Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-11-04; Planning Commission; ; CDP 98-13A - RANCHO REALTne City of CARLSBAD Planning Department A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Item No. P.C. AGENDA OF: November 4,1998 Application complete date: Project Planner: Project Engineer: October 9, 1998 Elaine Blackburn Clyde Wickham SUBJECT: CDP 98-13fA) - RANCHO REAL - Request for an amendment to CDP 98-13 to modify a condition prohibiting winter grading on a site within the Coastal Zone located on the West side of El Camino Real between Kelly Drive and Hidden Valley Road and within Local Facilities Management Zone 1. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4423 APPROVING CDP 98-13(A) based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. INTRODUCTION This application is for an amendment to an approved Coastal Development Permit (CDP 98-13) to modify the winter grading prohibition applied to the project. The subject site is a 16.85-acre parcel located on the west side of El Camino Real between Kelly Drive and Hidden Valley Road. The site is located within the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and is, therefore, subject to the standard limitation on grading activities during the winter (rainy) season (from October 1 to April 1). Due to potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the project, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has imposed an additional grading prohibition for the time period of March 15 through September 15. These two restrictions would make it impossible for the developer to accomplish the necessary grading for the project. Consequently staff is recommending that the winter grading limitation be modified so that the developer can conduct grading activities until February 1,1999. There are no unresolved issues associated with this request. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND This application is for an amendment to an approved Coastal Development Permit (CDP 98-13) to modify the winter grading limitation applied to the project. The subject site is a 16.85-acre parcel located on the west side of El Camino Real between Kelly Drive and Hidden Valley Road. The approved development for the site is a 3 5-unit single-family small-lot residential development with open space, recreation and RV parking areas. The majority of the permits required for the development (CT 90-13, HDP 90-19, PUD 90-16, and SUP 90-07) were approved in May of 1991. The Coastal Development Permit (CDP 98-13) was approved on September 2, 1998. Due to the location of the project site within the Mello II segment of the Coastal Zone, grading during the winter rainy season (October 1 to April 1) is CDP 98-13(A) - RANCHO REAL November 4, 1998 Page 2 limited and normally prohibited as a condition of approval. However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has notified staff that grading should be prohibited from March 15 through September 15 for environmental mitigation purposes (to eliminate potential impacts to neighboring songbirds during their breeding season). When combined, the two grading prohibitions would effectively limit grading activities to only two weeks out of the year (from September 15 to October 1). The Engineering Department has recommended that the grading of the site can be conducted during the rainy season without resulting in erosion or runoff impacts to the project site or neighboring areas. Consequently, staff is recommending that the standard winter grading prohibition be modified for the project so that grading activities can be conducted until February 1, 1998. IV. ANALYSIS A. Coastal Development Regulations This project site is located within the Mello II segment of the City's Local Coastal Program and is subject to the land use policies and implementing ordinances which are a part of that segment. One of the requirements of this Coastal Program is a standard limitation on winter grading (October 1 through April 1). This standard condition is applied to prevent excessive erosion and/or sedimentation into sensitive areas. (This limitation was not specifically called out as a condition of approval of the Coastal Development Permit. However, it is called out specifically within the Mello II Segment Coastal Zone regulations.) Staff has reviewed the proposed change in conditions and believes that the grading can be accomplished during the winter season with no negative consequences to the site or neighboring sites. The City's grading ordinance (Title 11 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) contains numerous regulations which govern grading activities, including regulations specifically for grading occurring during the rainy season. The Engineering Department has concluded that these existing regulations are sufficient to prevent unacceptable erosion/sedimentation and/or other impacts to the project site or the surrounding areas. These measures ensure that detailed plans of all protective drainage and erosion control measures meet with the approval of the Engineering Department. In addition, standard grading regulations require the revegetation of all cut slopes to further reduce potential erosion damage. V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff has reviewed the proposed project (i.e., the elimination of the winter grading prohibition) and has concluded that the proposed change in the condition of approval represents a minor technical addition to the approved Mitigated Negative Declaration, and has, therefore, prepared an Addendum to the approved Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act. (See the Addendum attached hereto for a detailed discussion of the environmental circumstances and conclusions.) CDP 98-13(A) - RANCHO REAL November 4,1998 Page 3 ATTACHMENTS; 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4423 2. Location Map 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4378, dated September 2,1998 4. Exhibit "A", letter from USFWS dated September 30,1998 5. Negative Declaration for CT 90-13, dated April 25,1991 6. EIA Part II for CT 90-13, dated October 31,1990 7. Environmental Mitigation Monitoring Checklist for CT 90-13 8. Disclosure Statement EB:eh RANCHO REAL CDP98-13(A) S'EP-30-98 WED 1:19 PM FWS FAX HO. 76M31 5902 P. 2 EXHIBIT "A" United States Department of the Interior riSH ft WILOUFB FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Ecological Services Carlsbad Field Office 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, California 92008 Ms. Elaine Blackburn SEP 3 0 1998 Planning Department City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009 Subject: Grading Permit for Rancho Real (CT 90-13) Dear Ms. Blackburn: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed project information, including a letter report prepared by Dudek & Associates for the Athalon Services Group (24 July 1997), relating to biological mitigation measures made conditions of approval for the Rancho Real project. Condition 5 states that a directed survey for least Bell's vireo (Vireo belliipusillus; vireo) must be conducted on the project site and in contiguous off-site riparian habitat prior to the issuance of grading permits. The intent of this condition is to avoid potential "take" of this federally endangered birds species, Protocol level surveys conducted by Brock Ortega between April 23 and July 9 revealed the presence of a vireo pair within 25 feet of the project's southern boundary during six of the eight surveys. In order to avoid impacts to vireos, the Service typically requires that any activities which would result in noise levels which exceed 60 dB (e.g., grading) be conducted outside of the breeding season which is defined as that period between March 15 and September 15, annually. While there are mitigation strategies which, when carefully employed, could allow grading to occur during in this limeframe, they are used only when there is no other option. It should be noted that even with the use of these mitigation strategies, the potential still exists for impacts to occur and, therefore, there is no guarantee that the project would not be subject to delay. In order to best protect vireos, grading .activities associated with the implementation of the Rancho Real project should be conducted outside of the breeding season (i.e., September 16 through March 14) as long as other conditions associated with project approval, especially erosion control measures, would not be compromised. If you have any questions, please contact Julie Vanderwier of my office at (760) 431-9440. Sincerely, Sheryl L. Assistant rett Office Supervisor cc: Kent Grover, Pinnacle Communities Brock Ortega, Dudek & Associates Bill Tippets, California Department of Fish and Game City of Carlsbad Planning Department DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee. The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print. Note: Person is defined as "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation,- estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, city and county, city municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit." Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be provided below. 1 . 2. APPLICANT (Not the applicant's agent) Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having a financial interest in the application. If the applicant includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON- APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publicly-owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person Title Corp/Part. Title M*.NA6g<2- ,lrJc Address 3cex2-Address ?><x>l- Dow OWNER (Not the owner's agent) Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e, partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publicly- owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person Title Corp/Part Title Address •ess Co ft?. 2O75 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1 576 • (76O) 438-1161 • FAX (76O) 438-O894 3. NON-PROFIT O ~ \NIZATION OR TRUST If any person identititd pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonprofit organization or a trust, list the names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the. Non Profit/Trust Non Profit/Trust Title Title Address Address 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months? Yes Xf No If yes, please indicate person(s):_ NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. I certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Signature of owner/date Signature of applicant/date 35", U_C- ^ekjseAD 59" , Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant Signature of owner/applicant's agent if applicable/date Print or type name of owner/applicant's agent H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/98 Page 2 of 2 ADDENDUM TO NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR CT 90-13 CASE NO: CDP 98-13(A) DATE: OCTOBER 13. 1998 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: RANCHO REAL 2. APPLICANT: CARLSBAD 35 LLC 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 3002 DOW AVENUE. SUITE 122. TUSTIN. CA. 92780 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: N/A 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An amendment to an approved Coastal Development Permit (CDP 98-13) to amend the condition of approval which prohibits grading during the winter (rainy) season ADDENDUM to Negative Declaration for CT 90-13 This project site is located within the Mello II segment of the City's Local Coastal Program and is subject to the land use policies and implementing ordinances which are a part of that segment. One of the requirements of this Coastal Program is a standard prohibition on winter grading (October 1 through April 1). This standard condition is applied to prevent excessive erosion and/or sedimentation into wetlands or other sensitive areas. This project (a 35-unit single-family residential project) was originally approved with a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Although there were no sensitive resources on the subject site, there were potentially sensitive resources (Least Bells Vireo songbirds) on the neighboring site (the Kelly property). Consequently, the mitigation plan required the developer to conduct several breeding season surveys for the presence of the bird and, if the birds were present on or near the project site, to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the City to determine the exact nature and extent of the necessary mitigation measures.1 (It was anticipated that a partial or complete limitation on grading in the area of the birds would be required.) The breeding season surveys were conducted and found that the birds were present on the Kelly property within 25' of the subject property line. The survey report concluded that grading activities (particularly noise) could result in impacts to the birds through disruption of their breeding activities. As a result of the survey conclusions, the applicant consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the best way to minimize or eliminate impacts to the songbirds during grading activities. The result of that consultation is a letter from the USFWS (Attachment A) recommending that grading activities be prohibited entirely during the songbirds' breeding season (from March 15 through September 15). When combined with the standard winter grading prohibition (from October 1 to April 1) applied to this Coastal zone (Mello II) site, this would prohibit grading between October 1 and September 15, leaving only a two-week period for grading activities. The developer anticipates that the grading for the project will take approximately four weeks. As stated above, the primary purpose of the winter grading prohibition is to prevent undesired erosion/sedimentation into sensitive coastal zone areas. The City's Engineering and Planning Departments have reviewed the applicant's request to be allowed to grade during part of the rainy season and believe that the request can be accommodated without resulting in any harm to sensitive and/or other areas. The City has in place numerous requirements governing grading activities and potential run off and/or erosion, including special requirements applying to grading activities conducted during the rainy season. These requirements ensure that detailed plans of all protective drainage and erosion control measures meet with the approval of the Engineering Department. In addition, standard grading regulations require the revegetation of all cut slopes to further reduce potential erosion damage. The Engineering Department has recommended that these existing controls will adequately protect the project site and the surrounding areas from erosion and/or sedimentation, and has recommended that the applicant be allowed to conduct grading activities between October 1 and February 1. (Because the modification of the winter grading prohibition condition of approval requires a public hearing, the applicant cannot reasonably begin grading until approximately December 1,1998.) City staff has reviewed the proposed amendment to the condition of approval and believes that the change in the mitigation requirement represents a minor technical addition to the mitigation plan consistent with the criteria in Section 15164 of CEQA which allows the lead agency to prepare an addendum to the approved Negative Declaration. The proposed change in the mitigation plan does not meet any of the criteria of Section 15162 (requiring a subsequent Negative Declaration) or Section 15163 (requiring a supplemental Negative Declaration) for the following reasons: 1) No substantial changes are proposed to the project and no new significant environmental effects result and no increase to severity of previously identified effects result from this change. The proposed grading activities will have to comply with all applicable grading regulations, thus ensuring that no unacceptable runoff or sedimentation/erosion occurs to sensitive resources. In addition, a previously-identified potential impact (disruption of songbird breeding activities) will be eliminated by the proposed change because it will prohibit grading activities entirely during the breeding season. (Section 15162(1) of CEQA) 2) There are no substantial changes occurring with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which require major revisions to mitigate new significant effects or increased severity of effects. The potential impact to songbirds was anticipated by the original Negative Declaration and was addressed in the approved Mitigation Plan. As stated above, the proposed change in the timing of the grading activities will eliminate a potential impact (disruption of breeding activities) and will not itself result in any new impacts. (Section 15162(2) of CEQA) 3) The proposed project amendment does not result from new information of substantial importance not known previously. The potential impact of the project to the songbirds was recognized previously and was the reason for the mitigation plan requirement for the surveys and consultation with USFWS. The only new information is the decision by USFWS regarding the degree of prohibition on grading necessary to lessen or eliminate the impact (i.e., a complete prohibition during the breeding season rather than a partial prohibition or a "proximity" prohibition for some shorter time period). (Section 15162(3) of CEQA) 4) Section 15163 allows the lead agency to prepare a Supplement to the approved Negative Declaration rather than a Subsequent Negative Declaration when the change in the project or circumstances would result in the original Negative Declaration being inadequate without revision for the reasons called out in Section 15162. Since none of the conditions described in Section 15162 apply in this situation, Section 15163 also does not apply. In this case, the approved Negative Declaration adequately identified the potential impact to Least Bells Vireo songbirds and resulted in a Mitigation Plan which required elimination or minimization of that impact to the degree required by the USFWS. The mitigation plan recognized that the specific degree of the mitigation measure would not be identified until the surveys were completed and USFWS had been consulted. Consequently, staff has prepared this Addendum to the approved Negative Declaration. 1 Note: There were other mitigation measures required for the project (e.g., recordation of a 100' wetlands buffer easement, an update of noise impact calculations on the future structures, and implementation of runoff/erosion control methods). However, those measures either have already been completed or are underway currently. Those measures are unaffected by the consultation results or the timing of the grading activities. Consequently, implementation of those measures will continue unchanged. A copy of the approved Negative Declaration, approved Mitigation Plan, EIA Part II are attached hereto. EARLIER ANALYSES USED The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92009, (760) 438-1161, extension 4471. 1. Mitigated Negative Declaration for Rancho Real (CT 90-13), dated April 25, 1991, City of Carlsbad Planning Department. City of Carlsbad Planning Department NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: West side of El Camino Real between Kelly Drive and Hidden Valley Road PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Single Family Residential developed under the standards of a Planned Unit Development 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, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Elaine Blackburn in the Planning Department at 438-1161, extension 4471. DATED: APRIL 25, 1991 CASE NO: CT 90-13/HDP 90-19/ PUD 90-16/SUP 90-7 APPLICANT: GREEN VALLEY PARTNERSHIP PUBLISH DATE: APRIL 25, 1991 MICHAEL J. HOLZMI Planning Director ER EB:vd 2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-4859 • (619) 438-1161 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART H (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. CT 90-13/HDP 9Q-19/PUD 90-16/SUP 90-7 DATE: October 31. 1990 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Rancho Real 2. APPLICANT: Green Valley Partnership 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1298 Prospect Street. Suite 2-K LaJolla. CA 92037 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: March 23. 1990 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Single Family Residential developed under the standards of a Planned Unit Development. 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 or Negative Declaration. * 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 effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" will be checked to indicate this determination. * An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the project may cause a significant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negative Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemed insignificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings "YES-sig" and "YES-insig" respectively. 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. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:YES Csig) YES (insig) NO 1. Result in unstable earth conditions or increase the exposure of people or property to geologic hazards? 2. Appreciably change the topography or any unique physical features? 3. Result in or be affected by erosion of soils either on or off the site? 4. Result in changes in the deposition of beach sands, or modification of the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? 5. Result in substantial adverse effects on ambient air quality? 6. Result in substantial changes in air movement, odor, moisture, or temperature? 7. Substantially change the course or flow of water (marine, fresh or flood waters)? 8. Affect the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water or public water supply? 9. Substantially increase usage or cause depletion of any natural resources? 10. Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? 11. Alter a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure or object? X JC. X -2- BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NOUnsig) 12. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic plants)? 13. Introduce new species of plants into an area, or a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? 14. Reduce the amount of acreage of any agricultural crop or affect prime, unique or other farmland of state or local importance? 15. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, all water dwelling organisms and insects? 16. Introduce new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? HUMAN ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES. NO 17. Alter the present or planned land use of an area? 18. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services? -3- HUMAN ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:YES(msimsig)NO 19. Result in the need for new or modified sewer systems, solid waste or hazardous waste control systems? 20. Increase existing noise levels? 21. Produce new light or glare? 22. Involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? 23. Substantially alter the density of the human population of an area? 24. Affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 25. Generate substantial additional traffic? 26. Affect existing parking facilities, or create a large demand for new parking? 27. Impact existing transportation systems or alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? 28. Alter waterbome, rail or air traffic? 29. Increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 30. Interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans? 31. Obstruct any scenic vista or create an aesthetically offensive public view? 32. Affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? -4- ..-ANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO (sig) unsig) 33. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wild- life 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 en- dangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. X 34. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the dis- advantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) x 35. Does the project have the possible environmental effects which are in- dividually limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively con- siderable" means that the incremental effects of an individual 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.) X 36. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X -5- DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Project Description The proposed project is a 35-unit single family residential development on a 16.85 acre site located on the west side of El Camino Real. The site is north of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon wetlands boundary. The site contains other constraints including areas of 25% - 40% and 40% or greater slopes, a cultural resource area, and a power transmission easement. The southern tip of the property is also located within the 100-year floodplain. The proposed project includes a 100-foot wetlands buffer area as required by the Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan. No construction will occur in the cultural resource area nor within the 100-year floodplain area. Physical Environment 1. A soil and geologic investigation of the site was conducted by Geocon, Inc. in March of 1990. The study reports a surficial landslide in an area proposed to receive fill. Proper soil treatment prior to the placement of fill soils will be required as part of the standard engineering conditions imposed on the development. 2. The proposed project will change the topography of the site, however, the site does not contain any unique physical features. The project involves grading volumes of approximately 8,180 cy/acre. Cut and fill volumes on the site will be balanced. There will be no import or export. The maximum slope height created will be 30 feet. The rather large grading volumes involved are the result of the constraints of the site. 3. The development of the site will be subject to conditions resulting from the soil and geologic investigation. Erosion control measures will be required during and after construction to reduce the amount of siltation into Agua Hedionda Lagoon. 4. The project will not change the deposition of beach sands nor modify any channel or ocean bed or other water body. There are no beach sands, channels, or other water bodies on the site. 5. The proposed single family development will not result in substantial adverse effects on ambient air quality. The project will generate 350 trips per day. 6. The project will not cause substantial changes in air movement, odor, moisture or temperature. It is a single family residential project with a minimum lot size of approximately 5,000 square feet and a maximum height of approximately 26 feet. 7. The project will not affect the course or flow of any waters. There are no water bodies on the site. 8. There will be no impacts on the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water, or public water supply. Water will be supplied by Carlsbad Municipal Water District. Dust and erosion control measures will be implemented to prevent any adverse effects during construction. A temporary desiltation basin will be needed during construction. This basin will not be allowed within the 100-foot buffer. The Mello II Coastal Program requires that the proposed project not result in a net increase of run-off on the site. Verification that this requirement is being met will be required before grading activities can begin. -6- DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION cont'd 9. The project will not substantially increase usage or cause depletion of any natural resources. The sire does not contain any natural resources. 10. The project will not use substantial amounts of fuel or energy. It is a single family development with no single major energy user. 11. A cultural resource survey conducted in January ,1990, indicates the presence of Indian artifacts on the southeastern portion of the site. The survey recommends that the project not encroach into the resource area. Avoidance of the area will serve as mitigation of this potentially significant impact. Biological Environment 12. The proposed project will not significantly affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of plants. A biological study of the site conducted in February, 1990, indicated that there were no federally listed rare or endangered plant species on the site. The southern portion of the site as proposed includes a 100-foot buffer area for protection of the wetlands area of the nearby Agua Hedionda Lagoon. This buffer area is disturbed and currently contains trash. The proposed project includes cleaning up the buffer area and hydroseeding it with plant species native to the area. 13. The proposed project will not introduce new species of plants to the area. The vegetation native to the site has been mostly eliminated as the site has been used for agricultural purposes (tomatoes) for a number of years. 14. The site is currently used for agricultural activities. The site is not, however, included in the area designated a Significant Agricultural Area by the California Coastal Commission. 15. The project will not significantly affect the diversity of species, habitat, or numbers of any species of animals. The biological study of the site indicated that no threatened or endangered wildlife species were found on the site. There is the potential for several sensitive bird species to be indirectly impacted by development of the site. Although very little habitat exists on the site, it is adjacent to a large riparian area containing habitat for sensitive bird species. Measures are required to mitigate the potential impacts. Mitigation measures are detailed in the attached Mitigation Plan. They include provision of a 100-foot buffer area, preservation of some existing vegetation, revegetation of disturbed areas, and noise tests and protection for least Bell's vireo during breeding season. 16. The project will not introduce new species of animals into the area, nor result in a barrier to the movement of animals. Human Environment 17. The proposal is for residential uses in an area zoned for residential and agricultural uses. The General Plan designates the area for low to medium density residential uses. Thus, the proposal does not alter the planned land use of the area. 18. The project will not substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency, or other public services. Public services will be provided through the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan. -7- DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION confd 19. Any resulting need for sewers, drains or other waste systems will be provided on site and will not significantly impact existing systems. 20. The project, when completed, will not increase noise levels. Short-term insignificant noise may result from construction activities. These potential impacts will be mitigated through the normal conditions on construction activities (e.g., hours of work activities, etc.) Because of proximity to El Camino Real and the airport, some residential structures on the site might be subject to noise impacts from the street and from airplane flyovers. The project has been designed to incorporate the noise impact reduction measures recommended in the noise study prepared for the site. Additional mitigation is being proposed to ensure compliance with Administrative Policy #17 concerning noise impacts on residential uses. 21. The proposed project will not result in significant new light. Street lighting provided will not create a nuisance for surrounding properties. 22. The type of project proposed (residential) typically does not involve a significant risk of explosion or the release of hazardous substances. 23. The net density of the proposed project is 3.19 dwelling units per acre. This is within the density range (0-4 units per acre) allowed by the General Plan and just below the Growth Control Point (3.2 units per acre). 24. The project will provide 35 additional housing units to meet current demand. These units are allowed under Growth Management regulations for Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 1. 25. The 350 additional trips per day generated by the project will not have a significant impact on the street system. 26. All parking demand generated by the project will be satisfied on site. Each single family home will have a two-car garage. Guest parking will be on-street. 27. The project will not significantly impact existing transportation systems nor alter circulation patterns or movement of people and/or goods. 28. The project is not in the vicinity of a rail line or a water body having boat traffic. The project is also outside of the Airport Influence Area for Palomar Airport. 29. The project will not increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians. The project's circulation system includes public streets and access roads designed to comply with City regulations and policies. Sidewalks will be provided throughout the project. 30. The project design proposes links to the existing circulation system for the larger area which will not interfere with emergency response plans. The circulation within the project is also designed to accommodate the necessary emergency access. -8- DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION confd 31. The proposed project will not obstruct any scenic vista nor create an aesthetically offensive public view. 32. The project will create a demand for recreational opportunities which will be satisfied on site. The project includes a recreation play area with a volley ball court and a hiking trail. -9- ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS: a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site designs, c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the site, e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alternate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative. a) No phasing of development of the project has been proposed. The project is a small (35 unit) residential development. Phasing of the development would provide no environmental or other benefit over non-phasing. b) Alternate site designs have been proposed and reviewed by the Planning and Engineering staffs. The currently proposed site design is the one preferred by staff. The site has numerous constraints, making it difficult to develop. The presently proposed design provides a number of environmental benefits. It leaves the cultural resource area undisturbed and provides a large wetlands buffer area which will be revegetated with native plants. It also mitigates potential noise impacts to the site from the nearby major street. c) Several site designs have been considered. The project as currently proposed is of a lesser scale than previous proposals (from 39 units originally proposed to the currently proposed 35 units - a reduction of 4 units). The currently proposed scale is adequate to provide environmental mitigation. A smaller scale of development would not provide any greater environmental benefits. d) The General Plan map designates the site for low to medium density residential uses, and the site is zoned for residential and agricultural uses. The proposed use is an appropriate use for the site. e) Delaying the development of the site until some future time would provide no environmental or other benefit. The site is currently used for agriculture. The proposed project will provide mitigation for potential impacts as discussed above. f) Use of this site for the proposed residential project does not preclude similar development on other sites. It also would not provide any environmental benefits for this site since it is currently in agricultural cultivation. g) Since the proposed project is in conformance with the General Plan and zoning designation of the site, the no project alternative would provide no environmental or other benefit. With the no project alternative, the site would continue in agricultural use. -10- DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. _X 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 Conditional Negative Declaration will be proposed. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 2 Date Signature • . -\ ^ •t/* A/' Date Planning Director EB:rvo:km LIST MITIGATING MEASURES fIF APPLICABLE) ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) -11- APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. X Date / Signature 7 -12- PROJECT NAME: Rancho Real FILE NUMBERS: CT 90-13/HDP 90-19/PUD 90-16/SUP 90-7 APPROVAL DATE:EIR OR CONDITIONAL NEC. DEC.: The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). Mitigation Measure Monitoring Type Monitoring Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks After the preparation of final grading plans and pad elevations, noise calculations shall be repeated to verify or modify preliminary noise calculations. Prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy or equivalent releases, the project must comply with Administrative Policy #17 for interior and exterior noise levels. Prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy or equivalent releases, deed restrictions must be filed on affected lots (those subject to noise impacts from Palomar Airport flight activities) requiring written notification to purchasers of noise impacts to the property. Project Planning Department 5*>. "3 Explanation of Headings Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information. RD-AppendxP r EB:rvo £ CT9013.MON ' PROJECT NAME: Rancho Real FILE NUMBERS: CT 90-13/HDP 90-19/PUD 90-16/SUP 90-7 APPROVAL DATE:EIR OR CONDITIONAL NEC. DEC.: The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). Mitigation Measure Prior to the issuance of grading permits, developer must submit to the satisfaction of the City Engineer proof that construction activities shall be carried on in such a manner as to prevent the flow of sediment into any wetland habitat or into the 100- foot buffer, and that the development of the project will not result in any peak increase in runoff rate from the developed site over the greatest discharge expected from the existing undeveloped site as a result of a 10- year frequency storm (in accordance with Mello II Coastal zone requirements). Prior to recordation of a final map, developer must place a permanent open space easement over the 100-foot wetlands buffer area to restrict the area for open space/wildlife uses only. Monitoring Type Project Project Monitoring Department Engineering Department Planning Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks Explanation of Headings Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information. RD-AppendxP EB:rvo CT9013.MON PROJECT NAME: Rancho Real FILE NUMBERS: CT 90-13/HDP 90-19/PUD 90-16/SUP 90-7 APPROVAL DATE:EIR OR CONDITIONAL NEC. DEC: The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). Mitigation Measure Monitoring Type Monitoring Department Shown on Plans Verified Remarks Prior to the issuance of building permits, the 100-foot buffer area must be revegetated with upland native vegetation. Project Planning Department Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a directed survey for least Bell's vireo must be conducted by a qualified ornithologist on the project site and on the contiguous off- site riparian habitat during the spring breeding season (March 15 to August 30) to determine presence/absence and/or abundance. The survey shall involve at least three visits during the breeding season and shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review. If least Bell's vireo are found to be present on the project site or on the contiguous offsite riparian habitat during the survey, the developer must cease all activities immediately and contact the City of Carlsbad and the Interior Department of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the developer will be required to devise a mitigation plan acceptable to both the City of Carlsbad and the Fish and Wildlife Service prior to the issuance of grading permits. Ongoing Planning Department explanation of Headings Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information. PROJECT NAME; Rancho Real APPROVAL DATE: FILE NUMBERS: CT 90-13/HDP 90-19/PUD 90-16/SUP 90-7 EIR OR CONDITIONAL NEC. DEC.: The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). Mitigation Measure Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a detailed tree preservation plan showing which existing eucalyptus trees along the eastern boundary of the property will be preserved must be submitted, and approved by the Planning Director. Monitoring Type Project Monitoring Department Planning Department/ Engineering Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks Explanation of Headings Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information. 2? 8, I*