Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 98-07; Lincoln North Pointe; Tentative Map (CT) (4)BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES REPORT AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT HUGHES PROPERTY APN #213-020-14 Carlsbad, California Preparedfor: LINCOLN PROPERTY COMPANY 30 Executive Park, Suite 100 Irvine, California 92713 Prepared by: DUDEK &ASSOCIATES A California Corporation 605 Third Street Encinitas, California 92024 RECEIVED MAR 0 4 1998 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPT. 27 February 1998 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS Section SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 1.0 ?,,0 30 4.0 INTRODUCTION METHODS AND SURVEY LIMITATIONS 2.1 2.2 2.3 Literature Review Field Reconnaissance 2.2.1 Resource Mapping 2.2.2 Flora 2.2.3 Fauna 2.2.4 Sensitive Biological Resources Survey Limitations PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 3.1 Site Description RESULTS 4.1 4.2 4.3 Botany - Plant Communities and Floral Diversity 4.1.1 Coyote Brush Scrub 4.1.2 Southern Maritime Chaparral 4.1.3 Southern Willow Scrub 4 1.4 Mule Fat Scrub 4.1.5 Ornamental Plantings 4.1.6 Ruderal 4.1.7 Disturbed Habitat 4 1.8 Developed Land 4.1.9 Floral Diversity Zoology - Wildlife Diversity 4.2.1 Birds 422 Reptiles and Amphibians 4.2 3 Mammals Sensitive Biological Resources 4.3 1 Sensitive Plant Species 432 Sensitive Wildlife Species . . . 4.3 3 Sensitive Habitats Page No. iii 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 9 9 10 10 10 .10 11 . 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 13 16 18 IlltjIlliEl l&ASSOCUTlisI H36-UI February 27, 1998 I I TABLE OF CONTENTS • Section Page No. I 5.0 ANTICIPATED PROJECT IMPACTS 20 5.1 Explanation of Determination of Significance 20 1 5.2 Direct Impacts 21 5.3 Indirect Impacts 23 | 6.0 MITIGATION MEASURES 23 6.1 Habitat linkages/Wildlife Corridors 29 • 7.0 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 29 I 8.0 LITERATURE CITED 30 • LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Vascular Plant Species Observed on the Project Site • Appendix B Wildlife Species Observed or Detected on the Project Site Appendix C Species Sensitivity Categories • Appendix D California Gnatcatcher Survey Letter Report | LIST OF FIGURES • Figure 1 Regional Map 2 Figure 2 Vicinity Map 3 Figure 3 Biological Resources Map 8 • Figure 4 Biological Resources Map with Proposed Grading 22 Figure 5 Manzanita Partners Property Biological Resources Map with Proposed Grading 26 • Figure 6 Manchester Avenue Mitigation Bank 28 | LIST OF TABLES • Table 1 Existing Plant Community Acreages 7 I DUDEK I&ASSOCIATESI 1438'01 ^K . A C(|.- ljf C<rp( Febmary27, 1998 I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I Biological Resources Report and Impart Assessment for the Hughes Property SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The majority of the 50.23-acre Hughes property in southern Carlsbad, California supports an abandoned light industrial facility and ruderal/disturbed vegetation. Approximately 18 acres support vegetation that includes intact to degraded native plant communities. Several plant communities occur onsite that are considered environmentally sensitive, including approximately 15 acres of southern maritime chaparral (SMC). NuttalTs scrub oak (Quercus dumosa) is the dominant SMC plant comprising approximately 75% of the vegetation. Approximately 72 individuals of the federally-listed endangered Del Mar manzanita (Arctostaphylosglandulosa ssp. crassifolia) are present. Riparian species also occur onsite, but are supported by urban runoff, are small in size, and exist in disturbed communities. Seven different habitat types were identified during vegetation mapping efforts: coyote brush scrub, southern maritime chaparral, southern willow scrub, mule fat scrub, eucalyptus woodland/ ornamental, ruderal, and developed land. One plant species listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is present: Del Mar manzanita (Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. crassifolia). Three additional species recognized as sensitive by local or regional resource agencies also were observed: Del Mar Mesa sand-aster (Corethrogyne filaginifolia var. linifolia), California adolphia (Adolphia californica) and Nuttall's scrub oak (Quercus dumosa). No animal species listed as threatened or endangered or recognized as sensitive by local and regional conservation agencies were found onsite. Implementation of the proposed development plan for the Hughes property would result in the following direct impacts: — Loss of 0.35 acre of coyote brush scrub. — Loss of 15.01 acres of southern maritime chaparral. — Loss of 0.0<5 acre of mule fat scrub. — Loss of populations of Del Mar manzanita, Nuttall's scrub oak, and Del Mar Mesa sand-aster. D.U.DEK ^ASSOCIATES 1438'01 February 27, 1998 Hi I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I Biological Resources Report and Impact Assessment for the Hughes Property 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Hughes Property was inventoried to document species present, particularly vegetation, with a focus on plant community classification and sensitive species identification. The property is located just south of Palomar Airport Road on El Camino Real in southern Carlsbad (Figures 1& 2). The eastern property line is located along El Camino Real, and adjacent recreational, light industrial and commercial development abuts the property on the northern, western, and southern property lines. The undeveloped portion of the property is surrounded on three sides by existing development, and lies within an industrial park that is essentially built out. In May-June 1997, Dudek & Associates, Inc. (DUDEK), accumulated biological information and conducted biological surveys of the Hughes property. This survey augmented previous biological surveys, including the recent survey by Planning Systems (1997). The purpose of this report is to describe the general biological character of the property in terms of vegetation, flora, wildlife, and wildlife habitats; analyze the biological significance of the site in view of federal, state, and local laws and policies; assess potential impacts of the proposed development; and provide mitigation recommendations. 2.0 METHODS AND SURVEY LIMITATIONS Data regarding biological resources present on the project site were obtained through a review of pertinent literature and through field reconnaissance; both are described in detail below. 2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW Biological resources present or potentially present in the Hughes property were identified through a literature search using the following sources: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1989, 1990; 1991, 1993), California Department of Fish and Game (1980,1986,1987), California Native Plant Society's Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants (Skinner and Pavlik 1995), and Murphy (1990). General information regarding wildlife species present in the region was obtained from Unitt (1984) for birds, Bond (1977) for mammals, Stebbins (1984) for reptiles and amphibians, and Emmel and Emmel (1973) for butterflies. In particular, a report prepared for Lincoln Property Company by Planning Systems was consulted (Planning Systems 1997). 2.2 FIELD RECONNAISSANCE Biological surveys of the Hughes property were conducted by DUDEK biologists Harold A. Wier, Anita M. Hayworth, Ph.D., and Habitat Restoration Specialist Jeff L Thomas in May-June. All ftAStociATEd "38-01 ......... ""•""" February 27, 1998 Orange County I Camp Pendleton Fallbrook Riverside County Oceanside Carlsbad"o Vista San Project Site Encinitas \ RanchoSanta Fe Q6L Valley Center Escondido Rancho a Bernardo y* Ramona Del Marl Mira Mesa San Diego | This map was produced by the San DiegoASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS Coronado' Imperial Beach Poway El Cajon La Mesa (St] Lemon Grove L National City I Chula Vista Otay Mesa Tijuana Alpine Mexico Hughes Property - Biological Resources Report & Impact Analysis Regional Map r-n i -8J r ( ^.'t-J! 0 ^ ..V SOURCE: USGS 7.5 Minute Series, Encinitas & San Luis Rey Quadrangles 1" - 2000' Hughes Property - Biological Resources Report & Impact Analysis Vicinity Map 1 • 1 1 1 1 - 1 IV 1 - 1 • 1 1m 1 1 1 Biological Resources Report and Impact Assessment for the Hughes Property surveys were conducted by foot under favorable weather conditions. The entire property was surveyed and inventoried for biotic components. 2.2.1 Resource Mapping Plant communities were mapped in the field either onto a 100-scale (1"=100') topographic map of the site or onto a 200-scale (1"=200') aerial photograph of the site. The aerial photograph was from Aerial Fotobank, dated 18 January 1997. The vegetation boundaries and locations of sensitive species were digitized by DUDEK GIS technician Martie demons using the ArcCADD system at DUDEK. Plant community classifications used in this report follow Holland (1986), with modifications to accommodate the lack of conformity of the observed communities to those of Holland. Locations of rare or sensitive plant and wildlife species also were mapped, and the numbers present were estimated. Subsequent to the initial vegetation mapping, DUDEK biologist Harold A. Wier conducted a focused mapping of jurisdictional wetlands using the criteria of the Corps of Engineers and California Department of Fish and Game. The field work consisted of flagging the habitat limits along the entire western property boundary on 9/15/97. A number of soil pits were excavated to determine the occurrence of hydric soils and secondary hydrologic characteristics, vegetation was evaluated to determine the predominance of hydrophytic species, and evidence of the ordinary high water mark was searched for. The delineated wetland boundary was surveyed in the field by Pat Cahill of O'Day Consultants, transferred as a digital file to DUDEK, and incorporated into the original vegetation mapping. 2.2.2 Flora All plant species encountered during the field surveys •were identified and recorded. Species that could not be identified immediately in the field were brought back into the laboratory for further investigation. Nearly all Latin and common names of plants used in this report follow the Jepson Manual (Hickman 1993). Some names used in the report follow the California Native Plant Society Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (Skinner and Pavlik, 1994). Where not listed in Hickman (1993), common names are taken from Beauchamp (1986). 2.2.3 Fauna Wildlife species detected during field surveys by sight, calls, tracks, scat, or other signs were recorded. Although daytime surveys result in the greatest number and highest diversity of wildlife sightings mmwA ^ASSOCIATES ' *•*»-"' " c"" '""""" February 27, 1 998 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Biological Resources Report and Impact Assessment for the Hughes Property (because most birds are diurnal), many species of mammals are not observable during the day because of their nocturnal habits. In addition, many species of reptiles have extremely secretive habits, and hence, are difficult to detect as well. Binoculars (7 x 35 power) were used to aid in the identification of observed animals. In addition to species actually observed, expected wildlife use of the site was determined by known habitat preferences of local animals and knowledge of their relative distributions in the area. Latin and common names used in this report follow Stebbins (1985) for reptiles and amphibians, American Ornithologists' Union (1983,1989) for birds, Jones et al. (1992) for mammals, and Emmel and Emmel (1973) for butterflies. 2.2.4 Sensitive Biological Resources Sensitive biological resources are those defined as follows: (1) species that have been given special recognition by federal, state, or local conservation agencies and organizations due to limited, declining, or threatened population sizes; (2) species and habitat types listed in the North County Multiple Habitat Conservation Program; and (3) habitat areas or plant communities that are unique, are of relatively limited distribution, or are of particular value to wildlife. During the field work a special effort was made to survey more thoroughly those areas suspected to support sensitive resources. The timing of the 1997 survey was optimal for the detection of the California gnatcatcher and for most spring-blooming ephemeral plants. Focused surveys for the gnatcatcher were performed following the protocol recommended by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and were conducted on 29 May and 7 and 14 June 1997 under favorable conditions (Appendix D). Most potentially occurring sensitive plants are perennials that can be detected at any time of year if present in substantial numbers. A few sensitive plant species known from the general area (e.g., San Diego thorn-mint [Acanthomintha ilicifolia] and San Diego golden-stars [Muilla develandii]) are detectable only from about April through June and may not have been detected. Potential habitat for these species on the Hughes property was investigated during DUDEK's survey efforts. 2.3 SURVEY LIMITATIONS Limitations of the surveys include a diurnal bias and seasonal constraints. For convenience and maximum visibility, surveys were conducted during the daytime hours. Although diurnal surveys maximize the number of observations of birds, which represent the largest component of the |& ASSOCIATES] H38-01 February 27, 1998 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Biological Resources Report and Impact Assessment for the Hughes Property vertebrate fauna, they usually result in few observations of mammals, many of which, are active primarily at night. No mammal trapping was conducted. Many species of reptiles and amphibians are secretive in their habitats and are rarely observed using normal survey techniques. No drift lines or pit fall traps were employed. Seasonal constraints include the absence of a few migratory birds during the survey period. Early spring and late fall also are suboptimal for detection of many reptiles and invertebrates. 3.0 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION The Hughes property is located on the west side of El Camino Real just south of its intersection with Palomar Airport Road, in the southern portion of the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California (Figure •/). The property is situated in the northeast corner of the USGS 7.5 minute Encinitas quadrangle and the southeast corner of the USGS 7.5 minute San Luis Rey quadrangle (Figure 2). Elevations on the site range from about 220 feet above mean sea level (amsl) at the western end of the property to about 325 feet amsl at the industrial facility in the eastern portion of the property. Land use within the Hughes property includes a light industrial facility in the southeast portion of the site, ruderal land in the northeast portion of the site, and dense native habitat/vegetation in the western half of the property. Biological resources within the property are landlocked. Land use to the west, north, and south of the property consists of light industrial development. El Camino Real borders the eastern property boundary. Soils mapped for the property (Bowman 1973) include Las Flores loamy fine sand, 2-9% slopes (LeC) and Loamy alluvial land-Huerhuero complex, 9-50% slopes, severely eroded (LvF3). The two soil types are described below: »• Las Flores loamy fine sand, 2 to 9% slopes - (LeC) - The Las Flores series soils consist of moderately well-drained loamy fine sands that have a sandy clay subsoil. These soils formed in material weathered from siliceous marine sandstone. These soils have a slow to medium runoff rate. The erosion hazard is slight to moderate. The developed and ruderal portions of the site have this soil type. DUDEK^ASSOCIATES 1438-01 February 27, 1998 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Biological Resources Report and Impact Assessment for the Hughes Property Loamy alluvialland-Huerhuero complex, 9 to 50% slopes, severely eroded- (LvF3) -This complex occurs on old coastal ridges. The landscape is one of strongly sloping to steep, severely eroded soils and alluvial fill along drainageways. Runoff is rapid and erosion hazard can be severe. This soil type supports the southern maritime chaparral found onsite, as well as other native plant communities. 4.0 RESULTS 4.1 BOTANY - PLANT COMMUNITIES AND FLORAL DIVERSITY Based on species composition and general physiognomy, eight plant communities (or habitat types) were identified within the property: coyote brush scrub, southern maritime chaparral, southern willow scrub, mule fat scrub, ornamental, ruderal, disturbed habitat, and developed land. The existing plant communities are described below and their distribution onsite is presented in Figure 3. A few of the communities exist in disturbed as well as undisturbed conditions; these are discussed within the general headings below. The acreage of each community is indicated in the text and in Table 1. TABLE 1 EXISTING PLANT COMMUNITY ACREAGES Plant Community (abbreviation used on map) Coyote Brush Scrub (CBS) [CSS subtype] Disturbed Coyote Brush Scrub (dCBS) Southern Maritime Chaparral (SMC) Disturbed Southern Maritime Chaparral (dSMC) Southern Willow Scrub (SWS) Mule Fat Scrub (MFS) Ornamental Plantings (ORN) Ruderal (RUD) Disturbed Habitat (DH) Developed Land (DEV) TOTAL Existing Acreage 0.61 1.31 14.92 0.42 0.70 0.06 3.67 10.42 0.40 17.73 50.23 I ^ASSOCIATES;1438-01 February 2 7, 1998 CD 0._o o 0>o LU Q CQ 5 >.. .JOo -5 ot a: •5 ^o cu CoS> «> !° « ° J |S O Q) SO Oc/> o O CO c: coa> u. o CO co k_< "to _0 "aTOtn CJU_O O UJO O CO UJ oLUa. CO %*«o =5 Oo <Ms I 5 1 -^ *B Ma «^ M*— <•§•§,.£>« CO o>-a Illf fi <§ CO CO COu_o cc iMB^^ L_ •=• -C <o ^ *. >,co| e 8 ** .f j coSSs! i 1to o •-' ij- co CO <C CO.*- CD S £ft =.£ o o?i ^°O 05 CDDC COo £ 09 o .2; cu OQDC "CD o o 03 I >-*—> cu D. O COcu CD I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Biological Resources Report and Impact Assessment for the Hughes Property 4.1.1 Coyote Brush Scrub [ 1.92 acres total; 1.31 acres disturbed) Coyote brush scrub is an upland community that is most closely related to coastal sage scrub. Although not listed as a native plant community by Holland (1986), it is recognized by the San Diego Regional Classification Committee as a subtype of coastal sage scrub. Coyote brush scrub typically develops in drainage bottoms or mesic floodplains following disturbance to the native plant community. This community is dominated by coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) with a few successional elements of the former native community. The latter may include California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), flat-top buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), coast goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii], or other disturbance-tolerant native plants. The understory usually includes a variety of non-natives. Within the Hughes Property, coyote brush scrub is found in and adjacent to a manmade browditch extending from north to south along the western property boundary. Much of the coyote brush scrub onsite is disturbed and has become heavily infested with pampas grass (Cortaderiajubata). 4.1.2 Southern Maritime Chaparral ( 15.34 acres total; 0.42 acre disturbed) Southern maritime chaparral is similar to southern mixed chaparral but is restricted to coastal localities within the fog belt and typically develops on sandstone soils. This community is characterized by several shrubs of limited distribution, including Del Mar manzanita (Arctostaphylos glandulosa var. crassifolia), wart-stemmed ceanothus (Ceanothus verrucosus), coast spicebush (Cneoridium dumosum), and NuttalTs scrub oak (Quercus dumosa). Other shrubs encountered frequently in this community are chamise, lemonadeberry, laurel sumac, toyon, and summer-holly. Within the Hughes Property, southern maritime chaparral is consists primarily of NuttalTs scrub oak, chamise (Adenostema fasciculatum}, Del Mar manzanita, and mission manzanita (Xylococcus bicolor), as well as a few other sensitive species, including Del Mar Mesa sand-aster (Lessingia filaginifolia var. HnifoHa) and California adolphia (Adolf hia californica]. Understory species include monkey-flower (Mimulus aurantiacus] and black sage (Salvia mellifera). Southern maritime chaparral has an extensive distribution throughout the western half of the Hughes Property and is dominated by Nuttall's scrub oak (approximately 75 percent cover). Southern maritime chaparral is recognized as a sensitive plant community owing to its limited distribution and depleted nature. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently reviewed a proposal to list as endangered six plant species characteristic of this community; among these, Del Mar manzanita and Del Mar Mesa sand-aster were proposed as endangered, and Del Mar manzanita was listed as endangered. H38-01 February 27, 1998 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Biological Resources Report and Impact Assessment for the Hughes Property 4.1.3 Southern Willow Scrub [ 0.70 acre total) Holland (1986) describes southern willow scrub as "dense, broadleafed, winter-deciduous riparian thickets dominated by several species of [willows] Salix, with scattered emergent [Fremont cottonwood] Populus fremontii and [western sycamore] Platanus racemosa." The understory is usually depauperate owing to the dense canopy. Within the Hughes Property this community is represented by a few small habitat patches along the western portion of the property. Southern willow scrub species observed onsite were limited to arroyo and Goodding's black willows (Salix lasiolepis, S. gooddingii), and Fremont cottonwood with pa tches of non-native African umbrella-plant (Cyperus involucratus]. Although limited in distribution onsite, southern willow scrub habitat is considered sensitive because it represents wetland habitat that is regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Fish and Game. 4.1.4 Mule Fat Scrub [0.06 acre total] Mule fat scrub is a relatively low (2-3 m), dense, shrubby plant community that occurs in riparian habitats, edges of catchment basins, and in canyons. It generally, but not always, is considered a wetland type. It is dominated by mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia], and may contain a small number of arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), upland shrubs, and facultative herbs such as western ragweed (Ambrosia, ysilostachya]. Within the Hughes Property it is relatively rare and was observed localized around development-related runoff along the northwest side of the existing facilities and parking. It was determined not to constitute a wetland type. 4.1.5 Ornamental Plantings (3.67 acres total) Ornamental plantings include monotypic stands of introduced, Australian eucalyptus trees (Eucalyptus spp.) with few additional understory ornamental species. The understory is generally depauperate or lacking owing to shade and the possible allelopathic (toxic) properties of the eucalyptus leaf litter. Eucalyptus trees are of limited value to most native plants and animals, but frequently provide nesting and perching sites for some local raptors. 4.1.6 Ruderal (10.42 acres total) Ruderal habitat is defined as areas where the native vegetation has been removed by mechanical means and weedy non-native annual dicots, such as telegraph weed (Heterothecagrandiflora], Russian- ^^.^ 1438-01 *c<"'"""c>" February 27, 1998 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Biological Resources Report and Impact Assessment for the Hughes Property thistle (Salsola tragus), and tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), predominate. This category includes open fields and other areas supporting weeds. The northeast portion of the Hughes Property consists of ruderal habitat. 4.1.7 Disturbed Habitat [0.40 acre total] For purposes of this document, disturbed habitat includes all dirt paths and graded areas within southern maritime chaparral that lack vegetation. 4.1.8 Developed Land (17.73 acres total) Developed land refers to highly modified land supporting structures, land use, or vegetation associated with dwellings. 4.1.9 Floral Diversity A total of 74 species of vascular plants - 40 native species (54 percent) and 30 non-native species (46 percent) - was recorded from the site (Appendix A}. The relatively high floral diversity of the area is the result of its large size and varied topography, coupled with its mostly undisturbed nature. XX species present onsite are considered sensitive by local or regional resource agencies. All of these species are characteristic of southern maritime chaparral (i.e., Del Mar manzanita, Del Mar Mesa sand-aster, Nuttall's scrub oak, California adolphia). 4.2 ZOOLOGY - WILDLIFE DIVERSITY 4.2.1 Birds Twenty-five species of birds were observed during the surveys. The most commonly encountered residents in chaparral within the property include bushtit (Psaltriyarus minimus), wrentit (Chamaea fasciata), California towhee (Pipilo crissalis), Bewick's -wren (Thryomanes bewickii), California quail (Callipepla californica), Anna's hummingbird (Calypte anna], rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo erythrofhthalmus), and scrub jay (Ayhelocoma coerulescens). Species observed within the riparian habitat include song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), and black-headed grosbeak (Pheneticus melanocephalus). One species of raptor was observed onsite: red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis). Raptors as a group typically forage over open or disturbed habitats such as grasslands and fallow fields, where prey items tinfir9 A j&ASSOCUTES 1438-01 February 27, 1998 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Biological Resources Report and Impact Assessment for the Hughes Property are less concealed. However, they are considerably more particular in regards to nesting sites; most prefer large trees of some sort. 4.2.2 Reptiles and Amphibians Two species of reptiles were observed within the property: Great Basin fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis longipes) and side-blotched lizard (Ufa stansburiana elegans). Reptiles that are common in the area and potentially occur onsite include San Diego gopher snake (Pituophis melanoleucus annectens), orange-throated whiptail (Cnemidophorus hyperythrus), coastal western, whiptail (Cnemidophorus tigris muhiscutatus), and southern alligator lizard (Gerrhonotus muhicarinatus webbii). Amphibians that potentially occur onsite include: western toad (Bufo boreas), Pacific treefrog (Hyla regilla) and bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana). No amphibians were detected onsite. 4.2.3 Mammals A total of four species of mammals has been recorded from the site during all previous surveys, including desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), California ground squirrel (Spertnophilus beecheyi), woodrat (Neotoma sp.), and coyote (Canis latrans). Other species that occur in the region and are likely to be present within Hughes property include raccoon (Procyon lotor), deermice (Peromyscus spp.), house mouse (Mus musculus), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and one or more species of bats. 4.3 SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The following resources are discussed in this section: (1) plant and animal species present in the project vicinity that are given special recognition by federal, state, or local conservation agencies and organizations owing to declining, limited, or threatened populations, that are the results, in most cases, of habitat reduction; and (2) habitat areas that are unique, are of relatively limited distribution, or are of particular value to wildlife. Sources used for determination of sensitive biological resources are as follows: wildlife - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 1989, 1991), California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG1980,1986), Remsen (1978), McGurty (1980), Murphy (1990), and City of San Diego Resource Protection Ordinance (RPO); plants - USFWS (1990,1993), CDFG (1987), CNDDB, RPO, and Skinner and Pavlik (1995); and habitats - CNDDB, RPO, and Hix (1990). DUDEK I&ASSOCUTES 1438'01 February 27, 1998 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Biological Resources Report and Impact Assessment for the Hughes Property 4.3.1 Sensitive Plant Species Two species proppsjid as endangered byjhe USFWS are present:^ii)l»fM'air4ifeSeg^^^^^per (Sessingia filaginifolia var. HnifoHa) and (Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. crassifolia}. Two additional species recognized as sensitive by local or regiorial resource agencies also were observed: ^fijUgMMata'd^lpnl*! (Adolphia californica} and Nuttall's scrub oak (Quercus dumosa). All of these species are described below in alphabetic order by genus; their locations onsite are illustrated in Figure 3. The listing authorities for sensitive plant species and explanation of listing categories are presented in Appendix C. Sensitive Plant Species Observed on the Project Site Adolphia californica - California adolphia USFWS: None CDFG: None CNPS: List 2, 1-2-1 California adolphia is a moderate-sized (0.5-1.0 m), profusely branched, rigid, spinescent shrub, ranging from the Carlsbad area in San Diego County, California, south into adjacent northwestern Baja California, Mexico (Munz 1974, Wiggins 1980, Beauchamp 1986). It generally occurs on clay soils and on dry south-facing slopes in chaparral and coastal sage scrub communities below about 300m (935 ft) elevation. It blooms in late winter to spring (December-May). In San Diego County it has been reported from Morro Hill, Cerro de Calavera, Agua Hedionda, Rancho Santa Fe, Mount Soledad, Bernardo, Chollas Valley, Barrett Junction, Proctor Valley (Beauchamp 1986), and Otay Valley (Wier, pers. obs.). This species is threatened by urbanization, •which has reduced considerably its former range (Smith and Berg 1988). In the Hughes property, California adolphia was observed in two patches of southern maritime chaparral. This population consisted of 4 individuals. Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. crass/folia - Del Mar manzanita USFWS: Proposed Endangered CDFG: None CNPS: List IB, 3-3-2 Del Mar manzanita represents the coastal form of San Diego County's common burl-forming manzanita, and it is one of several sensitive plants that are indicators of the unique and depleted DUDEK I&ASSOCIATES 1438"01 February 27, 1998 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Biological Resources Report and Impact Assessment for the Hughes Property southern maritime chaparral habitat. In his recent treatment oiArctostayhylos in the Jepson Manual (Hickman 1993), Wells considers ssp. crass/folia as a valid taxon representing those populations in coastal San Diego County and adjacent northern Baja California. In the Hughes property, Del Mar manzanita occurs in small localized patches within southern maritime chaparral. It is concentrated in the eastern portions of southern maritime chaparral within the middle of the property. Approximately 72 individuals are present in the property. Corethrogyne filaginifolia var. Hnifolia - Del Mar Mesa sand-aster USFWS: Proposed Threatened CDFG: None CNPS: List IB, 3-2-3 The Del Mar Mesa sand aster is a slender, erect, summer-flowering (July-September) annual, 0.2-0.4 m in height, with narrow, linear leaves. This species is endemic to coastal San Diego County, California. Although Munz (1974) indicates that it is common on bluffs and brushy slopes near the sea in Diegan coastal sage scrub and chaparral, Beauchamp (1986) indicates that it is occasional in sandy and disturbed places below 150 m, and only along the coast. Beauchamp (1986) records it from Carlsbad, Encinitas, Del Mar, Del Mar Heights, Torrey Pines State Reserve, Fort Rosecrans, and San Diego Bay. It is likely that it has been extirpated from some of these historical localities. Also, James Dice (pers. comm.) believes the southern localities (latter two) are in error and probably refer to Lessingia filaginifolia var. incana. According to Smith and Berg (1988), Del Mar Mesa sand aster is threatened by development. Sand-aster is locally common along the fringe between coyote brush scrub and southern maritime chaparral in the southwestern portion of the property. Because surveys were not conducted during the optimal season for determining the variety of sand-aster present, it is assumed that all individuals observed represent Del Mar Mesa sand-aster. Approximately 80 individuals were mapped onsite. [The species filaginifolia has been placed in the genus Lessingia in the Jepson Manual (Hickman 1993), and all varieties have been determined to be synonymous. In this report we retain the previous varietal nomenclature and status pending further review by CNPS and USFWS.] DUOEK I&ASSOCIATES 1438-01 February 27, 1998 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Biological Resources Report and Impact Assessment for the Hughes Property Quercus dumosa - Nuttall's scrub oak USFWS: former Category 2 candidate CDFG: None CNPS: List IB, 2-3-2 It recently has been proposed (Hickman 1993) that the common, widespread species formerly known as scrub oak (Quercus dumosa) actually represents two closely related species - Nuttall's scrub oak (Quercus dumosa) and "interior" scrub oak (Quercus berberidifolia]. Although "interior" scrub oak is widely distributed throughout southern California in chaparral habitats, Nuttall's scrub oak is restricted to the narrow coastal strip, and hence, has been severely affected by development. This species is one of eight native plants that were included in a "southern maritime chaparral listing package" that was circulated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Nuttall's scrub oak is a dominant plant in much of the southern maritime chaparral within the Hughes property. The onsite population probably includes thousands of individuals. Potentially Occurring Sensitive Plant Species Sensitive plant species reported from the vicinity but not observed in the project area include Orcutt's spineflower (Chorizanthe orcuttiana) and San Diego golden-stars (Muilla clevelandif). These species are discussed below and listed in Table 3. Because all are small annuals or herbaceous perennials, it is possible although unlikely that they occur in Hughes property and were not detected. The listing authorities and explanation of listing categories are presented in Appendix C. Chorizanthe orcuttiana - Orcutt's spineflower USFWS: Proposed Endangered CDFG: Endangered CNPS: List 1 Orcutt's spineflower is a diminutive, prostrate, cryptic annual that blooms in early spring on sandstone terraces within southern maritime chaparral. It is known only from Oak Crest Park in Encinitas and Point Loma. DUDEK I&ASSOCIATISI H38-01 February 27, 1998 15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Biological Resources Report and Impact Assessment for the Hughes Property Muilla clevelandii - San Diego golden-star USFWS: former Category 2 candidate CDFG: None CNPS: list IB, 2-2-2 San Diego golden-star is found only in southern San Diego County and adjacent northwestern Baja California, Mexico. This spring-blooming (March-May), herbaceous perennial occurs infrequently on clay soils on dry mesas and hillsides, and among vernal pools in Diegan coastal sage scrub, chaparral or native grassland. Primary threats to this species are from illegal dumping on coastal mesas, off-road vehicle activity, and urbanization (Smith and Berg 1988). A survey of herbarium specimens collected in the past century at the San Diego Natural History Museum indicates that many previous localities for this plant no longer exist in an undeveloped state. Several extant populations are known from the Carlsbad area, NAS Miramar, Fanita Ranch, Otay Ranch, and 4S Ranch. 4.3.2 Sensitive Wildlife Species No species recognized as threatened or endangered by USFWS or CDFG were observed within the property. Based on habitat type and quality, resident species that could use the habitat for a significant portion of their needs include California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica), southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens), San Diego horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillef), orange-throated whiptail (Cnemidophorus hyperythrus), and coastal rosy boa (Lichanura trivirgata roseofusca). The potentially occurring species are discussed below. The listing authorities for sensitive wildlife species and explanation of listing categories are presented in Appendix C. Birds Aimophila ruficeps canescens - southern California rufous-crowned sparrow USFWS: Candidate (Category 2) CDFG: Species of Special Concern The southern California rufous-crowned sparrow is a medium-sized songbird that occurs primarily in coastal sage scrub habitat. It is recognized as sensitive species by the County of San Diego (Hix 1990), and in 1991 was included as a Category 2 candidate for listing as threatened or endangered by the USFWS. This species has declined as a result of habitat loss. DUDEKi I&ASSOCIATESI 1438-01 A C«l(j«rjti« CfrfitriHi February 27, 1998 16 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Biological Resources Report and Impact Assessment for the Hughes Property None were observed during the focused California gnatcatcher survey, and it is therefore doubtful that any occur there. Polioptila californica californica - California gnatcatcher USFWS: Threatened CDFG: Species of Special Concern The California gnatcatcher is a small gray non-migratory bird with black tail markings. During the breeding season the male has a distinct black cap. Gnatcatchers eat insects and build a small, cup- shaped nest of plant material, animal hair, and spider webs. A pair of gnatcatchers typically forage over 5 to 20 acres during the breeding season and more widely at the end of spring. The present known range of the California gnatcatcher extends from the Palos Verdes Peninsula of Los Angeles County south through Orange, western Riverside, and San Diego counties, into northern Baja California, Mexico. The gnatcatcher is a near obligate resident of coastal sage scrub and inland sage scrub communities. Individuals of this species generally are found at elevations below 280 m (900 feet) in San Diego, Orange, and Los Angeles counties, and below 525 m (1600 feet) in Riverside County (Atwood 1990). Based on recent resource mapping for subregional management plans (e.g., MSCP, MHCP, Orange County NCCPs), it is estimated that there are 3,000-3,500 pairs in California. In San Diego County, California gnatcatchers range from Camp Pendleton to the international border and from the coast inland to Escondido, San Pasqual, Poway, and Lakeside. The California gnatcatcher is a potential occupant of the coyotebrush scrub habitat, however, there is very little habitat available onsite. None were observed during the three-visit focused survey conducted in 1997 or earlier surveys. The relatively low number of gnatcatchers in the vicinity may be due to the fragmented nature of coastal sage scrub in the area; fragmentation is the result of the natural mosaic of chaparral and coastal sage scrub, as well as habitat alteration caused by agriculture and land development. Reptiles Cnemidophorus hyperythrus beUingi - orange-throated whiptaiJ USFWS: Candidate (Category 2) CDFG: Species of Special Concern The orange-throated whiptail is a small, slender, insectivorous lizard. According to Stebbins (1985), this subspecies ranges from about San Bernardino County, California, west of the transverse and peninsular ranges, south through much of the peninsula of Baja California, Mexico. The orange- throated whiptail has declined in California as a result of the conversion of coastal sage scrub and dry wash habitats to agriculture, urban development, and flood control. An active forager, the orange- DUDEK ^ASSOCIATES '438-01 February 27, 1998 17 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Biological Resources Report and Impact Assessment for the Hughes Property throated whiptail frequents dry, rocky hillsides, ridges, valleys, and washes that support broken coastal sage scrub, chaparral, mule fat scrub, and grassland mixed with sage scrub species. It often occurs sympatricaUy with the more common western whiptail (C. tigris). The orange-throated whiptail relies to some extent on the burrows of small mammals, such as the California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), for protection from predators and adverse environmental conditions. The orange-throated whiptail could be expected in open areas of the site. Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillei - San Diego horned lizard USFWS: Candidate (Category 2) CDFG: Species of Special Concern The San Diego horned lizard is a small, spiny, somewhat rounded lizard that occurs primarily in coastal sage scrub communities. It ranges throughout California west of the desert and Cascade- Sierran highlands, south through nearly all of Baja California, Mexico. It was a common species in San Diego County until about 10 years ago. Three factors have contributed to its decline: loss of habitat, over collecting, and the introduction of exotic ants (McGurty 1980). In some places, especially adjacent to urban areas, introduced ants have displaced native harvester ants (Pogonomyrmex spp.) upon which the lizard feeds exclusively. The San Diego horned lizard could be expected in open areas of the site. Lichanura trivirgata roseofusca - coastal rosy boa USFWS: Candidate (Category 2) CDFG: None The coastal rosy boa is a heavy-bodied snake, 60-110 cm in length. It inhabits shrublands in coastal southern California; it is considerably more common in the vicinity of rocks. It was recognized as locally sensitive by Stewart (1971) and Bury (1971), and included as a candidate for federal listing as endangered or threatened by the USWFS in 1991. Although none were observed, the rosy boa could occur on the site. 4.3.3 Sensitive Habitats Sensitive habitats are those that 1) are considered rare within the region, 2) are listed by the North County Multiple Habitats Conservation Program, 3) support sensitive plant and/or wildlife species, or 4) function as corridors for wildlife movement. Onsite, these include coyote brush scrub (a coastal 1438-01 February 27, 1998 I I I I I I I I I I I I i i i i I i i Biological Resources Report and Impact Assessment for the Hughes Property sage scrub related community), southern maritime chaparral, mulefat scrub, southern willow scrub, and other "waters of the U.S." Regionally, coastal sage scrub, and related communities including coyote brush scrub, provides habitat for numerous sensitive plant and wildlife species. Animals confined primarily to this habitat include California gnatcatcher, cactus wren, orange-throated whiptail, and San Diego horned lizard. Sensitive plants characteristic of coastal sage scrub include San Diego barrel cactus, ashy spike-moss, and California adolphia. This habitat type has been reduced by about 70% of its former coverage in the County as a result of agriculture, urbanization, and other development (Hix 1990). Southern maritime chaparral is a highly restricted plant community, confined primarily to sandstone soils along the narrow coastal fog belt. Several of its characteristic components are considered sensitive because of their rarity. The USFWS recently proposed Del Mar manzanita as endangered and Del Mar Mesa sand-aster as threatened. The listing of Del Mar manzanita went forward and the sand-aster listing proposal was denied. Wetlands such as southern willow scrub and mule fat scrub are recognized as high quality wildlife habitat. These areas provide a variety of resources that are unavailable in upland areas during the drier times of the year. Because these habitats are considered wetlands, they are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (as "waters of the U.S.") and the California Department of Fish and Game (as "wetlands"). Local and regional resource agencies have a rigid policy of no net loss of quantity or quality of wetland habitat. Intermittent streams, such as dry washes and narrow gullies, also may fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as waters of the U.S. Corridors. Wildlife corridors are linear features that connect large patches of natural open space and provide avenues for the immigration and emigration of animals. Wildlife corridors contribute to population viability in several ways: (1) they assure the continual exchange of genes between populations which helps maintain genetic diversity; (2) they provide access to adjacent habitat areas representing additional territory for foraging and mating; (3) they allow for a greater carrying capacity; and (4) they provide routes for colonization of habitat lands following local populations extinctions or habitat recovery from ecological catastrophes (e.g., fires). Habitat linkages are patches of native habitat that function to join two larger patches of habitat. They serve as connections between habitat patches and help reduce the adverse affects of habitat fragmentation. Although individual animals may not move through a habitat linkage, the linkage does represent a potential route for gene flow and long-term dispersal. Habitat linkages may serve as both habitat and avenues of gene flow for small animals such as reptiles and amphibians. Habitat 1438-01 February 27, 1998 19 I • Biological Resources Report and Impact Assessment for the Hughes Property • linkages may be represented by continuous patches of habitat or by nearby habitat "islands" that function as "stepping stones" for dispersal. • Owing to the geographic position of the Hughes Property in the context of surrounding urbania, it is unlikely that the property receives any significant use from larger mammals such as mule deer, • coyote, and bobcat. I 5.0 ANTICIPATED PROJECT IMPACTS I This section addresses potential impacts to biological resources that would result from implementation of the proposed project, and provides analyses of significance for each potential I impact. Impacts to biological resources can be direct - resulting from the permanent removal of habitat, or indirect - resulting from changes in land use adjacent to natural habitat (e.g., increased light, noise, and urban runoff, interruption of wildlife movement, etc.). Both of these types of • impacts and their levels of significance are discussed in this section. • 5.1 EXPLANATION OF DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE For this section, the following criteria are used to determine whether an impact is significant: — Substantial effect on a rare or endangered species plant or animal or habitat of that M species; — Substantial interference with the movement of any resident or migratory wildlife • species; l_ — Substantial reduction of habitat for fish, wildlife, or plants. I The proposed Hughes property development plan would result in only direct impacts to biological B resources. Direct impacts would result from the removal of habitat and plant and animal populations ™ as the site is graded, and infrastructure, buildings, facilities and landscaping are built. • Anticipated project impacts were quantified by overlaying a digitized layer of the proposed development area on a digitized layer illustrating the distribution of biological resources using an I ARCCadd system. All resources within the proposed development area were assumed be 100 percent lost (directly impacted). I AC"" C>" February 27, 1998 20 . IfcASSOCIATES 1438'01DUDEK, I I • Biological Resources Report and Impact Assessment for the Hughes Property | 5.2 DIRECT IMPACTS • Impacts to specific habitats and species and a determination of their significance are presented below ™ and depicted on Figure 4. • Coyote Brush Scrub • Approximately 0.35 acre of coyote brush scrub (a coastal sage scrub related plant community) would be directly impacted by the development. Because coastal sage scrub and its closely related communities are a depleted habitat type and the focus of regional conservation programs (e.g., • NCCP), all impacts to coyote brush scrub are considered significant. • Southern Maritime Chaparral A total of 15.02 acres of southern maritime chaparral, of which 0.42 acre is considered disturbed, • would be lost through project implementation. Because this is one of the most scarce habitat types in the region and supports numerous rare plants, this impact is considered significant. P Southern Willow Scrub • There are no direct impacts to southern willow scrub. This habitat will be preserved in its present location along the western property boundary. | Mule Fat Scrub I Approximately 0.06 acre of mule fat scrub would be lost. The patch of mule fat scrub on the site was ™ considered to be a non-wetland, and impacts to this habitat are not considered significant. • Ornamental Plantings, Ruderal, Disturbed Habitat, and Developed Land ft Impacts to these altered habitat types are considered not significant. Sensitive Plant Species As detailed in Section 4.3.1, there are populations of four sensitive plant species within the property. • All of the sensitive species exist in the western half of the site. I """ *""•"" February 27, 1998 21 DUDEK I&ASSOCIATESI 1438'01 I svv VEGETATION TYPES: SMC | Southern Maritime Chaparral CBS | Coyote Brush Scrub SWS Southern Willow Scrub MFS Mule Fat Scrub RUD Ruderal SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES: Ac Adolphla catlfomica Ag Arctostaphylos glandulosa var. crassifolia U Lessingla fllaglnlfotta var. fllaglnlfolia NOTE: Numbers Indicate individual plant counts at that location. U)ING SOURCE: O'Doy Consultants. September 1997 CRN Ornamental Planting DH Disturbed Habitat DEV Developed Land NOTE: A lower case ^d'in front of a vegetation type indicates that it is disturbed. ACOE/CDFG Jurisdictional Area Proposed Limits of Grading Scale in Feet Hughes Property - Biological Resources Report & Impact Analysis Biological Resources Map With Proposed Grading FK I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Biological Resources Report and Impact Assessment for the Hughes Property Adolphia californica, California adolphia is isolated in one patch within southern maritime chaparral. It is likely that there are a few more than the 4 observed individuals within the property; however, this population is very small and unimportant. Impacts to California adolphia are considered not significant. Arctostaphylos glandulosa var. crassifolia. Del Mar manzanita typically occurs in small localized patches within southern maritime chaparral. It is estimated that about 72 individuals of this species would be lost. Impacts to Del Mar manzanita are considered significant. Corythrogyne filaginifolia var. Hnifolia. Del Mar Mesa sand-aster is locally common along the fringe between coyote brush scrub and southern maritime chaparral in the southwestern portion of the property. Approximately 80 individuals would be lost to development. Impacts to this species are considered significant. Quercus dutnosa. Nuttall's scrub oak is dominant in much of the southern maritime chaparral within the Hughes property. Impacts to Nuttall's scrub oak are considered potentially significant. Sensitive Fauna No direct impacts to any observed sensitive animal species are anticipated from development of the Hughes Property. However, it is likely that some sensitive reptile species occur on the site and individuals would be impacted directly. 5.3 Indirect Impacts The small amount of upland habitat that will remain after development (i.e., 1.56 acres of disturbed and undisturbed coyote brush scrub and 0.32 acre of disturbed and undisturbed southern maritime chaparral for a total of 1.88 acres) will be configured in a very narrow strip along the western side of the property. After development, it will provide essentially no significant habitat value; the isolation of this upland habitat fragment is an indirect effect that should be mitigated along with the directly affected habitat. 6.0 MITIGATION MEASURES Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce significant effects identified in Section 5.0 to a level that is less than significant. These mitigation measures were developed in the lillJilii'4 ^ASSOCIATES 1438-01 *'"" "" February 27, 1998 23 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Biological Resources Report and Impact Assessment for the Hughes Property regional context of northern San Diego County including the ongoing development of conservation plans in these areas. The mitigation measures provide that the Hughes project will contribute to the assembly and conservation of the regional preserves envisioned in ongoing multiple species planning efforts in northern San Diego County (i.e., the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan [HMP] and the Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan [MHCP]). The applicant is prepared to provided acre of mitigation for each acre of sensitive upland habitat / £ affl^ftiM'|'directly7) A total |jfMi|,B acres of mitigation will be provided to compensate for the direct impacts to 0.35 acre of coyote brush scrub, 15.02 acres of undisturbed and disturbed southern maritime chaparral and 0.06 acre of mule fat scrub, as well as the indirect impacts to 0.32 acre of undisturbed southern maritime chaparral. The only habitat categories that are not included in the mitigation coverage are southern willow scrub (which is unaffected), disturbed coyote brush scrub (which is unaffected), ruderal, ornamental planting, disturbed habitat, and developed land. This mitigation ratio and amount are appropriate when using the County of San Diego Biological Mitigation Ordinance (1998) as a guide.^||||d^ft^^e:BMQ, mitigation shall be at 1:1 fo,r impacts ifft||;iOe:e:;u.r to the most sensitive habitats in non-"gore" biological resource areas and^are. mitigated by > iSpqMisitipn of habitat within a "core" area. Higher mitigation ratios are recommendi^^S^impacts ,f occu.r within "core" areas and/or when rnitigatipnjs pro^llfllPlFlllide of a "core/ The Hughes parcel, because it is relatively small and isolated from any other patch of native habitat, is not considered a "core/ The project will result in retention onsite of the existing southern willow scrub area along the western property line. This vegetation has developed as a result of golf course drainage and perhaps other water sources; the drainage was intended to be contained within a concrete ditch that was not maintained, consequently the wetland vegetation has developed and escaped the ditch. The concrete ditch is visible in some sections of the drainage area. Drainage enters the site primarily from the adjacent golf course; this watershed contains no natural habitat. The water is conveyed through the site and exits at a culvert at Corte de la Pina. From this point, the drainage is underground for a distance of at least 3,500 feet. The quality of the vegetation is poor, consisting of two native willow species, exceedingly few other native riparian plants, and an abundance of the introduced and invasive pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana). Biological surveys did not indicate the presence of typical riparian habitat birds, save a very few (i.e., song sparrow and common yeUowthroat).%Bj3ea§use. the vegetation and.^ildlifeA&'bitat $ /qiually^r'e ; low, sensitive srjecjesarenot present, and the wetland area does not prdvitle a habitat: ©©jaaiectisEL to any other natural areas, a reduced natural b|P^^il^^S^tafte"*tpf®!p^§lM!^i^l^^&Sli-'./ _^, „ .";'-"• ........ -- —•»—••• ""«•—-. - j, is api^rQppatev, Currently, the proposed ungraded buffer ranges between 0 and 40 feet. WherF measured to the top of the new slope, the buffer ranges between 70 and 95 feet. It is recommendedf February 27, 1998 24 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Biological Resources Report and Impact Assessment for the Hughes Property ;fhat, in lieu of creating an ungraded buffer that would be of very limited value to resource protectiofi, •'•&'- rJ.1*'11 ':~~ • --"••T-SMnwii • • *«•! »>- - - ' tjT \ two Measures be incorporated: (1) Enhance the.jggjg^ing^sou^ern willow scrub and disturbed coyote brush scrub vegetation by removal of the substantial amount of non-native pampas grass in this area; ,and (2) plant the new fill slope to create a self-sustaining native plant landscape that is compatibjl7 4wHh.yae adjacent wetland area as well as maintenance and would facilitate additional willow and coyote brush growth and would increase wildlife habitat value IcS:a. greater degree than provision of a buffer* The proposed mitigation measures would reduce identified impacts to biological resources to a level that is below significant by ensuring that offsite conserved biological resources are conserved in a configuration that maximizes the potential for continued persistence of affected sensitive species and provides connectivity to other offsite areas anticipated to be preserved as part of ongoing multiple species planning efforts. The discussion below describes three alternative methods by which mitigation may be provided for the biological impacts at the Hughes site. (1) Acquisition of 15.8 acres of the "Manzanita Partners" site; (2) Acquisition of 15.8 habitat credits at the Manchester Avenue Mitigation Bank; and (3) Payment of an in lieu fee to the City of Carlsbad for future acquisition and/or management of suitable mitigation prescribed by the HMP and/or MHCP. * Manzanita Partners The Manzanita Partners site comprises two ownerships and consists of 37.6 acres located in the City of Carlsbad west of El Camino Real, south of Palomar Airport Road (Figure 5). A biological survey of this property was conducted by Dudek & Associates, Inc. biologists on 19 and 20 November 1997; field observations were made on the extent of sensitive habitats and species, and mapping from a previous study by Natural Resource Consultants (NRC) was corrected to conform to a superior new flown topographic map. The northern part of this site (the so-called "Bons" parcel) is developed to greenhouses and other agricultural uses, whereas the southern approximately 30 acres is nearly all undeveloped open space covered mostly with chaparral and other native habitat. Habitats and sensitive species present include: southern maritime chaparral (19.95 acres), coastal sage scrub (3.64 acres plus 0.18 acre of coyote brush scrub), coast live oak woodland (1.11 acres), seasonal wetland (0.03), Del Mar 'DUDEK I&ASSOCIATES H38-01 February 2 7, 1998 25 VEGETATION TYPES: CSS SMC CBS LOW WET EUC DH DEY COASTAL SAGE SCRUB SOUTHERN MARITIME CHAPARRAL COYOTE BRUSH SCRUB COAST LIVE OAK WOODLAND SEASONAL WETLAND EUCALYPTUS WOODLAND DISTURBED HABITAT DEVELOPED LAND NOTE: A SMALLER D IN FRONT OF A VEGETATION TYPE DESIGNATOR INDICATES THAT IT IS DISTURBED. SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES: Ag OT Cv Arctostaphyhs glandulosa Ceanothus verrucosus NOTE: Numbers indicate individual plant counts at that location. PROPOSED LIMITS OF GRADING 200 Scale in Feet Hunhes Pronertv • Biolnaical Resources Renort & Imnant Analvsis I FIGURE I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Biological Resources Report and Impact Assessment for the Hughes Property manzanita (minimum of 117 individuals), summer-holly, Nuttall's scrub oak, and ashy spike-moss (Figure 5). In addition, during DUDEK's survey, individuals of sand aster were identified, however it was not clear that they represented the rare Del Mar Mesa variety (i. e., Corethrogyne filaginifolia var. linifolia). In their survey, Natural Resource Consultants (1995) also identified the sensitive species Engelmann oak (Quercus engelmannii] , and indicated that the sand asters on the site may represent the rare variety San Diego sand aster (i.e., Corethrogyne filaginifolia var. incana}. A total of 11.19 acres of the site includes eucalyptus woodland (0.07 acre), disturbed habitat (4.26 acres), and developed land (6.86 acres). The majority of disturbed habitat and developed land (a total of 7.09 acres), and a small part of the coastal sage scrub (0.30 acre) and disturbed coastal sage scrub (1.15 acres) are located in the northern part of the site and this area was included in a preliminary project plan developed by Henthorne and Associates that is currently under review by the City of Carlsbad; these areas would not be included in the area available for purchase as mitigation. The mitigation requirements of the Henthorne-proposed Manzanita Partners development currently are not known, however it is likely that at typically-required mitigation ratios, a very large portion of the site would be available for use as mitigation for other projects. In addition, disturbed area within the area that would not be developed by the Henthorne plan would be a candidate for habitat restoration and also constitute additional available mitigation area. The Manzanita Partners property is privately owned and is available for purchase and dedication as biological mitigation property. Acquisition of 15.8 acres of natural land at the Manzanita Partners site is the preferred mitigation option for the Hughes project because: the mitigation site is relatively close to the impact site; the impact and mitigation sites have very similar habitats, species and soils; an adequate number of Del Mar manzanita are present at the mitigation site (approximately 75 individuals would be taken and approximately 117 individuals minimum are present on the mitigation site); the mitigation site is connected to other parcels of natural land that have conservation value and this acquisition may encourage additional natural lands conservation in this area; and the acreage available for mitigation is adequate. + Manchester Avenue Mitigation Bank The Manchester Avenue Mitigation Bank was approved as a mitigation bank for projects in northern San Diego County by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and consists of 66.3 acres located in the City of Encinitas east of El Camino Real and north of Manchester Avenue (Figure 6]. The bank includes a number of regionally- important habitats and species including coastal sage scrub (19.6 acres plus 11.1 acres of disturbed coastal sage scrub), southern maritime chaparral (10.9 acres), southern willow scrub (0.8 acre), mule A Ctlf;*r»i* Ccrptririn February 27, 1998 27 . BASE MAP SOURCE: USGS 7.5 Minute Series, Eincinitas & Rancho Santa Fe Quadrangles 1"=2000' Hughes Property - Biological Resources Report & Impact Analysis Manchester Avenue Mitigation Bank I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I jjological Resources Report and Impact Assessment for the Hughes Property fat scrub (0.2 acre), Valley needlegrass grassland (1.2 acres), California adolphia, Dei Mar manzanita, Palmer's sagebrush (Artemisiapalmeri), summer-holly (Comarostayhylisdiversifolia), western dichondra (DichondraoccidentaHs), San Diego barrel cactus (Ferocactusviridescens), Orcutt'sgoldenbush, Palmer's grapplinghook, Del Mar Mesa sand aster, NuttalTs scrub oak, ashy spike-moss, California gnatcatcher, orange-throated whiptail and western whiptail. Acquisition of 15.8 acres of habitat credits at the Manchester Avenue Mitigation Bank site is acceptable mitigation for the Hughes site impacts because: the bank site is within the north-coastal San Diego County area; both impact and mitigation sites have very similar habitats, species and soils; the endangered Del Mar manzanita is present in the bank; the number of habitat credits available for purchase is adequate. + In Lieu Fee This alternative is the payment of a fee to the City of Carlsbad for its future use to accomplish mitigation. Currently, the City does not have an administered fee program to handle biological mitigation. Advantages of this approach include flexibility to acquire agreed-upon key parcels that represent important contributions to implementation of the City's overall program, including key corridor connections or key rare species habitat, and the initial ease of accomplishment of the measure. 6.1 Habitat Linkages/Wildlife Corridors Significant impacts to habitat linkages and wildlife corridors were not identified and no specific mitigation is proposed. However, acquisition of part or all of the Manzanita Partners site, one of the alternatives identified above, would contribute directly to the establishment of a key linkage between natural habitat patches south of Palomar Airport Road west of El Camino Real and natural lands east of El Camino Real that are identified for preservation as part of the Fieldstone Habitat Conservation Plan. 7.0 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report was prepared by DUDEK biologists Harold A. Wier, Anita M. Hayworth, Ph.D., and Jeff L Thomas. Graphics and area determinations were provided by Martie A. demons; Tonette S. Foster provided editing, word processing and production assistance. DUDEK, February 27, 1998 29 I • Biological Resources Report and Impact Assessment for the Hughes Property | 8.0 LITERATURE CITED I Abrams, L 1923. Illustrated Flora of the Pacific States. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. American Ornithologists'Union. 1983. The Check-list of North American Birds, 6th edition. Allen • Press, Lawrence, Kansas. I American Ornithologists' Union. 1989. Thirty-seventh Supplement to the American Ornithologists' Union Check-List of North American Birds. The Auk 106:532-538. I At wood, J. L. 1990. Status Review of the California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica). Unpublished technical report, Manomet Bird Observatory, Manomet, Massachusetts. I Beauchamp, R. M. 1986. A flora of San Diego County, California. Sweetwater Press, National City, California. Bond, S. I. 1977. An annotated list of the mammals of San Diego County, California. Trans. San Diego • Soc. Nat. Hist. 18: 229-248. Bowman, Pv H. 1973. So/7 Survey, San Diego Area, California, Part -/. United States Department of • the Agriculture. 104 pp. + appendices. I California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1980. At the Crossroads: A Report on the Status of California's Endangered and Rare Fish and Wildlife. State of California Resources Agency, Sacramento. California. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1986. Endangered, Rare, and Threatened Animals — of California. State of California Resources Agency, Sacramento, California. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1987. Designated Endangered or Rare Plants. • Summary list from Section 1904 Fish and Game Code (Native Plant Protection Act). State of California Resources Agency, Sacramento, California. • Emmel, T. C. and}. F. Emmel. 1973. The butterflies of Southern California. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Science Series 26:1-148. I I DUDEK I I&ASSOCUTES 1438-01 February 27, 1998 30 I • Biological Resources Report and Impact Assessment for the Hughes Property • Everett, W. T. 1979. Sensitive, threatened and declining bird species of San Diego County. San Diego Audubon Society Sketches 29:2-3. H Hickman, J. C. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of California. University of California Press. 1400 pp. Hix, A. B. 1990. Sensitivity of San Diego's Biological Resources: An Informational Report. City of San I Diego Planning Department, Development and Environmental Planning Division. 29 pp. + attachments. • Holland, R F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. Nongame-Heritage Program, California Department of Fish and Game. I Jennings, M. R. 1983. An annotated check list of the amphibians and reptiles of California. California Fish and Game 69:151-171. Jones, J. K., Jr., D. C. Carter, H. H. Genoways, R. S. Hoffman, and D. W. Rice. 1992. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico. Occasional Papers of the Museum of Texas Tech I I University, no. 143. • MBA (Michael Brandman Associates). 1991. A rangewide assessment of the California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica). Prepared for Building Industry Association of Southern California. 26 _ pp. Unpublished report. McGurty, B. M. 1980. Survey and status of endangered and threatened species of reptiles natively occurring I in San Diego, California. San Diego Herpetological Society. _ Munz, P. 1974. A flora of Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. | 1086 pp. I Murphy, D. D. 1990. A Report on the California Butterflies Listed as Candidates for Endangered Status by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Draft Report for California Department of Fish and Game, Contract No. C-1755. 60 pp. Planning Systems. 1997. Preliminary Biological Assessment for Hughes Parcel. Prepared for Lincoln • Property Company, llpp. I DUDEK I&ASSOCIATES 1438-01 A C«H)imii February 27, 1998 31 I • Biological Resources Report and Impact Assessment for the Hughes Property 9 Remsen, J. V. 1978. Bird Species of Special Concern in California: An Annotated List of Declining or Vulnerable Bird Species. Administrative Report No. 78-1. Nongame Wildlife Investigations, • Wildlife Management Branch, California Department of Fish and Game. Remsen, J. V., Jr. 1978. Bird Species of Special Concern in California. California Department of Fish and I Game. 54 pp. I I I San Diego Herpetological Society. 1980a. Status of the Indigenous Amphibians of San Diego County. Fish and Wildlife Committee, San Diego Department of Agriculture. 33 pp. • San Diego Herpetological Society. 1980b. Survey and Status of Endangered and Threatened Species of Reptiles Natively Occurring in San Diego County. Fish and Wildlife Committee, San Diego M Department of Agriculture. 22 pp. Skinner, M. W. and B. M. Pavlik. 1994. California Native Plant Society's Inventory of Rare and • Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Special Publication No. 1 (5th Edition), California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. 338 pp. | Smith,}. P., Jr., and K. Berg. 1988. California Native Plant Society's Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Special Publication No. 1 (4th Edition), California Native Plant I Society, Sacramento, California. 168 pp. Soule, M. E., D. T. Bolger, A. C. Alberts, J. Wright, M. Sorice, and S. Hill. 1988. Reconstructed I dynamics of rapid bird extinctions of chaparral-requiring birds in urban habitat islands. Conservation Biology 2:75-92. • Stebbins, R. C. 1985. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, Mass. Stewart, G. R 1971. Rare and endangered and depleted amphibians and reptiles in California. • Herpetology 5(2): 29-35. Tate, J. 1981. The Blue List for 1981. The First Decade. American Birds 35(1). |United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1989. Federal Register, Part 4, Endangered and • Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Animal Notice of Review. 50 CFR Part 17. Department of the Interior. I&ASSOCIATES I438'01 February 27, 1998 32 I • Biological Resources Report and Impact Assessment for the Hughes Property I United States Pish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1990. Federal Register, Part 4, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Plant Taxa for Listing as Endangered or Threatened • Species, Notice of Review. 50CFRPartl7. Department of the Interior. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1991. Federal Register, Part 8, Endangered and m Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Animal Candidate Review for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species, Proposed Rule. 50 CFRPart 17. Department of the Interior. | United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1993. Federal Register, Part 8, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Plant Taxa for Listing as Endangered or Threatened • Species. 50 CFRPart 17. Vol. 58. No. 188. Department of the Interior. I I I I I I I I I I I I Unitt, P. A. 1984. Birds of San Diego County. Memoir 13, San Diego Society of Natural History. 287 pp. DUDEK |& ASSOCIATES! .1438'01 * '""•"" "" February 27, 1998 33 APPENDICES DUD E K &ASSOCIATES A California Corporation I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I Biological Resources Report and Impact Assessment for the Hughes Property APPENDIX A VASCULAR PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED IN HUGHES PROPERTY AZOLIACEAE - MOSQUITO FERN FAMILY Azolla filiculoides - mosquito fern ANGIOSPERMAE [DICOTYLEDONES) AIZOACEAE - CARPET-WEED FAMILY * Carpobrotus edulis - Hottentot-fig * Mesembryanthemum crystallinum - crystalline iceplant * Mesembryanthemum nodiflorum - small-flowered iceplant ANACARDIACEAE - SUMAC FAMILY Rhus integrifolia - lemonadeberry APIACEAE - CARROT FAMILY * Foeniculum vulgare - sweet fennel ASTERACEAE - SUNFLOWER FAMILY Ambrosia ysilostachya - western ragweed Artemisia californica - coastal sagebrush Baccharis pilularis - coyote brush Baccharis salicifolia - mulefat * Centaurea melitensis - tocalote * Chrysanthemum coronarium - garland chrysanthemum * Cirsium vulgare - bell thistle * Conyza sp. - horseweed Corethrogyne filaginifolia var. filaginifolia - Del Mar sand-aster Eriophyllum confertiflorum var. confertiflorum - golden yarrow Gnaphalium californicum - California everlasting Gnaphalium bicolor - bicolor cudweed Hazardia squarrosa ssp. grindelioides - sawtooth goldenbush DUDEK 1438-01 Appendix A |&ASSOCUTES| ^^^—•—^—•— A c.uf.,.i. C«M»II« February 27,1998 A-l I • Biological Resources Report and Impact Assessment for the Hughes Property • APPENDIX A {Continued) • Hemizonia fasciculata - fascicled tarweed Heterotheca grandiflora - telegraph weed I lsocoma menziesii var. menziesii - coast goldenbush Layia platyglossa - tidy-tips * Picris echioides - prickly ox-tongue * Sonchus oleraceus - common sow thistleI I I I I I I I I I I I I I BRASSICACEAE - MUSTARD FAMILY * Brassica nigra - black mustard * Raphanus sativus - wild radish CACTACEAE - CACTUS FAMILY Opuntia littoralis var. Httoralis - coastal prickly pear CAPRIFOUACAE - HONEYSUCKLE FAMILY Lonicera subspicata var. denudata - southern honeysuckle CHENOPODIACEAE - GOOSEFOOT FAMILY * Atriplex semibaccata - Australian saltbush Chenopodium ambrosioides - Mexican-tea * Salsola tragus - Russian-thistle CISTACEAE - ROCK-ROSE FAMILY * Cistus villosus - rock-rose CUCURBITACEAE - GOURD FAMILY Marah macrocarpus - California man-root ERICACEAE - HEATH FAMILY Arctostaphylos glandulosa var. crassifolia - Del Mar manzanita Xylococcus bicolor - mission manzanita FABACEAE - PEA FAMILY Lotus scoparius - deerweed * Medicago polymorpha - bur-cloves DUDEK 1438-01 Appendix A I&ASSOCIATESI February 27,1998 A-2 I I Biological Resources Report and Impact Assessment for the Hughes Property • APPENDIX A {Continued) • * Melihtus indica - yellow sweet-clover I FAGACEAE - BEECH FAMILY Quercus dumosa - NuttalTs scrub oak I GERANIACEAE - GERANIUM FAMILY * Erodium cicutarium - filaree | LAMIACEAE - MINT FAMILY * Marrubium vulgare - horehound • Salvia mellifera - black sage §MALVACEAE - MALLOW FAMILY Malocothamnus fasciculatus - mesa bushmallow • MYRTACEAE - MYRTLE FAMILY ~ * Eucalyptus sp. - eucalyptus I PLANTAGINACEAE - PLANTAIN F Plantago erecta. - dot-seed plantain • POLYGONACEAE - BUCKWHEAT FAMILY ^ Chorixanthe staticoides - Turkish-rugging • Eriogonum fasciculatum - flat-top buckwheat Potygonum lapathifolium - willow weed • * Rumex crispus - curly dock POLEMONIACEAE - PHLOX FAMILY I Navarretia hamata - skunkweed I PRIMULACEAE - PRIMROSE FAMILY * Anagallis arvensis - scarlet pimpernel • RHAMNACEAE - BUCKTHORN FAMILY Adolphia californica - California adolphia I • 'A c.iii.,.1. c.,,.,.,,..' February 27, 1998 A-3 Appendix A I I Biological Resources Report and Impact Assessment for the Hughes Property | APPENDIX A (Continued) • ROSACEAE - ROSE FAMILY Adenostoma fasciculatum - chamise M Heteromeles arbutifolia - toyon RUBIACEAE - MADDER FAMILY • Galium nuttalli - bedstraw 1 I I 1 SOLANACEAE - NIGHTSHADE FAMILY * Nicotiana glauca - tree tobacco I I I I I SALICACEAE - WILLOW FAMILY Pofulus fremontii ssp. fremontii - Fremont cottonwood Salix gooddingii - Goodding's black willow Salix lasiolepis - arroyo willow SCROPHULARIACEAE - FIGWORT FAMILY Cordylanthus rigidus - dark-tipped bird's-beak Mimulus aurantiacus - yellow monkey-flower ANGIOSPERMAE (MONOCOTYLEDONES) CYPERACEAE - SEDGE FAMILY * Cyperus involucratus - African umbrella-plant IRIDACEAE - IRIS FAMILY Sisyrinchium helium - blue-eyed grass 8 LILIACEAE - LILY FAMILY Chlorogalum parviflorum - small-flowered soap-plant Yucca schidigera - Mohave yucca POACEAE - GRASS FAMILY * Avena barbata - slender oat * Avena fatua - wild oats Appendix A iASSOClATEtt i^—n^»—^— wmm—~~ ——^———.7.i(/.,,i. c.r,.,.,f.. February 27,1998 A-4 I I I I I I i i i i i i i i i i i i i Biological Resources Report and Impact Assessment for the Hughes Property APPENDIX A (Continued) * Bromus diandrus - ripgut grass * Bromus hordeaceus - soft chess * Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens - foxtail chess * Cortaderia jubata - pampas grass * Cynodon dactylon - Bermuda grass * Gastridium ventricosum - nitgrass Nasella lepida - foothill needlegrass Nasella pulchra - purple needlegrass * Polypogon monspeliensis - rabbitfoot beardgrass * Vulfia myuros - rat-tail fescue TYPHACEAE - CATTAIL FAMILY Typha latifolia - broad-leaved cattail * denotes non-native, introduced species 1438-01 Appendix A I&ASSOCIATESI •—•——• ————•-•——* c.u,«.i. c.,,.,.,1.. Febwary 27,1998 A-5 I Biological Resources Report and Impact Assessment for the Hughes Property I APPENDIX B WILDLIFE SPECIES OBSERVED OR DETECTED IN HUGHES PROPERTY TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATES I REPTILES IGUANIDAE - IGUANID LIZARDS I Uta stansburiana elegans - side-blotched lizard Sceloforus occidentalis longipes - Great Basin fence lizard BIRDS I ACCIPITRIDAE - HAWKS Buteo jamaicensis - red-tailed hawk PHASIANIDAE - PHEASANTS & QUAILS • Callipepla californica - California quail COLUMBIDAE - PIGEONS & DOVES • Zenaida macroura - mourning dove I TROCHILIDAE - HUMMINGBIRDS Calypte anna - Anna's hummingbird • TYRANNIDAE - TYRANT FLYCATCHERS • Sayornis nigricans - black phoebe _ Tyrannus verticalis - western kingbird HIRUNDINIDAE - SWALLOWS I Hirundo yyrrhonota - cliff swallow Stelgidofteryx se.rriye.nnis - northern rough-winged swallow I I TVUDEK ^ASSOCIATES 1438-01 Appendix B February 27,1998 B-l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Biological Resources Report and Impact Assessment for the Hughes Property APPENDIX B (Continued} CORVIDAE - JAYS & CROWS Aphelocoma coerulescens - scrub jay Corvus brachyrhynchos - American crow AEGITHALIDAE - BUSHTITS Psaltriparus minimus - bushtit TROGLODYTIDAE - WRENS Thryomams bewickii - Bewick's wren MUSCICAPIDAE - KINGLETS, GNATCATCHERS, THRUSHES & BABBLERS Chamaea fasciata - wrentit MIMIDAE - THRASHERS Toxostoma. redivivum - California thrasher Mimus folyglottos - northern mockingbird STURNLDAE - STARLINGS Sturnus vulgaris - European starling EMBERIZIDAE - WOOD WARBLERS, TANAGERS, BUNTINGS & BLACKBIRDS Icterus galbula - northern oriole Geothlypis trichas - common yellowthroat Melospiza Hncolnii - Lincoln's sparrow Melosyiza melodia. - song sparrow Pheucticus melanocephalus - black-headed grosbeak Pipilo erythrophthalmus - rufous-sided towhee Pipilo crissalis - California towhee Vermivora celata - orange-crowned warbler FRINGILLIDAE - FINCHES Caryodacus mexicanus - house finch Cardmlis psaltria - lesser goldfinch DUDEK1|ig»-^.j-»«i 1438-01 Appendix B |&ASSOCIATES| —•—•"•^——«•m—i^^i^—^—— A c.ui.r.i. c.r>.r.ii« February 27,1998 B-2 I Biological Resources Report and Impact Assessment for the Hughes Property APPENDIX B {Continued) I MAMMALS • LEPORIDAE - HARES & RABBITS _ Sylvilagus auduboni - desert cottontail (obs.) SCIURIDAE - SQUIRRELS • Sf>e.rmophilus beecheyi - California ground squirrel (obs.) CRICETIDAE - NEW WORLD RATS & MICE • Neotoma sp. - woodrat (middens) I I I I I I I I I I I CANIDAE - WOLVES & FOXES Canis latrans - coyote (tracks, scat) IlKtl'llilTf 1438-01 Appendix B B o-o 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 : I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 Biological Resources Report and Impact Assessment for the Hughes Property APPENDIX C SPECIES SENSITIVITY CATEGORIES Federal (1993) Endangered. Taxa threatened throughout all or a significant portion of their range. Threatened. Taxa likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. Category 1. Taxa for which the USFWS currently has on file substantial information on biological vulnerability and threat (s) to support the appropriateness of proposing to list them < endangered or threatened species. Category 2. Taxa for which information now in possession of the USFWS indicates that proposing to list them as endangered or threatened is appropriate but for which substantial da on biological vulnerability and threat(s) are not known or on file to support the immediate preparation of rules. Category 3. Taxa that were once considered for listing as endangered or threatened, but are currently not receiving such consideration. These taxa are included in one of the following th subcategories. Subcategorv 3A: Taxa presumed to be extinct. Subcategorv 3B: Taxa whose names do not meet the Endangered Species Act legal definition of species. Subcategorv 3C: Taxa now considered to be more widespread that originally thought. Sfote: The taxa in Categories 1 and 2 are candidates for possible addition to the list of endangered and threatened species. The USFWS encourages their consideration in environmental planning. DUD E KlE&SIH^HIHI^Hl^HI^HIi^^H^Hii^^^l^H^^HKS — - — • ' T- i n-j * nnoA c.nf.,,1. c.,,.,.ji.. February 27, 1998 IS ta ree 's idixC C 1-1 I * Biological Resources Report and Impact Assessment for the Hughes Property I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX C {Continued) State of California (1990) Endangered. Taxa which are in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of their range due to one or more causes including loss of habitat, change in habitat, over exploitation, predation, competition, or disease (Section 2062 of the Fish and Game Code). Threatened. Taxa which, although not presently threatened with extinction, are likely to become endangered species in the foreseeable future (Section 2067 of the Fish and Game Code). Rare. Taxa which, although not presently threatened with extinction, are present in such small numbers throughout their range that they may become endangered if the present environment worsens (Section 1901 of the Fish and Game Code). Candidate. Taxa which the Fish and Game Commission has formally noticed as being under review by the Department in addition to the list of threatened and endangered species. California Native Plant Society (1995) Lists 1A: Presumed Extinct in California _ IB: Rare or Endangered in California and Elsewhere • 2: Rare or Endangered in California, More Common Elsewhere 3: Need More Information 4: Plants of Limited Distribution Note: Plants on CNPS list IB meet California Department of Fish and Game Criteria for Rare or Endangered listing. DUDEK 1438-01 Appendix C|& ASSOCIATE'S] —•—••^^—••••^^^^••i^—•••••••••••••••••« A c.iif.,.i. c.,,.,.,i.. February 27,1998 C-2 1 I • 1 •1 1 1 1 1w 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Biological Resources Report and Impact Assessment for the Hughes APPENDIX C {Continued) Property R-E-D code R 1- 2- 3- E 1- 2- 3- D 1- 2- 3- Rp (Rarity) Rare, but found in sufficient numbers and distributed widely enough that for extinction or extirpation is low at this time. Occurrence confined to several populations or to one extended population the potential Occurrence limited to one or a few highly restricted populations, or present in such small numbers that it is seldom reported. (Endangerment) Not endangered Endangered in a portion of its range Endangered throughout its range (Distribution) More or less widespread outside of California Rare outside California Endemic to California lUilti 1438-01 u c,,f,,.,i.. reoruary LI , iyyo Appendix C C-3 APPENDIX D DUDEK & ASSOCIATES) A California Corporation Engineering, Environmental Sciences and Management Services Corporate Office: 605 Third Street Encinitas, California 92024 760.9415147 Fax 760.632.0164 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i California Corporation 24 June 1997 1438-01 Mr. Doug Krofta U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, California 92008 Subject: Survey for the California Gnatcatcher for the Hughes Property, Carlsbad, California Dear Mr. Krofta: A survey to determine the presence/absence of the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) was conducted for the approximately 50-acre Hughes property, City of Carlsbad, California. Project Location The Hughes property is located west of El Camuio Real, south of Palomar Airport Road, north of Cassia Lane and east of the proposed Alga Road (Figure 1). The project area lies in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute topographic map, Encinitas quadrangle, T12S, R4W (Figure 2). Although only a small portion of the property contains potentially suitable gnatcatcher habitat, all undeveloped areas of the property were examined for presence of the gnatcatcher. General Existing Conditions The study area lies in a developed portion of the City of Carlsbad. The project site is surrounded by development including the Olympic Resort and golf course and business offices and buildings. A light industrial-use building occupies the eastern portion of the property. The topography of the site varies from relatively flat to moderately sloping terrain. Elevations within the project area range from approximately 300 feet to 540 feet above mean sea level. Methods The presence/absence survey for the California gnatcatcher, consisting of three visits to the site, was conducted on the project site on May 29, June 7, and 14, 1997 by DUDEK biologist Dr. Anita M. Hayworth. Dr. Hayworth holds a federal permit (PRT-781084) to conduct surveys for the gnatcatcher. The survey was conducted following the currently accepted protocol of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Scientific Review Panel. All areas of vegetation on the property were visited during the survey. Approximately 28 acres of native vegetation were covered slowly and methodically during the survey visit which encompassed approximately 1 to 1 and 1/2 hours for each visit. The route used to survey the habitat was arranged to ensure complete coverage of the habitat (Figure 3). A 1"=200' recent aerial photograph and topographic/vegetation map of the area was available to map any gnatcatchers detected. Orange County I I I I I I Riverside County Fallbrook CampPendlaton Valley Conter Vista Oceanslde San Marcos Escondldo Carlsbad' Project Site Encinltas 1 Ramona RanchoSanta Fe Rancho Bernardo Del Marl Mira Mesa Poway La Jolla 1 San Diego / El Cajon La Mesa ^ - ^ Lemon Grove 0 2Mll.i This map was produced by the San Diego ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS CoronadoV Imperial Beach L National City iChulaVlsta Tijuana Alpine Mexico Hughes Property - Biological Resources Report & Impact Analysis Regional Map ' •./ i::-.. -^ ' J 'j \ •„ '. .-^ ^ 1 , ;>W >l^O;--:^ I ; ^ r-0<.wp i 'liY^ J> ~XV.! i^^.p.Mlt. ^/vl'-¥ ^ i T.^' \^ K--*-'^v...S-^ > o^, o.:'297 SOURCE: USGS 7.5 Minute Series, Encinitas & San Luis Rey Quadrangles 1" - 2000' Hughes Property - Biological Resources Report & Impact Analysis Vicinity Map I I I i I i i i i i i i i i i i i i i Mr. Doug Krofta Re: CAGN Survey for the Hughes Property, Carlsbad June 24, 1997 Pg.5 Binoculars (10 x 50) were used to aid in detecting and identifying bird species. The weather conditions were generally pleasant and mild. The following chart shows the environmental conditions during each survey. Date May 29 June 7 June 14 Temperature 63 - 66°F 63 - 64°F 61 - 62°F Wind 0-1 MPH 1-3 MPH 0-1 MPH Sky clear overcast overcast Time 0700 - 0800 0630 - 0800 0730 - 0900 A tape of recorded vocalizations was used frequently hi order to elicit responses from the species, if present. The tape was played approximately every 100 feet and if a gnatcatcher was to be detected, the playing of the tape would cease in order to avoid harassment. Results California Gnatcatcher Survey No California gnatcatchers were observed during the survey of the project site. No brown- headed cowbirds (Molothus atef) were observed during any of the visits. Vegetation Characteristics Natural habitat within the property boundaries includes 1.1 acre riparian scrub (southern willow scrub and mulefat scrub), 1.5 acre coyotebrush scrub, 15.5 acres southern maritime chaparral, 10.4 acres ruderal habitat, and 21.8 acres of disturbed and developed habitats. All areas of native vegetation were surveyed for the gnatcatcher, however, only the coyotebrush scrub would be considered potential gnatcatcher habitat. The coyotebrush scrub habitat is dominated by coyotebrush (Baccharis pilularis var. consanguined) and is comprised of approximately 90% coyotebrush. The patch of habitat is located near the southern willow scrub habitat and is located on a relatively flat area. Percent vegetative cover is approximately 80% with an average height of 1.5 m. The southern maritime chaparral, although not usually occupied by the gnatcatcher was also surveyed for the presence/absence of this species. Southern maritime chaparral onsite is dominated by Nuttall's scrub oak (Quercus dumosd) with other species present such as chamise (Adenostema fasdculata), black sage (Salvia mellifera), lemonadeberry (Rhus integrifolia), and toy on (Heteromeles arbutifolid). Conclusions Based on the results of the presence/absence survey, no California gnatcatchers are present within the survey area. I f--^ I Mr. Doug Krofta June 24, 1997 Re: CAGN Survey for the Hughes Property, Carlsbad _ Pg. 6 • Please feel free to contact me at (760) 942-5147 with questions or if you require additional a information. Very truly yours, DUDEK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Anita M. Hayworth, Ph.D. Ecologist/Senior Project M Permit Number PRT-781084IEcologist/Senior Project Manager I cc: Richard Simons • Howie Wier I i i i i i i i i i US Fish & Wildlife Service Carlsbad Field Office 2730 Loker Avenue, West Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760)431-9440 FAX (760) 431-9624 Dept. of Fish & Game 1416 Ninth Street PO Box 944209 Sacramento, CA 94244-2090 (916)653-9767 FAX (916) 653-2588 JUL $ 3 Mr. Chris DeCerbo City of Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009 Re: Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Lincoln North Pointe Project; SPr09(B); CJ3-98-07; PUD 98-01; PIP 98-07; HDP 98-05; CUP 97-35; SUP 98-03; APN 213-020-14 Dear Mr. DeCerbo: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and California Department of Fish and Game (Department) have completed their respective reviews of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND) prepared by the City of Carlsbad (City) for the Lincoln North Pointe project. The following materials were consulted as part of this review: The ND, inclusive of the Environmental Impact Assessment Form ~ Part II dated June 16, 1998, and the "Biological Resources Report and Impact Assessment, Hughes Property, APN #213-020-14, Carlsbad, California" prepared by Dudek & Associates, September 30,1997. The project was also discussed at a meeting held at the Service's Carlsbad Field Office on April 13,1998 and attended by Ms. Julie Vanderwier (Service) and Mr. David Lawhead (Department). The 50.23-acre project site is located on the south side of Palomar Airport Road, on the west side of El Camino Real, and north of Camino Vida Roble in the southern portion of the City. Project implementation entail the subdivision of land to create 12 office/warehouse lots which will range in size from 2.47 acres to 6.28 acres and the construction of six office/warehouse buildings on lots 1-3 and 6- 8. Surrounding land uses include light industrial development to the south and west, a hotel to the north, and El Camino Real to the east. Site elevations range 220 feet above mean sea level (ASML) at the western end to 325 feet ASML at the eastern end. Underlying soils consist of the Las Flores loamy fine sand, 2-9 percent slope and Loamy alluvial land-Huerhuero complex, 9-50 percent slope. Approximately 63 percent of the site consists of developed lands or disturbed habitat; 21.4 acres in the southeast once housed Hughes Aircraft Company industrial buildings and 10.4 acres in the northeastern corner is vegetated by ruderal species. The remaining acreage (37 percent; 18.4 acres) consists of native habitats which include the following: southern maritime chaparral (15.34 acres), coyotebush scrub (1.92 acres), southern willow scrub (0.70 acre), and mulefat scrub (0.06 acre). Sensitive plant species identified include California adolphia (Adolphia californica), Del Mar manzanita (Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. crassifolia), Del Mar sand aster (Lessingia filaginifolia [= Corethrogyne filaginifolia var. linifolia]), and Nuttall's scrub oak (Quercus dumosd). A focused survey was conducted for the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica; gnatcatcher), however, none were detected. Mr. Chris DeCerbo 2 maritime chaparral, 0.06 acre of mulefat scrub, and the on-site populations of Del Mar manzanita, Del Mar sand aster, and Nuttall's scrub oak Southern willow scrub habitat and its drainage will not be directly affected Project impacts to upland resources will be mitigated at a ratio of 2:1 through the off-site acquisition of 31.46 acres of comparable habitat or the payment of an in-lieu fee to the City for future acquisition in a location to be approved by the City, Service, and Department. This mitigation measure shall be in place prior to the issuance of grading permits. Potential indirect impacts to southern willow scrub will be mitigated by including a 10-foot wide buffer along the eastern edge of the southern willow scrub, habitat enhancement through the removal of pampas grass (Cortaderia spp.), and revegetation of the manufactured slope adjacent to the southern willow scrub with compatible native riparian species to enhance wetland function of this habitat. These mitigation measures shall be in place prior to the issuance of building permits. The mitigation measures provided in the ND are consistent with generalized recommendations provided by our staff to the City, consultant, and developer during our meeting on April 13,1998. Based upon the ND, the Service and Department now offer these specific recommendations: 1. The species list to be used in the revegetation plan for the manufactured slopes adjacent to the southern willow scrub should be reviewed and approved by the Service and Department. 2. If an in-lieu fee is paid to the City for future acquisition of mitigation land, the amount must be provided to the City prior to the issuance of a grading permit and lands acquired within one year of issuance of said permit. This fee should be based on an established, current cost-per-acre price for lands containing southern maritime chaparral and include an additional amount to allow for anticipated increases in land value (e.g. $60,000 per acre total). 3. The mitigation land acquired by the applicant or the City must include a minimum of 30 acres of southern maritime chaparral which provides habitat for Del Mar manzanita, Del Mar sand aster, and Nuttall's scrub oak. The Service and Department appreciate the opportunity to review this ND for the Lincoln North Pointe project. If you have any questions regarding the contents of this letter, please contact Julie Vanderwier at (760) 431-9440 or David Lawhead at (619) 467-4211. SJieryl L. Barrett Assistant Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service cc: Bill Tippets, CDFG 1-6-98-CA-028 Sincerely, Gail Presley NCCP Program Manager California Department of Fish and Game >tate of California PETE WILSON GOVERNOR PAUL F MINER DIRECTOR GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1400 TENTH STREET SACRAMENTO 95814 July 23, 1998 CHRIS DECERBO CITY OF CARLSBAD 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92009 Subject: LINCOLN NORTH POINTE-SP 109(B)CT 98007PIP 98-OHDP 98 SCH #: 98061093 -05 Dear CHRIS DECERBO: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental document to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and none of the state agencies have comments. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please call at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. When contacting the Clearinghouse in this matter, please use the eight-digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly. Sincerely, ANTERO A. RIVASPLATA Chief,- State Clear? nr NOTICE OF COMPLETION Hill In ' I rl Mm 11 nlli ' II I 'I iii^^n I \ H'i III I I') Hi I I I'i Illi I I oject Title: Lincoln North Pointe - SP 109(B)\ CT 98-OT\PUD 98-01\PIP 98-07\HDP 98-05\CUP 98-08VSUP 98-03 Lead Aeencv CITY OF CARLSBAD Contact Person: Chris DeCerbo Street Address: 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE Phone: (760) 438-1 161, ext.4445 Citv: CARLSBAD Zip: 92009 County: SAN DIEGO COUNTY See NOTE Below: SCH98 06109 PROJECT LOCATION; San Diego Carlsbad Cross Streets: El Camino Real/Palomar Airport Road Total Acres: 50.23 /-'fjjVn Assessor's Parcel No. 213-020-14 Section: Twp. Ranee: Base: i<..t „„ Within 2 Miles: State Hwv #: Waterways: Airports: McCLELLAN/PAL( DOCUMENT TYPE: CEQA: rj NOP [ Q Early Cons [ X Neg Dec [ Q Draft EIR 3MAR Railways: NCTD ^] Supplement/Subsequent ] EIR (Prior SCH No.) ] Other: W.:i U ! Schools: ,..,.'" "•ii-" • ..v.i NEPA: Q NOI OTHER: £n EA :fj Draft EIS Q Q FONSI ] Joint Document ] Final Document ] Other: LOCAL ACTION TYPE: rj General Plan Update rj General Plan Amendment Q General Plan Element Community Plan Specific Plan Amendment Master Plan Planned Unit Development Site Plan Rezone Prezone Conditional Use Permit Land Division (Subdivision, Annexation Redevelopment Coastal Permit Other: Planned Industrial DEVELOPMENT TYPE: n Residential: Units p. a ,— i Office: Sq. Ft. Commercial: Sq. Ft. Industrial: Sq. Ft. 385.085 Educational: Recreational: Acres Acres Employees Acres Employees Acres 50.23 Employees Parcel Map, Tract Map, etc.)Permit Hillside Development Permit, Special Use Permit Q Water Facilities: Type MOD Q Transportation: Type Q Mining: Mineral [] Power: Type Watts PI Waste Treatment: Type PI Hazardous Water: Type PI Other: PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN DOCUMENT: nnnnnn DD Aesthetic/Visual Agricultural Land Air Quality Archaeological/Historical Coastal Zone Drainage/ Absorption Economic/Jobs Fiscal nnnnnnnD Flood Plain/Flooding Forest Land/Fire Hazard Geological/Seismic Minerals Noise Population/Hsg. Balance Public Services/Facilities Recreation/Parks D Dnnnn D B Schools/Universities Septic Systems Sewer Capacity Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading Solid Waste Toxic/Hazardous Traffic/Circulation Vegetation D D E3nnDnn Water Quality HjO Supply/Ground HjO Wetland/Riparian Wildlife Growth Inducing Land Use Cumulative Effect Other: Present Land Usc/Zoning/Generai plan Use The south-eastern 21.4 acres of the subject property is developed with the recently demolished Hughes Aircraft industrial building(s) and associated utilities and parking lot. The northeastern corner of the site (10.42 acres) is comprised of ruderal habitat (non-native weeds). Dense native habitat/vegetation exists within the western 18.42 acres of the property./PM (Planned Industrial)/PI (Planned Industrial). Project Description: The specific development actions include: (H subdivision of the property into 12 non-residential lots ranging from 2.47 acres to 6.28 acres in area. (2) grading of the entire property (350.000 cubic yards balanced on-site\ and ffl the construction of 6 office/warehouse buildings (ranging between 60.000 sf and 72.425 sf in area and totaling 385.085 square feet) on proposed lots 1-3 and 6-8 and a satellite antennae dish farm. State Clearinghouse Contact: Ms. Del.icia Wynn Terry Kivasplata (916)445-0613 State Review Began: Dept. Review to Agency Agency Rev to SCH SCH COMPLIANCE Please note SCH Number on all Comments 98061093 Please forward late comments directly to the Lead Agency AQMD/APCD^ (Resources: <o_I$^L) Project Sent to the following State Agencies >t -*>-Resources Boating Coastal Comm Coastal Consv Colorado Rvr Bd Conservation _ Fish & Game # Delta Protection Forestry Parks Reclarnatioi BCDC DWR OES Bus Transp Hous Aeronautics CHP Caltrans # jl Trans Planning Housing & Devel Health & Welfare Drinking H20 Medical Waste State/Consumer Svcs General Services Ca I/EPA >Q ARB CA Waste Mgmt Bd SWRCB: Grants SWRCB: Delta SWRCB: Wtr Quality SWRCB: Wtr Rights __X_ Reg. WQCB tt _£|_ DTSC/CTC Yth/Adlt Corrections Corrections Independent Comm Energy Comm ^_ NAHC _PUC _ Santa Mn Mtns _ State Lands Comm _ Tahoe Rgl Plan Other: To City of Carlsbad Planning Department MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Address/Location: South of Palomar Airport Road along the west side of El Camino Real. Project Description:Subdivision of a 50.23 acre Planned Industrially (PM) zoned property into 12 office/warehouse lots (ranging from 2.47 to 6.28 acres in area), balanced grading (350,000 cubic yards) of the site and the construction of 6 office/warehouse buildings (ranging from 60,000 square feet to 72,425 square feet in area and totaling 385,085 square feet) and a satellite antennae dish farm. 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 Mitigated 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 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 Chris DeCerbo in the Planning Department at (760) 438-1161, extension 4445. DATED: CASE NO: CASE NAME: JUNE 25, 1998 SP 109(B)/CT 98-07/PUD 98-01/PIP 98-07/HDP 98-05/CUP 98-087 SUP 98-03 LINCOLN NORTH POINTE PUBLISH DATE: JUNE 25,1998 MICHAEL JyHOLZMILLER Planning Director 2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (760) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 438-O894 NOTICE OF COMPLETIO Mail to: State Clearinghouse, 1400 Tenth Sffeet, Room 121, Sacramento, CA 95814 - (916) 445-i Project Title: Lincoln North Pointe - SP 109CB)\ CT 98-07\PUD 98-01\PIP 98-07\HDP 98-05\CUP 98-08\SUP 98-03 Lead Agency: CITY OF CARLSBAD Contact Person: Chris DeCerbo Street Address: 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE Phone: (760)438-1161.6x14445 City: CARLSBAD Zip: 92009 County: SAN DIEGO COUNTY See NOTE Below: SCH# PROJECT LOCATION: County: San Diego City/Nearest Community:Carlsbad 50.23Cross Streets: El Camino Real/Palomar Airport Road Total Acres: Assessor's Parcel No. 213-020-14 Section: Twp. Range: Base:. Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #: Waterways: Airports: McCLELLAN/PALOMAR Railways: NCTD Schools:. DOCUMENT TYPE: CEQA: fj NOP Supplement/Subsequent p Early Cons Q EIR (Prior SCH No.) X NegDec p Other: p Draft EIR "LO'CAL"ACfiON"fYTE:" p General Plan Update X Specific Plan Amendment p General Plan Amendment p Master Plan p General Plan Element g| Planned Unit Development r~| Community Plan ra Site Plan Employees Employees Employees NEPA: Q NOI D EA Q Draft EIS rj FONSI OTHER:Joint Document Final Document Other: Rezone Prezone Conditional Use Permit Land Division (Subdivision, Parcel Map, Tract Map, etc.) Annexation Redevelopment Coastal Permit Other: Planned Industrial Permit Hillside Development Permit Special Use Permit DEVELOPMENT TYPE: p Residential: Units p Office: p Commercial: P Industrial: Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. 385,085 Acres Acres Acres Acres 50.23 Water Facilities: Transportation: Mining: Power: Type MGD_ Type Mineral Type Watts_ Educational: Recreational: Q Waste Treatment: Type_ fj Hazardous Water: Type_ fj Other: PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN DOCUMENT: P Aesthetic/Visual P Agricultural Land P Air Quality P Archaeological/Historical P Coastal Zone P Drainage/Absorption P Economic/Jobs P Fiscal p Flood Plain/Flooding p Forest Land/Fire Hazard p Geological/Seismic p Minerals p Noise p Population/Hsg. Balance p Public Services/Facilities |~1 Recreation/Parks p Schools/Universities p Septic Systems p Sewer Capacity p Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading p Solid Waste p Toxic/Hazardous p Traffic/Circulation M Vegetation rj g| Q Water Quality H2O Supply/Ground H2O Wetland/Riparian Wildlife Growth Inducing Land Use Cumulative Effect Other: Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Use The south-eastern 21.4 acres of the subject property is developed with the recently demolished Hughes Aircraft industrial building(s) and associated utilities and parking lot. The northeastern comer of the site (10.42 acres) is comprised of ruderal habitat (non-native weeds). Dense native habitat/vegetation exists within the western 18.42 acres of the property./PM (Planned IndustriaiyPI (Planned Industrial). Project Description: The specific development actions include: (1) subdivision of the property into 12 non-residential lots ranging from 2.47 acres to 6.28 acres in area. (2) grading of the entire property (350.000 cubic yards balanced on-site). and (3) the construction of 6 office/warehouse buildings (ranging between 60.000 sf and 72.425 sf in area and totaling 385.085 square feet) on proposed lots 1-3 and 6-8 and a satellite antennae dish farm. NOTE: Clearinghouse will assign identification numbers for all new projects. If a SCH number already exists for a project (i.e., from a Notice of Preparation or previous draft document) please fill it in. Revised October 1989 City of Carlsbad Planning Department MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Address/Location: South of Palomar Airport Road along the west side of El Camino Real. Project Description:Subdivision of a 50.23 acre Planned Industrially (PM) zoned property into 12 office/warehouse lots (ranging from 2.47 to 6.28 acres in area), balanced grading (350,000 cubic yards) of the site and the construction of 6 office/warehouse buildings (ranging from 60,000 square feet to 72,425 square feet in area and totaling 385,085 square feet) and a satellite antennae dish farm. 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 Mitigated 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 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 Chris DeCerbo in the Planning Department at (760) 438-1161, extension 4445. DATED: CASE NO: JUNE 25, 1998 SP 109(B)/CT 98-07/PUD 98-01/PIP 98-07/HDP 98-05/CUP 98-087 SUP 98-03 CASE NAME:LINCOLN NORTH POINTE PUBLISH DATE: JUNE 25,1998 MICHAEL JXIOLZMILLER Planning Director 2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (760) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 438-O894 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: SP 109(B>\ CT 98-07\PUD 98-01\PIP 98-07VHDP 98-05\CUP 98-08\SUP 98-03 DATE: 6/16/98 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: LINCOLN NORTH POINTE 2. APPLICANT: Thomas Lamore. Smith Consulting Architects 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5355 Mira Sorrento Place, Suite 600. San Diego CA. 92121. 619-452-3188 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: 3/4/98 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project entails the development of a 50.23 acre Planned Industrial fPM) zoned property which is located south of Palomar Airport Road along the west side of El Camino Real. The specific development actions include: (1) subdivision of the property into 12 non-residential lots ranging from 2.47 acres to 6.28 acres in area. (2) grading of the entire property (350.000 cubic yards balanced on-site). and (3) the construction of 6 office/warehouse buildings (ranging between 60,000 sf and 72.425 sf in area and totaling 385.085 square feet) on proposed lots 1-3 and 6-8 and a satellite antennae dish farm. 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. | | Land Use and Planning j | Population and Housing r~| Geological Problems Q Water fX] Air Quality [X^ Transportation/Circulation [ | Public Services ^ Biological Resources [ | Utilities & Service Systems Q Energy & Mineral Resources | | Aesthetics [~\ Hazards [ [ Cultural Resources [~] Noise [~] Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance Rev. 03/28/96 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) | | 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. Q] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Q 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. An 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 Master Environmental Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-01), including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. Planner Signature Date Planning D/rector's Signatur/5 Date 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 II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but all 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. Rev. 03/28/96 • 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. • 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 II 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. Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s):(#l:Pgs 5.6-1 -5.6-18) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 -5.6-18) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D D Less Than No Significan Impact t Impact D D D D D D D D D III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15) b) Seismic ground shaking? ((#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ((#l:Pgs5.1-l -5.1.15) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) e) Landslides or mudflows? (# 1 :Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1-5.1-15) g) Subsidence of the land? (# 1: Pgs 5.1 -1 - 5.1 -15) h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1-5.1-15) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2- H) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) D D D D D D Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1-5..2-11) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 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? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1-5..2-11) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2- 11) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1-5..2-11) Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D D Potentially Less Than No Significant Significan Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated DDK D D D D D D D D D D D D V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3- 1 - 5.3-12) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 -5.3-12) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) d) Create objectionable odors? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) D D D D D D D D D D VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1-5.7.22) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1-5.7.22) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1-5.7.22) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1-5.7,22) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? (#2) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1-5.4-24) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#2) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (#2) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (# 1 :Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) Potentially Significant Impact D a a a a Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated n n Less Than Significan t Impact n n n a No Impact a a a VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13- 1-5.13-9) 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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1-5.13-9) D n n D n n n n n IX. 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)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) D n n n n n n n n n n n n n n X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9- 15) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (# 1 :Pgs 5.9- 1-5.9-15) D D D D n n XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result hi a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6) b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4) c) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5) D D D D D D D D D Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1, pgs 5.12.1-1-5.12.8-7) e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) 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) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1-5.13-9) b) Communications systems? (#1; pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7) e) Storm water drainage? (# 1 :Pg 5.2-8) f) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3) g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1-5.11-5) b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1-5.11-5) c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8- 10) b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8- 10) c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1-5.12.8-7) Potentially Significant Impact n n n nn nnnnn n n n n nn n n n Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporatedn n n nn nnnnn n n n n nn n n n Less Than No Significan Impact t Impact n is n EI n m n EIn Ei El El El Elnnnnn EI n & n EI n EI n i£i n EI n EI n H n la XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significan Impact t Impact D D D D D D Rev. 03/28/96 XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. With the exception of biological resources, earlier analysis of this proposed office/warehouse project has been completed through the General Plan Update (GPA 94-01) and related Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR 93-01) . The MEIR is cited as source #1 in the preceding checklist. This proposal is consistent with the applicable portions of the General Plan and is considered a Subsequent Project that was described hi MEIR 93-01 as within its scope. All feasible mitigation measures identified hi MEIR 93-01 which are appropriate to this Subsequent Project have been incorporated into this project. The development of this project will however result in significant biological impacts that were not analyzed in the MEIR for which mitigation measures are required. Accordingly, these biological impacts and required mitigation measures are described below. 10 Rev. 03/28/96 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING This project is located south of Palomar Airport Road and along the west side of El Camino Real and entails the subdivision of a 50.23 acre property into 12 office/warehouse lots which range in area from 2.47 acres to 6.28 acres and the construction of 6 office/warehouse buildings (385,085 square feet) on lots 1-3 and 6-8. The project's grading would be balanced on-site and would consist of 350,000 cubic yards of cut and fill. Elevations on the project site range from 220 feet at the western end of the property to 325 feet at the eastern end. The south-eastern 21.4 acres of the subject property is developed with the vacated Hughes Aircraft industrial building(s) and associated utilities and parking lot. The northeastern corner of the site (10.42 acres) is comprised of ruderal habitat (non-native weeds). Dense native habitat/vegetation exists within the western 18.42 acres of the property. The project site is designated for Planned Industrial development. The property is surrounded by light industrial development to the south and west, and a hotel to the north. El Camino Real borders the eastern property boundary. 11 Rev. 03/28/96 II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS B. Environmental Impact Discussion Biological Resources Implementation of the proposed project would result in significant direct and indirect biological impacts to the following sensitive upland habitat and sensitive plant species: Coyote Brush Scrub (.35 acres), Southern Maritime Chaparral (15.32 acres), Mule Fat Scrub (.06 acre), Del Mar Manzanita (72 individuals), Del Mar Mesa sand aster (80 individuals) and Nuttall's scrub oak. The project is conditioned to mitigate at a ratio of 2:1 (31.46 acres) the project's impacts to 15.32 acres of Southern Maritime Chaparral and .41 acres of other sensitive habitat and sensitive plant species. The specific mitigation site(s) (either within the City of Carlsbad or outside of the City) or mitigation method (in-lieu fee) shall be subject to the approval of the City of Carlsbad, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game. The mitigation shall be required to be approved by such agencies and implemented by the developer prior to the issuance of grading permits for any phase of the project. The western edge of the project site includes .7 acres of wetlands (Southern Willow Scrub) which will not be directly impacted by development. In order to mitigate potential indirect impacts to this wetland, the project has been designed to include a minimum 10 foot wide buffer along the eastern wetland edge, and is conditioned 1. that the wetland be enhanced by the removal of non-native pampas grass, and 2. that the proposed manufactured slope located adjacent to the wetland be planted with a mix of species which are primarily native to the area and which are compatible with the function of the wetland. 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. 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. 12 Rev. 03/28/96 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. Transportation/Circulation The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, 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 recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. 13 Rev. 03/28/96 III. 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. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department. 2. Biological Resources Report and Impact Assessment - Hughes Property, dated February, 1998, Dudek and Associates. 14 Rev. 03/28/96 f LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE^) 1. Prior to the issuance of grading permits for any phase of this project, the project developer shall be required to mitigate at a ratio of 2:1 (total of 31.46 acres) the project's impacts to 15.32 acres of Southern Maritime Chaparral and .41 acres of other sensitive habitat. The specific mitigation may include the acquisition of 31.46 acres of comparable quality habitat either from within the City of Carlsbad or outside the City of Carlsbad and/or the payment of an in-lieu fee to the City of Carlsbad for future acquisition of comparable acreage and quality habitat. The specific habitat mitigation sites and/or in- lieu fees shall be subject to the approval of the City of Carlsbad, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game. 2. Prior to the issuance of building permits for any phase of this project, non-native pampas grass shall be removed from the on-site wetlands and the proposed manufactured slope adjacent to and east of the wetlands shall be planted with a mix of species which are primarily native to the area and are compatible with the function of the wetlands. 3. ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE') 15 Rev. 03/28/96 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature 16 Rev. 03/28/96 LINCOLN NORTH POINTE SP 109(B)/CT 98-07/PUD 98-017 PIP 98-07/HDP 98-057 CUP 98-08/SUP 98-03 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT) CASE NO. C DATEREC'D. To be completed by staff BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME:(OogrrH P<a> \r4rrg. 2. APPLICANT: " TrtoMA-s L_A«AOA.F=_ 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: S f^^ ^"™ y™* *~ *• * c* 1 \^j i — ^* ^ L ,A ^^ i*? ^^\ ^w**"5^^&o*o | \ | ^A. ^s^ Q f^j* •^.yv'T & r |O^.C t«> ^ ^> O 1 T €» t-^P^UC*^ -tjv M?4k G<v\sol4-»«wi Arcki'-t«J<, a. A Diea,to Cl\ ^ll^-l 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:'2-STofe^f TmT-Uf» LQCATiOsJ OF Co. "To SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: Please check any of environmental factors listed below that would be potentially affected by this project. This would be any environmental factor that has at least one impact checked "Potentially Significant Impact", or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" in the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning Population and Housing Geological Problems _ Water Air Quality Transportation/Circulation X Biological Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Hazards Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Public Services Utilities and Service Systems Aesthetics Cultural Resources Recreation Rev. 4/12/95 ENYIRONMENTAL IMPACTS TATE 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 II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but all 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. Rev. 4/12/95 Jf 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. • 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 II 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. Rev. 4/12/95 Issuer (and Supporting Information Sources): I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Sources: GEU.FI.AKJ LAKJO use ) £te&ist4ft-no»4" PI"- Pt-A*we b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( £ (R. ^-2,-o| ) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (Au_ "PX" L.AMIO use. Fort. ) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (AuL/>\AK»t4i5.c> ) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? ( POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (»4oa-(2e&ioe>4-n AC) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (see <SupfoCTw& MFO. ) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (Exl-fa-TVAC* MGHT-HsiOU-SIRlA^ ) III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? Kfi AOE.5A.T. . WA*crt,ib) Seismic ground shaking? ( c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact ) _ _ ) _ _ No Impact _ X _ X _ A _ X X X _ X X -^A Rev. 4/12/95 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e) Landslides or mudflows? ( b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (^m3- HOT IM A ) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (^o To d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( uLn-ii^TS p^»crtAAC*e o f= ) UJ/\T&«.TO e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( H/A, . ) f) Change 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? ( ) |>lo Gft-ooKiotM/cnat*. iSKicooiATeft.ee> ivJ g) Altereoaireclion or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ^ A ) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( REfbCCT ) — g) Subsidence of the land? ( p.Ejpof*.T ) h) Expansive soils? ( '^eg. Suffcrr^cp li-VFo . ) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ((2-icrtC.T) IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? X - X x x Rev. 4/12/95 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ^ /^ ) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? FOR. T^.^'f^rr^- - AUL. Wiu- weeT cou*srrf. x T^'ft- QOAurn STAHO/VW>S>. „ _b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( d) Create objectionable odors? ( [. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( MeerrS OMW&BAO Fifee. Depr) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact ) _ _ _ K. ) __ _ X ) _ X. _ ) _ X. Rev. 4/12/95 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): documents may be tefeited to and attached) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (-see. StTE- P(-A*4 ) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? ( VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? ( ) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? ( See. c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ( S&E. «0 ) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? ( e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( AJUL W.EUJ b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (^OM^AL. LIGHT- 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? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact X A y X _ X Fbo»4O AT Rev. 4/12/95 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): IX. 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 hazard? ( d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( u e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? ( A.NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 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? ( hio b) Police protection? ( K!O c) Schools? ( d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ^ji_ »4&O P-OAOb IAXU.cH-sms. A>^D pR.iv/srre: e) Other governmental services? ( Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X A X x_ A Rev. 4/12/95 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact 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) Power or natural gas? ( B-ECTR.I CAU UPGRAPE) *lo <cAS- b) Communications systems? (ffeL-e^oUe. ) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( hio ^f/^cr. ) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( Ex.i^>"TH&> S£i^E<2_ ) WILX, &£ ADEQUATE. e) Storm water drainage? (exfe-na^STtowv ) f) Solid waste disposal? ( tV^\ ) g) Local or regional water supplies? («rnv4O*Ro) W III. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( Sifc SCP5»4\.C N/ISTA, OR. b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( c) Create light or glare? ( ^LtftMO is (^\RW*si6» i-iCot4"TMGp i XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) Wot4B D\1>Co'SE.R.E.C> AT ^srTE. b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) SioMGE. Pt«?CoV^*EC> AT -&1TE c) Affect historical resources? ( K|/^ ) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact ) _ _ ) _ _ d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( k ) _ No Impact X _ _ X X X _ X _ X1 v _ A Rev. 4/12/95 Issue,s (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( hio R.e<:f2EA-rvo>4 ATT 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 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 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 substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 10 Rev. 4/12/95 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. 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. 11 Rev. 4/12/95 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Please use this area to discuss any of the environmental factors that were checked "No impact" yet lack any information citations and any factors that were checked "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." The City has adopted a "Statement of Overriding Consideration" with regard to air quality and circulation impacts resulting from the normal buildout according to the General Plan. The following sample text is intended to guide your discussion of the impacts to these environmental factors. 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. 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. Circulation: The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the 12 Rev. 4/12/95 -. vw —™- implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, 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 recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE^ ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) 13 Rev. 4/12/95 SUPPORTING INFORMATION Population and Housing b) Site is current location of 180,000 SF light-industrial building which will be replaced by 265,000 SF of light-industrial buildings. The 85,000 SF of additional area will have a relatively minor impact on growth in the area, well within projections of local facilities management plan (Zone 5). Geologic Problems h) Per geotechnical report, all soils in first 12 inches of subgrade with an expansion index over 60 and within the building area will be overexcavated and replaced with soils that are moisture conditioned. Water a) All surface drainage in new development will be directed to approved storm drain catch basins that are tied into the existing storm water system. No surface water will be directed off-site. Transportation/Circulation a) ADT will be increased by 499. Increase will be mitigated by addition of deceleration lane at main entry on El Camino Real and a traffic light at the south driveway. b) See answer a). u:\data\office\project\96files\96249\suppinfo.doc