurisdiction of the
US. Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Game, or the Regional Water Quality Control
Board would be impacted.
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?
No Impact. See Response (IV b) above.
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?
No Impact. According to the Biological Resources Report and Impact Analysis prepared for this project, there are
no wildlife corridors or habitat linkages on the project site. Native habitat is very limited on the project site. The
coastal sage scrub/chaparral mix is contiguous with habitat to the east, but this off-site area is also relatively small
and is surrounded by development on three sides. Overall, the property does not support high-quality biological
resources.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
and
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?
17 Rev. 07/03/02
No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with any HCP, NCCP, or other approved habitat conservation
plan, or local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. It is not within the boundaries of or adjacent to
any pre-approved mitigation areas, hardline areas, or standards areas identified in the City’s Draft Habitat
Management Plan (HMP).
g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive?
No Impact. See response 1V.b (above).
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
No Impact. The subject site is an infill site which is surrounded by residential development and there will
be no impacts on cultural resources. There are no known historical, archeological, paleontological, or
human remains on the project site.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury
or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
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 very minimal (according to City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November
1992). In addition, a project specific Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation was prepared by Leighton and Associates
dated October 30, 2002. The report states that the potential for Liquefaction, earthquake induced settlement and
lateral spread are considered to be low for the site because of the low susceptibility to liquefaction.
iv. Landslides?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. There are known landslide deposits located either inside
the limits of the planned grading or directly above and therefore have the potential to affect site development. Due
to their potentially compressible nature and the relatively steep basal surface, the landslide deposits within the limits
of the planned grading are not considered stable and are generally unsuitable for structural support in their present
condition. Corrective measures (i.e. removals to competent material and/or buttressing with compacted fill) will be
required to mitigate their potentially compressible nature (Update Preliminary Geotechnical Report, Lot 185, La
Costa Avenue South Unit I, Carlsbad, California, prepared by Leighton & Associates, Inc. on October 30, 2002).
Geotechnical issues will be reduced to a level considered less than significant through compliance with the
mitigation measures recommended in the report.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less than Significant Impact. Topsoil encountered during field investigations matches the ungraded portions of
the site along the southerly property line. Soils were generally massive, porous, and contained scattered roots and
other organics. The potentially compressible topsoil is estimated to be from 1 to 5 feet in thickness; however,
localized areas of thicker accumulations of topsoil may be present. Although the soils on the site are relatively
prone to erosion, all storm runoff collected onsite will be slowed down to a non-erosive manner prior to discharge
off the site by using energy dissipaters. The applicant is required to prepare grading and erosion control plans prior
to any construction. In addition, the applicant will be required to re-vegetate the slopes to increase their stability
18 Rev. 07/03/02
(Update Preliminary Geotechnical Report, Lot 185, La Costa Avenue South Unit I, Carlsbad, California, prepared
by Leighton & Associates, Inc. on October 30,2002). Geotechnical issues will be reduced to a level considered less
than significant through compliance with the mitigation measures recommended in the report.
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?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Due to their potential instability and compressible
nature, the landslide deposits on the site are considered unstable in their present condition and remedial measures are
required (Update Preliminary Geotechnical Report, Lot 185, La Costa Avenue South Unit 1, Carlsbad, California,
prepared by Leighton & Associates, Inc. on October 30, 2002). Geotechnical issues will be reduced to a level
considered less than significant through compliance with the mitigation measures recommended in the report.
d) 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?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Siltstone and claystone soils of the Santiago Formation
are highly expansive and were found on site during field investigations. These expansive soils will be removed
where present within 5 feet of finish pad grades and replaced with soils having a lower expansion potential or a
special foundation design (i.e. post-tensioned design) will be provided. Incorporation of these mitigation measures
into the overall project design will reduce these potential impacts to a level considered less than significant.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available €or the disposal of wastewater?
No Impact. Sewers are available to the subject site and the project will be served by a public wastewater system.
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
No Impact. Based on the nature of a residential land use, there is no routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous
materials associated with residential uses. Therefore, there is no potential of a significant hazard associated with the
project from accidents involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment, or from the emission of
hazardous substances within the proximity of a school.
The project site is not located within an area covered by an airport land use plan or an area where such a plan has not
been adopted. However, the project site is located approximately 2.7 miles from the McClellan-Palomar Airport
(public general aviation airport). The project site is not located within any flight, crash, or safety hazard zones
associated with the airport. Therefore, the project will not result in a safety hazard for people residing on the project
site.
The project will not impair the implementation or physically interfere with any adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation since the project site is an infill site surrounded by urban development which is adequately
served by emergency services. There are no wildlands adjacent to the site that could expose people to significant
risk from wildland fires.
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY-Would the project:
a)
No Impact. The applicant is required to comply with Order 2001-01 issued by the Regional Water Quality Control
Board. A preliminary Storm Water Management Plan for the project was prepared by O’Day Consultants to address
existing and proposed pollutants of concern and what measures will be implemented to ensure that pollutant loads
are not increased as a result of this project, to the maximum extent practicable.
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table
level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
No Impact. This project does not propose to directly draw any groundwater for potable or irrigation use. The
project will be served via existing public water distribution lines adjacent to the site. The project also includes a
19 Rev. 07/03/02
detention basin.
encourages water percolation back to the groundwater.
The purpose of this basin is to reduce peak run-off to pre-development conditions, which
c) Impacts to groundwater quality?
No Impact. This project is required to implement measures to reduce urban pollutants prior to discharge, thus
groundwater quality will not be affected by this project.
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?
No Impact. Ths project does not propose to alter existing drainage patterns, nor any stream or river that would
result in erosion or siltation on or offsite.
e) Substantially aIter 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project includes a detention basin on-site to reduce peak run-off to pre-
development flows.
f) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm
water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
No Impact. The existing storm drain system as well as the planned system as identified in the City’s Master
Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan will adequately convey runoff from the subject site. Since
this project maintains peak runoff to predevelopment flows, there is no additional impact to consider. Compliance
with NPDES requirements ensure that the off-site flow does not increase pollutant discharges.
g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Less than significant impact. As a result of the project: 1) Implementing source BMP measures to avoid pollutant
contact and; 2) Installing treatment BMP measures to remove pollutants from storm water, this project is not
anticipated to contribute additional pollutants, to the maximum extent practicable.
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?
No Impact. The proposed project is not located 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. Therefore there will be no impacts
regarding flooding.
i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact. The proposed project would not place structures within 100-year flood hazard areas. Therefore there
will be no impacts from flooding.
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.
1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters?
20 Rev. 07/03/02
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?
Less than significant impact (1, m, n, o 8z p) - The project site is not located immediately adjacent to any body of
water. The project is within a watershed that ultimately drains to Batiquitos Lagoon. Batiquitos Lagoon is not listed
as an impaired water body per the 303(d) list adopted February 4,2003. The project will be required to comply with
Order 2001-01 and the Storm Water Management Plan for this project. Drainage and development will be
controlled via best management practices to ensure that pollutants loads are not increased to the maximum extent
practicable. Therefore, the project will not adversely impact water quality.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING
No Impact. The subject site is an infill site which is surrounded by multi-family residential development to the
west, duplexes to the south, single-family residences to the north and a vacant lot to the east. Proposed residential
development of the site will be compatible with and will integrate into the existing community.
The project is consistent with the property’s General Plan designation (RMH). The density permitted on the site is
8-15 ddac, with Growth Control Management Point at 11.5 du./ac. The project’s proposed density is 11.48 ddac. The City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires that 15% of the units be reserved as affordable housing units
for low income households. The project is proposing to build 9 affordable units on-site.
The subject site does not conflict with any habitat conservation plans or natural communities plans in that the
property is designated as an “UrbanXleveloped” area in the City’s Draft Habitat Management Plan.
X. MINERAL RESOURCES
No Impact. There are no known mineral resources, of local importance or otherwise, on the project site. Therefore,
the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of such resources.
XI. 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. An Acoustical Analysis report was prepared for the
proposed project by Mestre Greve Associates in May 2002. The report indicates that the project site will be subject
to a traffic noise level of about 66.3 CNEL from La Costa Avenue at the northern property line. In order to meet the
60 CNEL exterior noise standard, noise barriers will be required along La Costa Avenue. The barrier could be a
wall, berm, or a combination of the two. The project is designed with a 5.5-foot high decorative noise attenuation
wall located at the top of slope along La Costa Avenue. Also, to meet exterior noise levels for balconies located on
the third floor, 5-foot high solid balcony barriers are required. Therefore, a mitigation measure has been included
requiring third floor balcony noise barriers to have a density of at least 3.5 pounds per square foot with no openings
and gaps. The barrier may be constructed of 318-inch plate glass, 5/8-inch plexiglass, stud and stucco construction
or a combination of these materials.
The interior noise levels are required to be no greater than 45 dBA CNEL. The report indicates that the buildings
closest to La Costa Avenue will be exposed to noise levels of less than 60 CNEL and therefore will require less than
15 dB exterior to interior noise reduction in order to meet the standard of 45 CNEL. With construction practices
common in California, residential buildings achieve outdoor to indoor noise reduction of at least 20 dB.
21 Rev. 07/03/02
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise
levels?
No Impact - Based upon the nature of the proposed residential use, the project will not result in any activity that
would generate excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels. In addition, the project site is not
located adjacent to any use that generates excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels.
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
Less than Significant Impact (c & d) - Other than traffic generated noise, typical residential land uses do not
generate a substantial amount of noise. With regard to temporary or periodic increase in noise levels, the only
potential increase in noise would be from construction activity associated with the development project. The City
incorporates standard regulations on all project construction activity to ensure that noise and other potential impacts
to surrounding properties are not significant. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in a substantial
permanent or temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact (e & f) - The project site is not located within an area covered by an airport land use plan or an area
where such a plan has not been adopted. However, the project site is located approximately 2.7 miles from the
McClellan-Palomar Airport (public general aviation airport). The project site is not located within any flight, crash,
or safety hazard zones associated with the airport. Therefore, the project will not result in a safety hazard for people
residing on the project site.
XI. POPULATION AND HOUSING
No Impact. The project would result in the development of 58 dwelling units on an infill site surrounded by
existing residential development that is served by existing roads and utilities and therefore, the project would not
induce substantial growth either directly or indirectly. The project is proposed on a vacant lot and would not
displace any existing housing or individuals.
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
No Impact. The project will result in 58 new dwelling units on 8.18 acres (11.48 unitdacre) which is consistent
with the Growth Management Control Point of 11.5 ddac allowed on this site. The provision of public facilities
within the Zone 6 LFMP, including fire & police protection, parks, libraries and other public facilities, have been
planned to accommodate the projected growth in that area. Because the project will not exceed the total growth
projections anticipated within the Zone 6 LFMP, all public facilities will be adequate to serve the proposed
residential development on the site. Therefore, the project will not result in substantial adverse impacts to or result
in the need for additional government facilities.
XIV. RECREATION
No Impacts. As part of the City’s Growth Management Program, 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 in the Southeast (SE) 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 SE Quadrant, which is 17,379 units.
22 Rev. 07/03/02
The proposed project will result in 58 additional residential units in the SE Quadrant. However, those units were
anticipated on this site under the City’s Growth Management Plan. The 58 proposed dwelling units on the site at a
density of 1 1.48 units per acre will not exceed the growth control point (1 1.5 ddac) allowed by the site’s General
Plan designation. The Parks and Recreation Element states that the park acreage demand for the SE Quadrant, based
on the GMP dwelling unit limit, is 120.49 acres, and the anticipated park acreage to be provided at build-out will be
140.27 acres. Therefore, there will be adequate parkland within the SE Quadrant, and the proposed development
will not cause additional demand for parkland or expansion of recreational facilities. Because park facilities will be
adequate to serve residential development on the site, any increase in use of park facilities generated from
development of the site will not result in substantial physical deterioration of any park facility.
AM
LOS INTERSECTION
WITHOUT I WITH
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC-Would the project:
PM
LOS
WITHOUT 1 WITH
a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity
of the street system?
La Costa Ave/El Camino Real
La Costa Ave/Rancho Santa Fe Road
Less Than Significant Impact. A traffic analysis was conducted for the project by Urban Systems Associates on
May 16,2003 to evaluate the impacts on La Costa Avenue and impact on level of service. The project is estimated
to generate 464 Average Daily Trips (ADT), 38 AM peak hour, and 47 PM peak hour trips. This project is served
by La Costa Avenue, which is a secondary arterial roadway. Existing traffic on this arterial is estimated at 9,737
ADT according to the 2002 Traffic Monitoring Report. The project traffic would represent slightly more than 2% of
the existing traffic on La Costa Avenue near the project, but less than 2% on other arterials in the study area. The
project’s percent of the roadway design capacities are slightly more than 1% on La Costa Avenue but less than 0.5%
on other arterials. While the increases 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.
D D D D
B B C C
As shown, the arterial intersections in the study area are cwrently operating acceptably and will continue to operate
acceptably with project traffic added.
The proposed project would not, therefore, cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to 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. The traffic analysis conducted for the project concludes that “intersection levels of
service are not expected to change as a result of project traffic, and average peak hour delays per vehicle at study
area intersections are expected to be less than a two second increase, so that project impacts would be less than
significant.
e) 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 located more than 2
miles from the McClellan-Palomar Airport and is not located within the boundaries of Airport Land Use Plan. It
would not, therefore, result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No impact
assessed.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses?
23 Rev. 07/03/02
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 project complies with the City’s parking requirements of 2 parking spaces per unit and 17 visitor
spaces 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 proposed project does not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation.
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS
No Impact - The proposed residential development, will be required to comply with all Regional Water Quality
Control Board Requirements. In addition, the Zone 6 LFMP anticipated that the project site would be developed
with a high density residential use and wastewater treatment facilities were planned and designed to accommodate
future residential uses on the site. All public facilities, including water facilities, wastewater treatment facilities and
drainage facilities, have been planned and designed to accommodate the growth projections for the City at build-out.
The proposed density on the site will increase the demand for these facilities. However, the proposed density would
not result in an overall increase in the City’s growth projection in the SE quadrant. Therefore, the project will not
result in development that will result in a significant need to expand or construct new water facilitiedsupplies,
wastewater treatment or storm water drainage facilities.
Existing waste disposal services are adequate to serve the proposed residential use on the site without exceeding
landfill capacities. In addition, the proposed residential development 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?
No Impact -The proposed residential project will not degrade the quality of the environment. The project site does
not contain any fish or wildlife species. Therefore, the project will not reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species.
The project site is a vacant infill site which is surrounded by existing residential development. The site is not
identified by any habitat conservation plan as containing a protected, rare or endangered plant or animal community.
The impact to 0.29 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub located on-site will be mitigated by acquiring mitigation credit in a
pre-approved mitigation area or mitigation bank. Therefore, the project will not threaten the number of a plant or
animal community.
In addition, there are no historic structures on the site and there are no known cultural resources on the site. The
project will not result in the elimination of any important examples of California History or prehistory.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
24 Rev. 07/03/02
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 project
would contribute to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As
described above, however, emissions associated with the residential development would be minimal. Given the
limited emissions potentially associated with the residential development of the site, air quality would be essentially
the same whether or not the residential development is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section
15130 (a)(4), the project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed
as less than significant.
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 of 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 - Based upon the residential nature of the project and the
fact that future development of the site will comply with all City standards, the project will not result in any direct or
indirect substantial adverse environmental effects on human beings. However, the project site is located in an area
where human beings could be exposed to significantly high noise levels generated from traffic on adjacent
roadways. As discussed above, any potential impact from noise can be mitigated to a level less than significant.
Those mitigation measures will be incorporated as conditions of project approval. Any future 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.
EAIUIER 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. La Costa Condominiums Biological Survey, Affinis Environmental Services, August 14, 2002.
2. La Costa Condominiums Biological Survey Update, Affinis Environmental Services March 18,2003.
3. Update Preliminarv Geotechnical Investigation, Leighton & Associates, Inc., October 30,2002.
4. Preliminarv Noise Analvsis for the “La Costa Condominiums” Proiect, Mestre Greve Associates, May 3,
2002.
5. Storm Water Manaeement Plan for La Costa Condominiums, O’Day Consultants, May 20,2003.
25 Rev. 07/03/02
6. Final Master Environmental Imuact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01).
City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994.
Citv of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analvsis and Maming Studv, November 1992. 7.
26 Rev. 07/03/02
LIST OF MITIGATION MEASURES
1. To achieve the required 60 dBA CNEL exterior noise level, include a 5.5 foot high noise bamer along
La Costa Avenue. The noise bamer may consist of a wall, a berm or a combination of the two. The
bamer must have a surface density of at least 3.5 pounds per square foot and shall have no openings
and gaps. The wall may be constructed of stud, stucco, 3/8-inch plate glass, any masonry material or a
combination of these materials. The wall shall be located at the top of slope.
2. In order to meet the exterior noise standard of 60 CNEL, 5 foot high balcony noise barriers (relative to
the balcony floor) are required for the third floor balconies for units located along La Costa Avenue.
The barrier must have a surface density of at least 3.5 pounds per square foot and shall have no
openings and gaps. The wall may be constructed of stud, stucco, 318-inch plate glass, any masonry
material or a combination of these materials.
3. Mechanical ventilation is required for the units facing La Costa Avenue to achieve an interior noise
level of 45 dBA CNEL or less.
i
4. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant should acquire 0.29 acre of Coastal Sage Scrub
mitigation credit in a pre-approved mitigation area or mitigation bank as approved by the City and the
resources agencies.
5. Prior to commencement of grading, the lower boundary of the mixed chapamalhoastal sage scrub
habitat shall be staked and flagged by a qualified biologist at the base of the slope. The contractor
shall be advised to avoid encroachment into this habitat during project grading and construction of the
retaining wall.
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATION MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Fi EC E I VED
27 Rev. 07/03/02
I
PROJECT NAME: LA COSTA CONDOMINIUMS FILE NUMBERS: CT 02-28/SDP 03-1 8/CP 02-1 YHDP 02-14
APPROVAL DATE: February 4,2004
The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate
identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that
this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly
Bill 31 80 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6).
Mitigation Measure
1. Mitigation required to achieve the required 60 dBA CNEL
exterior noise standard includes a '5.5 foot high solid
noise wall located along La Costa Avenue. The wall shall
be located at the top of slope. The wall may be
constructed of stud, stucco, 3/8-inch plate glass, any
masonry material or a combination of these materials.
The wall must have a surface density of at least 3.5
pounds per square foot and shall have no openings and
aaos.
2. Mitigation required to achieve 60 dBA CNEL exterior
noise standard for the third floor balconies for units
located along La Costa Avenue includes a solid five-foot
high noise barrier (relative to the balcony floor). The
barrier must have a surface density of at least 3.5 pounds
. per square foot and shall have no openings and gaps.
The barrier may be constructed of stud, stucco, 3/8-inch
plate glass, any masonry material or a combination of
these materials.
Explanation of Headinas:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular
mitigation measure.
information.
Shown on Plans =When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated.
Monitoring Monitoring Type Department
Pian check- Building/ Planning Prior to issuance of a
building permit
Plan check- Building/ Prior to Planning
issuance of a
building permit
Shown on
Plans
Yes
Remarks Verified
Implementation
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented,
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other this column will be initialed and dated.
RD - Appendix P.
Mitigation Measure
I 5. Prior to commencement of grading, the lower boundary of Prior to
the mixed chaparralkoastal sage scrub habitat shall be issuance of 1 staked and flagged by a qualified biologist at the base of grading Permit
the slope. The contractor shall be advised to avoid
encroachment into this habitat during project grading and
construction of the retaining wall.
6. The developer shall acquire mitigation credit in a pre- Prior to approved mitigation area or mitigation bank as approved issuance of
bv the Citv and reauired bv the resource aaencies. grading permit
Monitoring Shown on Verified
Department Plans Implementation
Building/
Engineering/ Planning
Engineering/
Planning
Planning
Remarks
ExDlanation of Headinas: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular
mitigation measure.
information.
Shown on Plans =When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be
initialed and dated.
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented,
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other this column will be initialed and dated.
RD - Appendix P.