HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 98-19; Roesch Property Residential Subdivision; Tentative Map (CT) (2)-p scf/ 1-27-q
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
Mail to: State Clearinghouse, 1400 Tenth St&, Room 121, Sacramento, CA 95814 - (916) 445-0613
Project Title: ROESCH PROPERTY SUBDIVISION - ZC 98- 12/LCPA 98-09/CT 9% 19HDP 98-2 1 See NOTE Below:
Lead Agency: CITY OF CARLSBAD Contact Person: Anne Hvsong
Street Address: 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE Phone: (760) 438- 116 1. ext.4477 SCH #
City: CAIU-SBAD Zip: 92009 County: SAN DIEGO COUNTY I- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PROJECT LOCATION:
County: San Diego City/Nearest Community: Carlsbad
Cross Streets: Poinsettia Lane Total Acres: 27.7 Acres
Assessor’s Parcel No. 215-070-27 Section: 22 Twp. 12 South Range: 4 West Base: San Bernardino
Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #: I-5 Waterways: Pacific OceanBatiauitos Lagoon
Airports: McCLELLANiPALOMAR Railways: NCTD Schools: Pacific Rim Elementarv School
. . . ..___....._____............................................................................................................................................................................................. ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DOCUMENT TYPE:
CEQA: q NOP q Supplement/Subsequent NEPA: q NO1 OTHER: q Joint Document
i zfDCons q EIR (Prior SCH No.) q EA q Final Document
ec 0 Other: [7 Draft EIS 0 Other: q Draft EIR 0 FONSI
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ~ .......................................................,........,............................................................................................ LOCAL ACTION TYPE: LOCAL ACTION TYPE:
0 General Plan Update 0 General Plan Update q q Specific Plan Specific Plan Rezone
B ye
q Annexation q Annexation q General Plan Amendment q General Plan Amendment q q Master Plan Master Plan Prezone rezone q Redevelopment q Redevelopment q General Plan Element q General Plan Element Planned Unit Development Planned Unit Development 0 Use Permit Use Permit 0 Coastal Permit 0 Coastal Permit
0 Community Plan 0 Community Plan 0 Site Plan Site Plan 0 Land Division (Subdivision, Land Division (Subdivision, 0 Other: 0 Other:
Parcel Map, Tract Map, etc.) Parcel Map, Tract Map, etc.)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DEVELOPMENT TYPE: q Residential: Units 21 Acres U 0 Water Facilities: Type MGD
/-J Office: Sq. Ft. Acres Employees q Commercial: Sq. Ft. Acres Employees
8 TrMtnspgortation: Twe
0 Industrial:
0 Educational:
Sq. Ft. Acres Employees
mm :
0 Power: q Waste Treatment:
Mineral
Type Watts
‘be
c] Recreational: [7 Hazardous Water: ‘We
0 Other:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN DOCUMENT:
Aesthetic/Visual 0 Flood Plain/Flooding
Agricultural Land 17 Forest Land/Fire Hazard
Air Quality c] Geological/Seismic
Archaeological/Historical c] Minerals
Coastal Zone 0 Noise
Drainage/Absorption 0 Population/Hsg. Balance
Economic/Jobs 0 Public Services/Facilities
Fiscal q Recreation/Parks
Schools/Universities
Septic Systems B Sewer Capacity q Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading q
Solid Waste
Toxic/Hazardous 8 Traffic/Circulation
Vegetation
Water Quality
Hz0 Supply/Ground Hz0
Wetland/Riparian
Wildlife
Growth Inducing
Land Use
Cumulative Effect
Other:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Use
Vacant/L-C Zone/RLM General Plan
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Project Description:
21 lot
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
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: North of Poinsettia Lane between Aviara Parkway and Black Rail
Road in the southwest quadrant within the Zone 20 Specific Plan -
area.
Project Description: A Local Coastal Program Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative
Tract Map, Site Development Plan, Hillside Development Permit
and Coastal Development Permit to change the zoning from
Limited Control (L-C) to One Family Residential/Qualified
Overlay Zone/Open Space (R-l-7,500-Q/OS) and to subdivide the
27.7 acre parcel into 21 standard single family 7,500+ square foot
lots and one open space lot. Single family homes are also
proposed on each lot.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the
initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1)
revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the
proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment
would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City
that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this
action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the
Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30
days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning
Department at (760) 438-l 161, extension 4477.
DATED: JULY 29,1999
CASE NO: ZC 98 12/LCPA 9%09XT 98- 19/HDP 98-2 l/GDP 9%86/SDP 99-05
CASE NAME: ROESCH PROPERTY SUBDIVISION
PUBLISH DATE: JULY 29,1999 .
Planning Director
2075 La Palmas Dr. * Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-l 161 - FAX (760) 438-0894 @
ROESCH PROPERTY
RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
ZC 9842lLCPA 98909ICT 98-l 91
SDP 99=05/HDP 98-2lICDP 98-86
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: ZC 9%12/LCPA 98-09/CT 98-19/HDP 98-21/GDP 98-86/SDP 99-05
DATE: Februarv 2 1, 1999
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Roesch Property
2. APPLICANT: Standard Pacific Homes
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 9335 Chesaneake Drive. San Diego,
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED:
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A urouosed Local Coastal Proeram Amendment and Zone Change
to change the land use desizznation for the site from Limited Control (L-C) to One-Family
Residential. 7.500 sauare foot minimum lot size. Qualified Develoument Overlay Zone (R-l-
7,500 -0) and Oven Snace (OS) on a 27.7 acre narcel. Also urouosed is a Tentative Tract Mar, to
create 21 residential lots and 1 onen snace lot, a Site DeveloDment Plan. Hillside Develonment
Permit. and Coastal Development Permit. The nroiect site is located in the southwest auadrant
north of Poinsettia Lane between Black Rail Road and Aviara Parkwav within the boundaries of
the Zone 20 Snecific Plan..
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.
0 Land Use and Planning (x1 Transportation/Circulation cl Public Services
cl Population and Housing lxl Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems III Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
cl Water lxl Hazards lxl Cultural Resources
q Air Quality cl Noise cl Recreation
q Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
- v DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
cl
0
lzl
IXI
cl
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation -
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Mitigated
Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be
addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT‘be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier 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-Ol),
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
Date
Rev. 03128196
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.
l 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.
a “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.
l “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.
l “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
l Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but &l 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).
l 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.
l A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03128196
l 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.
l 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.
4 Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
4
b)
c>
4
e>
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18; #2: Pgs III-74 - III
- 87)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18; #2 Pgs III-74 - III -87)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18; #2 Pgs III -74 - III -87)
Affect agiicultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18; #2 Pgs III-74 - III -
87) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18; #2 III -
74 - III -87)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 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-l -
5.5-6)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
4
b)
c)
4
e)
fl
8)
h)
0
expose people to potential impacts invOlving:
Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2: Pgs III-112 -
111-l 18; #4)
Seismic ground shaking? ((#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2:
Pgs III-l 12 - III-1 18; #4)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
((#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1.15; #2: Pgs III-112 - 111-118; #6)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l :Pgs 5. l-l -
5.1-15;#2: Pgs III-112 - 111-118; #/4)
Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2:
Pgs III-112 - 111-118; #4)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2: Pgs III-112 -111-118; ##4)
Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2: Pgs
III-112 - 111-118; #4)
Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2: Pgs III-112
- III -118; #4)
Unique geologic or physical features? (#l :Pgs 5. l-l -
5.1-15; #2 Pgs III -112 - III -118; #4)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
5 Rev. 03128196
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
cl
zl
0
III
q
El
cl
II
cl
0
cl
El
III
cl
El
q
--
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated
cl
q
0
El
q
0
0
0
q
q
q
El
0
q
q
q
cl
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0
cl
0
III
III
q
cl
q
q
III
cl
cl
0
cl
q
El
0
No impact
El
El .
Ix]
El
Is1
Ix1
lxl
lxl
IXI
lxl
lxl
Is]
IXI
IXI
lxl
IXJ
lxl
Issues (and Supporting Informatzn Sources).
4
b)
cl
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
9
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-
11; #5)
Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-11; #5)
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-l 1; #5)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5. 2-11; #5)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-l 1; #5)
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-l - 5.2-l 1; #5)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-l 1; #5)
Impacts to groundwater quality? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5. 2-
11; #5)
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? ((#l:Pgs
5.2-l - 5.2-l 1)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
4
b)
cl
4
Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
1 - 5.3-12)
Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l
- 5.3-12)
Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
Create objectionable odors? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
4
b)
c)
4
e)
f-l
g>
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
5.7-l - 5.7.22; #2: Pgs III-58 - 111-69, #7)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22; #2: Pgs
III-58 - 111-69)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22; #2: Pgs III-58 - 111-69)
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22; #2: Pgs III-58 - 111-69)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22; #2: Pgs III-58 - 111-69)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22; #2: Pgs III-58 - 111-69)
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l -
5.7.22; #2: Pgs III-58 - 111-69)
Potentially
Significant Impact
cl
cl
cl
q
cl
El
cl
q
q
q
q
q
cl
IXI
cl
0
0
0
III
El
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated
El
q
III
q
q
q
cl
q
El
q
0
El
cl
0
cl
q
0
q
0
cl
Less Than
Significant
Impact
cl
El
III
q
q
cl
III
cl
0
0
0
0
cl
0
El
q
q
17
q
0
No Impact
Ix]
ISI
IXI
El
Ix1
Ix1
Ix]
txl
El
0
Ix]
El
Ix)
cl
lxl
El
ixl
[XI
IXI
Ix1
6 Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Informat; Sources)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
a)
b)
c)
4
e>
VIII.
4
b)
c)
in impacts to:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24; #2: Pgs III-
37 - 111-57; #3)
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24; #2: Pgs III-37 - 111-57; #3)
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24; #2:
Pgs III-37 - 111-57; #3)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24; #2: Pgs III-37 - 111-58; #3)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l :Pgs 5.4- 1
- 5.4-24; #2: Pgs III-37 - 111-57; #3, #8)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
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)
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)
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-l - 5.10.1-5)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l -
5.10.1-5)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5; #2: Pgs III-97 -
III- 105)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5; #2: Pgs
III-97 - III- 105)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-l - 5.9-
15; #2: Pgs III-88 - 111-96; #6)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-
1 - 5.9-15; #2: Pgs III-88 - 111-96; #5)
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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-5)
Potentially
Significant Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
El
q
q
q
q
q
--
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
lxl
q
lxl
q
w
q
q
q
q
q
El
El
q
q
q
q
Less Than Significant
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
No
Impact
q
(x1
q
lxl
q
lxl
(XI
lxl
q lxl
q lxl
q u
0 q
Jl [XI
q El
q El
Rev. 03128196 7
Issues (and Supporting Informatzn Sources).
b)
c)
4
e>
Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4)
Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (#l,
pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-I -
5.12.8-7)
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
a>
b)
c>
4
e)
f,
d
XIII.
a>
b)
c>
XIV.
4
b)
c>
4
e)
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
Communications systems? (#l; pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.12.3-7)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
5.11-1 - 5.11-5; #2: Pgs III-119 - 111-151)
Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
5.1 l-l - 5.11-5; #2: Pgs III-1 19 - 111-151)
Create light or glare?,(#l:Pgs 5.11-l - 5.11-5; #2: Pgs
III-119 - 111-151)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-
10; #2: Pgs III-106 - 111-107)
Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-
10; #2: Pgs III-70 - 111-73)
Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10;#2:
Pgs III-70 - 111-73)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs
5.8-l - 5.8-10; #2: Pgs III-70 - 111-73)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10; #2: Pgs
III-70 - 111-73)
XV.RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-I -
5.12.8-7)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l :Pgs
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
Potentially Significant
Impact
q q q
q
q
q q
q q q q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
1
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
cl q q
q
q
q q
q q q q
q
q
q
5
q
q
q
q
q
q
Less Than Significant
Impact
q q q
q
q
q q
q q q q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
No
Impact
El
5
5
5 -
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
q
5
5
5
5
5
5
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
8 Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Sunnorting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
4 Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“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)?
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact Mitigation
Incorporated q 5 q q
b)
c>
5 q
q q
q q
q 5
Rev. 03128196
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis of this proposed single family residential 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 #l in the preceding checklist. This proposal is consistent
with the applicable portions of the General Plan and is considered a project that was described
in MEIR 93-01 as within its scope. All feasible mitigation measures identified in MEIR 93-01
which are appropriate to the project have been incorporated into this project.
The project site is located in an area which is subject to the requirements of the Zone 20
Specific Plan approved by the City Council in 1994. A program EIR was certified for the Zone
20 Specific Plan. The Zone 20 Program EIR identified, analyzed, and recommended mitigation
to reduce potentially significant impacts to insignificant levels. The Zone 20 Program EIR
(PEIR) analyzed potential impacts to agriculture, air quality, biology, circulation, land use,
noise, pesticide residue, paleontology, public facilities financing, soils/geology, and visual
aesthetics that could result from the development of the Specific Plan area. The Program EIR
is intended to be used in the review of subsequent projects within Zone 20. The project
incorporates the required Zone 20 Program EIR mitigation measures, and through the analysis
of the required additional biological, geotechnical, hydrology, and noise analysis a
determination has been made that no additional significant impacts beyond those identified and
mitigated by the Program EIR will result from this project. The following environmental
evaluation briefly explains the basis for this determination along with identifying the source
documents which support the environmental determination. The Zone 20 Program EIR and
additional technical studies are cited as source documents for this environmental evaluation.
10 Rev. 03128196
-
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project site is approximately 27.7 acres in size and is located at the north of Poinsettia Lane
between Aviara Parkway and Black Rail Road . The project consists of 21 residential lots with a
minimum lot area of 7,500 square feet and one 21.87 acre open space lot. The site contains
coastal sage scrub, southern maritime chaparral, native grasslands, southern willow scrub, ’
California gnatcatchers, sensitive plant species, and areas which have been used for agriculture.
A total of 27.7 acres of the site are designated as Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM O-4
DU/AC). The project site is zoned Limited Control (L-C). A zone change and local coastal
program amendment are proposed to designate the site as One-Family Residential, 7,500 square
foot minimum lot size, Qualified Development Overlay Zone (R-l-Q) and Open Space (OS) to
correspond to the existing general plan land use designations. An irrevocable offer of dedication
will be required over the open space lot. A portion of the residential density from these parcels is
being transferred to the area of the site which is proposed to be developed.
In addition to approval of the tentative map application a hillside development permit and coastal
development permit approval are being requested.
11 Rev. 03128196
II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
B. Environmental Impact Discussion
V. a) Air Quality
The implementation of 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 projects within
the scope of the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further
environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
VI. a) Transportation/Circulation
The implementation of projects that fall within the scope of and are 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
12 Rev. 03128196
---
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. The
project will be conditioned to dedicate a segment of the future citywide trail within the western
portion of the site (SDG&E access road), and to pay its fair share of the cost of the Poinsettia
Lane road segment through Zone 20.
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 projects that fall within the scope of the General Plan’s
Master EIR, including this project.
The City has received its annual Growth Management Traffic Monitoring Report. The Report
has recorded an unanticipated intersection “level of service” (LOS) failure at Palomar Airport
Road (PAR) and El Camino Real (ECR) during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. This
potentially creates a changed circumstance negating reliance on previous environmental
documentation. Pursuant to 0 15 162 of the CEQA Guidelines a lead agency must prepare a
“Subsequent” environmental documentation if substantial evidence (i.e., the recorded
intersection failure) determines that a changed circumstance exists. However, case law has
interpreted this section of the CEQA Guidelines to not require the preparation of a “Subsequent
EIR” if mitigation measures are adopted which reduce the identified impacts to a level of
insignificance.
A mitigation measure has been identified which, if implemented, will bring the peak hours LOS
into the acceptable range. The mitigation measure involves construction of two dual right turn
lanes-northbound to eastbound and westbound to northbound. This project has been
conditioned to pay its fair share of the intersection “short-term improvements,” thereby
guaranteeing mitigation to a level of insignificance.
VII. a, c. & d) Biological Resources
The Zone 20 Program EIR identified the mitigation requirement that future site specific
biological survey studies that focus on the impacts created by individual subsequent development
projects be prepared. The additional biological studies are required to consider the baseline data
and biological open space recommendations of the Zone 20 Program EIR and provide more
detailed and current resource surveys. The site specific biological survey is required to identify
mitigation for any project specific impacts.
A report entitled, “Biological Resources Assessment of the Rosech Site Located in the City of
Carlsbad, San Diego County, California,” dated December 8, 1998 by Natural Resource
Consultants has been prepared for the project. In addition, a separate sensitive plant survey on a
portion of the Roesch property has been conducted to analyze the biological impacts associated
with the proposed project grading and fire suppression zones.
13 Rev. 03/28/96
.-
The biology report for the Roesch property determined that implementation of the project would
result in the direct loss of 6.61 acres or approximately 24% of the site including impacts to the
following habitat types and sensitive plant and animal species :
n 5.02 acres of agricultural - less than significant
n 0.0 acre of coastal sage scrub - less than significant
n 1.37 acre of southern maritime chaparral - significant
H 4.98 acre of annual non-native grassland - less than significant
n .28 acres of ruderal - less than significant
n .Ol acres of eucalyptus woodlands - less than significant
n approximately 296 white coast ceanothus
W 20 Nuttall’s scrub oak
n 159 1 square feet of western dichondra
n 484 square feet of ashy spike moss
Based on cumulative data pertaining to the site, it is assumed the site supports two gnatcatcher
pairs within the coastal sage scrub and chaparral areas. The California gnatcatcher observed
onsite were located on the north and south sides of the site within chaparral and coastal sage
scrub vegetation. There will be no impact to its preferred habitat, coastal sage scrub. Indirect
impacts may result in the reduction of the carrying capacity of the native habitats, however, the
patch of habitat onsite is connected to additional habitat offsite.
The proposed plan results in the preservation of approximately 21 acres (76 percent), 14.5 acres
of which are native habitats, in natural open space, including 100% of native grasslands, coastal
sage scrub, disturbed coastal sage scrub, and southern willow scrub, and 67% of southern
maritime chaparral. The following onsite impacts associated with implementation of the
proposed development plan are considered significant:
a) Loss of 1.37 acre of southern maritime chaparral.
The Roesch property is identified as a standards area within Linkage Area F of the Carlsbad
Draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP). Standards areas require a minimum preservation of 67
percent of coastal sage scrub and 75 percent of gnatcatchers as well as 100% conservation of
narrow endemic species. Additionally, within Zone 20, a goal is established for no net loss of
wetland habitats, southern maritime chaparral, maritime succulent scrub and coastal sage scrub.
The proposed project meets the standards area conservation requirements outlined by the Draft
Carlsbad HMP: the project ensures the functioning of preserve linkages due to the preserve
design and native habitats that are contiguous with open space on adjacent parcels is preserved.
Although the project results in the loss of 1.37 acre of southern. maritime chaparral, it does not
contain narrow endemic plants and is located to the east of the linkage corridor proposed by the
Roesch project. The project contributes to the preservation of resources and the ultimate
development of the subregional preserve system by contributing open space, a total of 21 acres of
predominately native habitats, in a continuous configuration through Linkage Area F. On an
overall project-level basis, the property is proposed to preserve 7.6 percent of the site, with the
sensitive native habitats onsite proposed to receive approximately 100 percent preservation
except for southern maritime chaparral. The potential indirect impact to the 2 pair of gnatcatchers
observed onsite resulting from grading activities would be mitigated through direct surveys to
locate active gnatcatcher nests. If nests are present, no grading or removal of habitat may take
place within 200 feet of active nesting sites during the nesting/breeding season (mid-February
through mid-July).
14 Rev. 03/28/96
-
Thus, the proposed project G’consistent with the Draft Carlsbad HMP.
Mitigation Measures
The project design mitigates direct impacts to southern maritime chaparral and the sensitive plant
species that occur within this habitat. Included in the project design is the granting of an
irrevocable offer of dedication to the City of Carlsbad or an acceptable entity for an open
space/conservation easement over Lot 22 of the tentative map. This covers over 67 percent
(2.79 acres) of the southern maritime chaparral on the Roesch property. This satisfies the 2:l *
mitigation ratio that is typically required by the resource agencies for the impact of southern
maritime chaparral. The open space easement also includes the preservation of 100% of native
grasslands, coastal sage scrub, disturbed coastal sage scrub, southern willow scrub as well as
the majority of wart-stemmed ceanothus, Nuttall’s scrub oak, western dichondra, ashy spike
moss, and California gnatcatcher occurring onsite. In addition, the following mitigation
measures will be implemented:
To mitigate potential disturbances to the California gnatcatcher resulting from grading activities,
prior to the commencement of grading activities, direct surveys to locate active gnatcatcher nests
shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. If nests are present, no grading or removal of habitat
may take place within 200 feet of active nesting sites during the nesting/breeding season (mid-
February through mid-July).
The Developer shall establish a homeowner’s association and corresponding covenants,
conditions and restrictions. Said CC&Rs shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning
Director prior to final map approval. Prior to issuance of a building permit the Developer shall
provide the Planning Department with a recorded copy of the official CC&Rs that have been
approved by the Department of Real Estate and the Planning Director. At a minimum, the
CC&Rs shall contain the following provision:
a. The CGSzRs shall include provisions specifying maintenance responsibility for
Open Space Lot 22. The CC&Rs shall stipulate that within the boundaries of the
HOA open space easement, structures or any other thing not shown on the
approved tentative map or landscape plans shall be prohibited.
The Developer shall dedicate to the Homeowner’s Association on the final map,
an open space maintenance easement over Lot 22 identified on the tentative
map to enable maintenance activities within the easement area including but
not limited to, landscaping and irrigation in accordance with the approved
tentative map and landscape plans, removal of debris and trash, minimal fire
suppression thinning, and erosion prevention and remediation. A note to
this effect shall be placed on the non-mapping data sheet of the final map.
Removal of native vegetation and development of Open Space Lot(s) 22,
including but not limited to fences, walls, decks, storage buildings, pools, spas,
stairways and landscaping, other than that approved as part of the grading plan,
improvement plans, landscape plan, etc. as shown on the project exhibits, is
specifically prohibited, except upon written order of the Carlsbad Fire Department
for fire prevention purposes, or upon written approval of the Planning Director,
based upon a request from the Homeowners Association accompanied by a report
from a qualified arbor&/botanist indicating the need to remove specified trees
and/or plants because of disease or impending danger to adjacent habitable
15 Rev. 03128196
dwelling unis. For areas containing native vegetation the report required to
accompany the request shall be prepared by a qualified biologist.
IX. c) and d) Hazards
Agricultural chemicals have previously been used on the site according to the Zone 20 Program
EIR. Because of this prior use there is the potential for soil contamination resulting from the
varying degrees of degradation, prevalence in the environment, and toxicity of the agricultural
chemicals which may have been used. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented -
to lessen this potential impact to a level of less than significant as required by the Zone 20
Program EIR:
Prior to approval of the final map or grading plan a detailed soils testing and analysis
report shall be prepared by a registered soils engineer, and submitted to the City Planning
and Engineering Departments as well as the County Department of Environmental Health
for review and approval. This report shall evaluate the potential for soil contamination
on-site due to historic use, handling, or storage of restricted agricultural chemicals. The
report shall also identify a range of possible mitigation measures to remediate any
potentially significant public health impacts if hazardous chemicals are detected at high
concentrations in the soil. Such mitigation measures shall include, at a minimum:
a. Remove any contaminated soils and haul to a State-certified landfill.
b. Cap the area of soil contamination with materials appropriate for the containment
of the specific type of chemical, taking into account its rate of absorption and
toxicity level.
C. Place the area of soil contamination in an open space easement, with restrictions
on future construction of permanent buildings and human uses. Fencing and
warning signs shall also be installed, where appropriate, prohibiting potential use
of the site.
2) The applicant shall notify, in a manner satisfactory to the City Attorney, all tenants/users
of new development that these areas are subject to dust, pesticides, and odors associated
with adjacent agricultural operations, and that the tenants/users occupy these areas at their
own risk.
X. b) Noise
A noise study was prepared for the project as required by a mitigation measure identified in the
Zone 20 program EIR. All projects located within 500 feet of existing/future Poinsettia Lane are
required to analyze the projected traffic noise impacts. The acoustical evaluation prepared by
Investigative Science and Engineering concluded that the all noise levels at receptor points
would be below the 670 dBA CNEL threshold established by the City; therefore no mitigation is
required.
In accordance with mitigation required by the Zone 20 EIR, the following condition shall be
applied to the project:
Prior to the recordation of the first final tract map or the issuance of building permits,
whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property
16 Rev. 03/28/96
-
is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating from McClellan-Palomar
Airport, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and the City Attorney
(see Noise Form #2 on file in the Planning Department).
XIV. a) Cultural Resources - Paleontology
According to the Zone 20 Program EIR the geologic formations present within the Zone 20
Specific Plan Area have the potential to contain significant fossils. There is a high potential for
the discovery of fossils during future grading and construction activities. The following -
mitigation measures shall be implemented during future grading of the site to reduce potentially
significant impacts on the region’s paleontological resources to an acceptable level:
a. Prior to any grading of the project site, a paleontologist shall be retained to
perform a walkover survey of the site and to review the grading plans to
determine if the proposed grading will impact fossil resources. A copy of the
paleontologist’s report shall be provided to the Planning Director prior to issuance
of a grading permit;
b. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of the
site and to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the fossils
present in the geologic strata, it may be necessary to collect matrix samples for
laboratory processing through fine screens. The paleontologist shall make
periodic reports to the Planning Director during the grading process;
C. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an
exposed fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage artifacts;
d. All fossils collected shall be donated to a public, non-profit institution with a
research interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum;
e. Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading activities of
the project shall be resolved by the Planning Director and City Engineer.
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-l 161, extension 4446.
1. “Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan
Update” (MEIR 93-Ol), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
2. “Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Zone 20 Specific Plan” (EIR 90-
03), dated June 1992, Brian F. Mooney Associates.
3. “Biological Resources Assessment of the Roesch Site Located in the City of Carlsbad,
San Diego County, California”, dated December 8, 1998, Natural Resource Consultants.
4. “Geotechnical Investigation - Roesch Property” (Job No. 06074-12-02), dated May 4,
1998, Geocon, Inc.
17 Rev. 03/28/96
5. “Hydrology Study for Roesch Property in the City of Carlsbad” (W.O. 2240-05), dated
June 24, 1998, Hunsaker & Associates, Inc.
6. “Standard Pacific Roesch Property Acoustical Study (SE Report #98-035)” dated
December 2, 1998, Investigative Science and Engineering.
7. “1998 Traffic Monitoring Report” for the City of Carlsbad, Valley Research and Planning
Associates.
8. “Draft Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad” dated
April, 1999.
18 Rev. 03128196
LIST OF MITIGATING &ASURES (IF APPLICABLE‘1
1. The project design mitigates direct impacts to southern maritime chaparral and the
sensitive plant species that occur within this habitat. Included in the project design is the
granting of an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City of Carlsbad or an acceptable
entity for an open space/conservation easement over Lot 22 of the tentative map. This
covers over 67 percent (2.79 acres) of the southern maritime chaparral on the Roesch
property. This satisfies the 2:l mitigation ratio that is typically required by the resource
agencies for the impact of southern maritime chaparral. The open space easement also -
includes the preservation of 100% of the of native grasslands, coastal sage scrub,
disturbed coastal sage scrub, southern willow scrub, and 2 pair of California gnatcatchers
occurring onsite, and the majority of white coast ceanothus, Nuttall’s scrub oak, western
dichondra, ashy spike moss.
2. To mitigate potential disturbances to the California gnatcatcher resulting from grading
activities, prior to the commencement of grading activities, direct surveys to locate active
gnatcatcher nests shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. If nests are present, no
grading or removal of habitat may take place within 200 feet of active nesting sites during
the nesting/breeding season (mid-February through mid-July).
3. The Developer shall establish a homeowner’s association and corresponding covenants,
conditions and restrictions. Said CC&Rs shall be submitted to and approved by the
Planning Director prior to final map approval. Prior to issuance of a building permit the
Developer shall provide the Planning Department with a recorded copy of the official
CC&Rs that have been approved by the Department of Real Estate and the Planning
Director. At a minimum, the CURS shall contain the following provision:
a. The CC&Rs shall include provisions specifying maintenance responsibility for
Open Space Lot 22. The CC&Rs shall stipulate that within the boundaries of the
HOA open space easement, structures or any other thing not shown on the
approved tentative map or landscape plans shall be prohibited.
4. The Developer shall dedicate to the Homeowner’s Association on the final map, an
open space maintenance easement over Lot 22 identified on the tentative map to
enable maintenance activities within the easement area including but not limited to,
landscaping and irrigation in accordance with the approved tentative map and
landscape plans, removal of debris and trash, minimal fire suppression thinning,
and erosion prevention and remediation. A note to this effect shall be placed on the
non-mapping data sheet of the final map.
5. Removal of native vegetation and development of Open Space Lot(s) 22, including but
not limited to fences, walls, decks, storage buildings, pools, spas, stairways and
landscaping, other than that approved as part of the grading plan, improvement plans,
landscape plan, etc. as shown on the project exhibits, is specifically prohibited, except
upon written order of the Carlsbad Fire Department for fire prevention purposes, or upon
written approval of the Planning Director, based upon a request from the Homeowners
Association accompanied by a report from a qualified arborist/botanist indicating the
need to remove specified trees and/or plants because of disease or impending danger to
adjacent habitable dwelling units. For areas containing native vegetation the report
required to accompany the request shall be prepared by a qualified biologist.
19 Rev. 03128196
6.
-
Prior to approval of the final map or grading plan a detailed soils testing and analysis
report shall be prepared by a registered soils engineer, and submitted to the City Planning
and Engineering Departments as well as the County Department of Environmental Health
for review and approval. This report shall evaluate the potential for soil contamination
on-site due to historic use, handling, or storage of restricted agricultural chemicals. The
report shall also identify a range of possible mitigation measures to remediate any
potentially significant public health impacts if hazardous chemicals are detected at high
concentrations in the soil. Such mitigation measures shall include, at a minimum:
a. Remove any contaminated soils and haul to a State-certified landfill.
b. Cap the area of soil contamination with materials appropriate for the containment
of the specific type of chemical, taking into account its rate of absorption and
toxicity level.
C. Place the area of soil contamination in an open space easement, with restrictions
on future construction of permanent buildings and human uses. Fencing and
warning signs shall also be installed, where appropriate, prohibiting potential use
of the site.
7. The applicant shall notify, in a manner satisfactory to the City Attorney, all tenants/users
of new development that these areas are subject to dust, pesticides, and odors associated
with adjacent agricultural operations, and that the tenants/users occupy these areas at their
own risk.
8. Prior to the recordation of the first final tract map or the issuance of building permits,
whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property
is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating from McClellan-Palomar
Airport, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and the City Attorney
(see Noise Form #2 on file in the Planning Department).
a. Prior to any grading of the project site, a paleontologist shall be retained to
perform a walkover survey of the site and to review the grading plans to
determine if the proposed grading will impact fossil resources. A copy of the
paleontologist’s report shall be provided to the Planning Director prior to issuance
of a grading permit;
b. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perfotrir periodic inspections of the
site and to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the fossils
present in the geologic strata, it may be necessary to collect matrix samples for
laboratory processing through fine screens. The paleontologist shall make
periodic reports to the Planning Director during the grading process;
C. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an
exposed fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage artifacts;
d. All fossils collected shall be donated to a public, non-profit institution with a
research interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum;
e. Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading activities of
the project shall be resolved by the Planning Director and City Engineer.
20 Rev. 03128196
- -
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
Rev. 03128196
APPLICANT CONC&NCE 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
22 Rev. 03128196
ENVIRONMENTAL M~JATION MONITORING CHECKLIS, PAGE 1 OF 5
ENVIRONMENTAL MIh..sATION MONITORING CHECKLIke, PAGE 2 OF 5
2 5
z ‘Z
- r .B 2 .= 54 E
g .- F
Ed%
5s!5 .= m .I- mu 0
ENVIRONMENTAL MI-b>ATION MONITORING CHECKLk,,- PAGE 3 OF 5
ENVIRONMENTAL Ml-i-ATION MONITORING CHECKLIS -_ PAGE 4 OF 5
c 0 ‘3 s
E E 9
E
2 s a
40) g .E
EE P .-
52
c
5
E a
I 8
w= aTi
I-E .& -oE g$
t
r, 0 u- 9 5 5 b E - u p!
3 E gj .-
s E
.B g
3 .= *
c Fi .G k?? ‘g
i P f$ :g
g8s ‘a m + CO-00
3 2
a E 3 e m a E
m 1
8 i? cn ‘f 0 e Lg
s fs- E $
: a s
z
;
5
e v) 5: .3 e! F 6 a
s z
$6 E
s SO .=
5 g
5E .6
ii oy $ .E .
c egz !gB =.&cum rg mono’ 0) PI, E == IO .t II c
z .&g
:
m Eo
.Fj f2.g
9 a, a,m
i;i CL ,= E 5 :E 5 II 0 - a, .g
QO z
dt-“r 5
ENVIRONMENTAL Ml-i,ATION MONITORING CHECKLIS., PAGE 5 OF 5
$ s 0
d
9 5
5 b E - s E
E” -m 2 .-
s E
2 8
I ‘3
c iYl .- gl .-
2 E
g .- 5”
E ,8 El35 ‘= m G CO’T) 0
II .- L a,:: 52 0) ‘3 z -0 93L
5= e
EE m $i o) 1 i?!.= .x ZQQ: m-0
E II E g -.B(n,oa z f. s .c 8
” E 1
F B 2