HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 97-58A; Carlsbad Park Estates; Coastal Development Permit (CDP) (9)1 kJH$xQd %z-P9
m...mm.Gity of Carlsbad
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: Northwest quadrant at the corner of Park Drive and Monroe
Street
Project Description: Coastal Development Permit Amendment and Site Development
Plan Amendment to construct 14 single family homes and two
second dwelling units on previously subdivided and graded lots in
the R-l- 10,000 zone.
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, 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 is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this
action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Mitigated 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 Anne Hysong in the Planning
Department at (760) 43% 116 1, extension 4477.
DATED: September 7, 1999
CASE NO: SDP 98-05(A)/CDP 97-58(A)
CASE NAME: MAY SUBDIVISION
PUBLISH DATE: September 7, 1999
Planning Director
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-l 161 - FAX (760) 438-0894
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: SDP 98-05(AY CDP 97-58(A)
DATE: Julv 21. 1999
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: May Subdivision
2. APPLICANT: Carlsbad Estates, LLC
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 110 Juniper Street, San Dieao, CA
92 10 1. (6 19) 702-2042
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: April7.1999
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Coastal Development Permit amendment and Site Develoument ,
Plan amendment to allow 14 single familv homes and two second dwelling. units on previously
subdivided and m-aded lots located in the northwest auadrant at the comer of Park Drive and
Monroe Street in the R-1-10.000 zone.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,’’ or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Ix] Land Use and Planning TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources Ix] Aesthetics
water
0 Air Quality
0 Hazards u Cultural Resources
0 Noise [7 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
r-
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0
0
0
IXJ
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 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 significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 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 Mitigated
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 pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore,
a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
1 94-9 ;7
Planner Signature Date
Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
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 (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
“Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, 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 significant.
Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but potentially significant 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 (Prior Compliance).
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant 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 effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
e If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce 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.
e An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant 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 impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part 11 analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than No Significant Impact Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): (Source #I, #2)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project? (Source #1, #2)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (Source #I, #2)
0
0
0 OIXI
OH 0
0 0 OIXI
0 0 d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses? (Source #1)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (Source #1))
0 0
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
0 a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (Source #1)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (Source #I)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (Source #I)
0 0 OIXI
0 0 om
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (Sources #1,4)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (Source #4)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(Source #4)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (Source #3)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (Source #3)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
(Source #4)
g) Subsidence of the land? (Source #4)
h) Expansive soils? (Source #4)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (Source # 4)
0 0 0 0 0
OIXI OH OIXI
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff! (Source #5)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (Source #2,5)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (Source #2)
0 0 om
0 0
0 0
OIXI
5 Rev. 03/28/96
fl
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially
Significant Significant Impact Unless Mitigation
LessThan No Significant Impact Impact
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (Source #2)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (Source #2)
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (Source #2)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (Source #2)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (Source #2)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies? (Source #2)
Incorporated 0 0 0151
0 17 UIXI
OIXI 0
cl 0 0151
0 0 0 UIXI OIXI
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (Source
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Source
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? ()
d) Create objectionable odors? ()
#2)
#2)
151 no
IXI
0
0 00
ON
OIXI 0
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
(Source #2)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (Source #1)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e) Hazards or bamers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (Source #1)
IXI 17 DO
UN
0 0 UIXI
0 0 0 0 0
0 0
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds? (Source #1,2)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(Source #1,2)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source #1,2)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (Source #1,2)
result in impacts to:
a) 0 0 OIXI
0
0 0
0 0
6 Rev. 03/28/96
r?
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact
0 e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (Source
#I, 2)
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (Source #1,2)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wastell and inefficient manner? (Source #1,2)
c) 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? (Source
#I, 2)
o
0
E. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? ()
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (Source #6)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? ()
0
0
0
0
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Source #1,2)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Source
#I, 2)
0
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (Source #1)
b) Police protection? (Source #2)
c) Schools? (Source #1)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (Source #1)
e) Other governmental services? (Source #2)
0 o 0 0
0
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a)
b) Communications systems? ()
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (Source #1 , 2)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Source #1,2)
0 0 0
0
Power or natural gas? (Sources #1,2)
Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact
Mitigation Incomorated
Unless Impact
0 om
0
0 o
0
0
0
IXI
0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
om om om
OB
OB um on
OB
om om
OIXI OIXI om om
om om om
7 Rev. 03/28/96
/?
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
-1
Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 om 0 0 om 0 0 OB
e) Storm water drainage? (Source #1,2)
f) Solid waste disposal? (Source #1,2)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (Source #1,2)
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (Source
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect?
c)
(Source #2)
Create light or glare? (Source #2)
0 0 OH
0 0 HO om 0 0
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? ()
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ()
c) Affect historical resources? (Source #2)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
(Source #2)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (Source #2)
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
om om om OIXI
0 0 om
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (Source #1)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ()
0 0
0
om om 0
XVI. 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?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
0 0 om
om 0 0
0 0 om
8 Rev. 03/28/96
XVII. 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. In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
Section 15063(c)(3)(D).
a) Earlier analyses used. Identie 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.
9 Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Proi ect Description
The project consists of a coastal development permit amendment and a site development plan
amendment allowing 14 one and two story single family residences and two attached second
dwelling units formerly approved as detached second dwelling units on previously subdivided
and graded single family lots located in the northwest quadrant within the boundaries of the
Mello I1 LCP segment and R- 1 - 10,000 zone.
Environmental Analvsis
Ia/b/c. Land Use
Placement of the single family units on the lots require compliance with Chapter 21.10 (R-1 -
One Family Residential Zone) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The R-1 zone provides
development standards for setbacks, building coverage, and building height and the proposed
development meets or exceeds all minimum setback, building coverage, and building height
standards.
The subject site is located within the boundaries of the City’s Mello I1 LCP segment and is
subject to the requirements of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone, however, due to its
previously graded condition, none of the regulations apply to the project. The site is not located
in the Coastal Shoreline Overlay Zone; therefore, the preservation of public views is not
applicable. As stated above, the project is in compliance with the R-1 zone development
standards for setbacks, building coverage, and building height. As required by the grading
permit issued for the site, construction of the project will adhere to the City’s Master Drainage
and Storm Water Quality Management Plan and Grading Ordinance to avoid increased runoff
and soil erosion.
The single family homes are compatible with surrounding single family development in that the
proposed craftsman architectural styles utilizing wood siding and shingles with cultured stone
and river rock elements, shake tile roofs, and 4 muted colors schemes are similar to architectural
styles, materials and colors found in the adjacent neighborhoods. Two single story and 12 two-
story units are proposed, and except for the two units proposed with second dwelling units above
the garages, the detached and attached garages on each lot are single story. This is consistent
with the existing neighborhood which consists of a mix of one and two story units. Although the
neighborhood currently consists of more single story homes than two story homes, there is no
zoning restriction limiting remodels of existing homes to single story. It is therefore possible
that in the future the mix of one and two story homes will change dramatically.
V. Air Quality
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the
San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the
updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air
quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
VI. Circulation
a) The City has received its annual Growth Management Traffic Monitoring Report and the
Report has recorded an unanticipated intersection “level of service” (LOS) failure at Palomar
Airport Road (PAR) and El Camino Real (ECR) during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. This
potentially creates a changed circumstance negating reliance on previous environmental
documentation. Pursuant to $15162 of the CEQA Guidelines a lead agency must prepare
“subsequent” environmental documentation if substantial evidence (i.e., the recorded
intersection failure) determines that a changed circumstance exists. However, case law has
interpreted this section of the CEQA Guidelines to not require the preparation of a “Subsequent
EIR” if mitigation measures are adopted which reduce the identified impacts to a level of
insignificance.
A mitigation measure has been identified which, if implemented, will bring the peak hours LOS
into the acceptable range. The mitigation measure involves construction of two dual right turn
lanes-northbound to eastbound and westbound to northbound. This project has been
conditioned to pay its fair share of the intersection “short-term improvements” thereby,
guaranteeing mitigation to a level of insignificance.
XIII. Aesthetics
b) The proposed homes, which consist of two two-story floor plans (Plans 1 and 2) and one
single story floor plan (Plan 3) that range in size from 3,809 square feet to 4,107 square feet
(including three car garages), are aesthetically consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.
Two different facade treatments are proposed for each of the two-story units. Plan 1 has a
detached single story garage located behind the main structure, Plan 2 has an attached single
story garage located at the rear of the structure, and Plan 3 has a side loaded garage which results
in a street scene exclusive of garage doors. The proposed architectural style is craftsman with
steeply pitched shake tile roofs, wood and shingle siding, cultured stone and river rock trim
elements, and enhanced window treatment on all elevations. Four different muted color schemes
11 Rev. 03/28/96
are proposed. The Plan 3 single story unit is proposed for Lots 10 and 13 fronting on Monroe
Street and the remaining lots are proposed with a mix of Plans 1 and 2. Lots 7 and 8, which were
previously approved with detached second dwelling units, are now proposed with a Plan 2 which
is altered by the addition of a 625 square foot, one bedroom second dwelling unit located above
the single story garage. Exterior stairway access is provided to the unit and a parking space is
provided in the driveway outside of the front yard setback.
SOURCE DOCUMENTS: - Note:
Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009, Phone (760) 438-1161.
All source documents are on file in the Planning
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
certified September 6, 1994.
2. Mitigated Negative Declaration for May Subdivision (CT 97-24LCPA 97-12/ZC 97-
08/CDP 97-58) dated May 22, 1998.
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
1. The Developer shall pay their fair share for the “short-term improvements” to the El Camino
Real/ Palomar Airport Road intersection prior to issuance of a building permit. The amount
shall be determined by the methodology ultimately selected by Council, including but not
limited to, an increase in the city-wide traffic impact fee; an increased or new Zone 1 LFMP
fee; the creation of a fee or assessment district; or incorporation into a Mello-Roos taxing
district.
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
12 Rev. 03/28/96
FROM : PALMTAG DFIUIS COMMUNITIP; PHONE NO. : 619 702 2042 - Sep. 01 1999 .. ,;2:58PM P2
... ........ ,. :. .:_:.. ’ ... ..... .. .? .. .. .. .. . ~ .. ‘. ...... ..... ,
13