Loading...
1991-133705 '. 985 .~ - . . <'== 7"': - '- ". " ,""" >, = = - . A .. - - - - _. --" - SAN DIEGO COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMA TION COMMISSIO~' ~ - - - .--. '- ' - - -- CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION. - -- -. -- --- "Richard Day Annexation" to the - Please return to: Cardiff Sanitation District LAFCO, MS A216 Ref. No. DA90-49 Pursuant to Government Code Sections 57200 and 57201, this Certificate is hereby issued. . The name of each city and/or district involved In this change of organization/reorganization, all located within San Diego county, and the type of change of organization ordered for each city and/or district is as follows: City or District Type of Change of Organization Cardiff Sanitation District Annexation A certified copy of the resolution ordering this change of 0 rgan iza tion/ reorganiza tion without an election, or the resolution confirming an order for this change of organization/reorganization after confirmation by the voters is attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein. A legal description and map of the boundaries of the a bove-ci ted change of organization/reorganization is included in said resolution. The terms and conditions, if any, of the change of organization/reorganization are indicated on the attached form. I hereby certify that I have examined the above-cited resolution for a change of organization/reorganization, and have found that document to be in compliance with the Commission's resolution approving said change of organization/reorganization. I further certify that (1) resolutions agreeing to accept a negotiated exchange of property tax revenues for this jurisdictional change, adopted by the local agencies included in the negotiations, have been submitted to this office, or (2) a master property tax exchange agreement pertinent to this jurisdictional change is on file. "- ~f~~ Date March 21, 1991 J NE P. MERRILL Executive Officer . . \ . . 987 . .~, RESOLUTION NO. 91-14 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CARDIFF SANITATION DISTRICT ANNEXING TERRITORY TO WHICH OWNERS HAVE CONSENTED HRICHARD DAY ANNEXATIONH . . WHEREAS, pursuant to the Cortese - Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985 (Govt. Code, Section 5600 et seq.) preliminary proceedings were commenced by resolution of application by this Board on October 16, 1990, as Resolution No. 90-41, for annexation the Cardiff Sanitation District (thereinafter referred to as the District) of certain territory therein descrïbed, which description has been modified pursuant to the directions of the Local Agency Formation Commission; and WHEREAS,the annexation proposed by said resolution of ¡ application was presented to and approved by the Local Agency : Formation commission of San Diego County on February 4,1991, and this District was designated as the conducting District and authorized by resolution of order said annexation without notice or hearing and without an election pursuant to Government Code, Section 56837; NOW,THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED, ORDERED AND DETERMINED, pursuant to Government Code Section 57025 et seq.; a. The manner in which and by whom preliminary proceedings were canmenced was by resolution of application by this Board as stated above. b. The territory to be annexed has been designated DA 90-49 by the Local Agency Formation Commission, and the exterior boundaries of such territory are as hereinafter described. c. The territory proposed to be annexed is uninhabited, and will be benefited by such annexation as described in Health and Safety Code Section 4830. Book 1f .3 . Page I £'1 J . . 988 . '- d. The reasons for the proposed annexation as set forth in the resolution of application referred to above are: 1. The District is empowered to and is engaged in furnishing sewage disposal facilities. 2. The territory proposed to be annexed to said District is developed and/or proposed to be developed and used for residential and/or commercial purposes and provision for sewage disposal facilities for said territory is essential for such purposes. e. The terms and conditions of the proposed annexation are: Payment of annexation and State Board fees. f. All the owners of land within such territory have given their written consent to such annexation, as provided in Government Code, Section 56837; and therefore, as approved and authorized by the Local Agency Formation Commission, this Board may adopt its resolution ordering the annexation without notice and hearing and without an election, as provided in Government Code, Section 57002. g. The regular County assessment role will be utilized and the affected territory will be taxed for existing bonded indebtedness. ( h. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15074 (California Environmental Quality Act of 1970), the Board finds that this project would not have a significant effect on the environment. . IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that pursuant to Government Code Section 57002, the following described incorporated territory in the City of Encinitas, State of California, be and it hereby is annexed to and made a part of the Cardiff Sanitation District. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this Board irnnediately transmit a certified copy of this resolution along with a remittance to cover the fees required by the Government Code Section 54902.5 to the Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation commission of San Diego County, so that the Executive Officer may make the filings required by Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 57200), Part 5, Division 1, Title 6 of the Government Code and by Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 54900), Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code. /"? 56 Beak # '..5 . Page # . -, . . . 989 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of March, 1991, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Davis, Hano, Omsted, Slater, Wiegand NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None pt- J / Davis, Chairperson of the Board diff Sanitation District A'ITEST: U the Board " E. Jane Pool, Clerk of the 8oard of Direct0r8 oJ the Cardiff Sanitation Di.'rict of Enc~ Ca/Ho.rnia do hereby certify und.r penalty of perjury that the abcII') anrj 8oreeotng t. . true and correct eepy ï.1f thIs doc""" en file in my office. In wltn£1Sa wh.rNt . tI.. set my hand and the ... .. .... G8nI&tf laftiaüon DlstrlcL . . /;;1A ~af ~ . 9/ ~. . - ~ j/f¿ -. '~~ - ¡ - '.' It a.tI d ... ...., , - Book /I J . Page , s~ A ..~, . 990 . ' DA90_49 "RICHARD DAY ANNEXATION" TO - CARDIFF SANITATION DISTRICT ALL THAT PORTION OF LOTS 3 AND 4 IN SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 13 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, . STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT SURVEY APPROVED OCTOBER 27, 1875, AND THAT PORTION OF LOT 17 OF RANCHO LAS ENCINITAS, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 848, FILED IN THE COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, JUNE 27,1898, LYING WITHIN THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED BOUNDARIES: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED TO ROBERT E. ANDERSON, ET UX, RECORDED DECEMBER 29, 1972 AS' FILE NO. 346350 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID ANDERSON'S LAND TO AND ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED TO ANGUS B. MACÞ.DAM, RECORDED DECEMBER 31,1973 AS FILE NO. 359116 OF OFFICIAL ( RECORDS, NORTH 86°18'56" WEST, (RECORD-NORTH 83°40'00" WEST) 690.00 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT IN SAID MACADAM'S BOUNDARY; THENCE LEAVING SAID BOUNDARY, SOUTH 16°35'56" WEST, 448.86 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 17; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE NORTH 84°23'53" EAST, 357.00 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 4; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE SOUTH 3°59'20" EAST, 906.73 FEET (RECORD-SOUTH 1°30'57" EAST, 906.87 FEET) TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 4 SOUTH 89°48'12" EAST, 375.95 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 4 NORTH 1 ° 0 I' 29" EAST, 1256.99 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXHIBIT "A" päge 1 of 1 Approved by the Local Agency Formation - Commission of San Diego FEB - 4 1991 LAFCO #!:!! ~, "'~~ .- 2/11/91 Book # J . Page # Sl - !,', , . . ..:¡: ,. . 991 I I ,- , /~.?Sl ,. - , 4 Ib-t ..J¡: I I I ! I I @ 8.73 AC. /J~~ .. ". ß5.Z3'\'l,: ~.~ @ 28.94 AC. ...., I~_- . ""'. "'-4cI 1'::\ 8~ð . ~ ~ 12.00 AC ~ \ -- I '\ " It ." ..~ . ., 8.J8 .- J. : "'J. i ""-I., -,I . I .s 1"'.0;' /'7 FEB - 4 1991 0, AU,p¡'A,~7L . ~..~oon848 - RHO LAS ENCINITAS 3 j--q' SEC 8 - TJ3S-R3W - S 1/2 Book # . Page#. >/ .'. )ATE: 1-9-91 MAPPING DIVISION LAfCO: DA90-49 "'::: 111= 4001 SAN DIEGO COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ŒFICE AREA: 15.18 AC. '"RA PAGE: 62-A "RICHARD DAY ANNEXATION II TO BIL: 264-091-13 RAWN BY' CARDIFF SANITATION DISTRrCT THOMAS BROS: 25 E 4 'v. KOSMICKI - . . CITY OF ENCINITAS . NEGATIVE DECLARATION OLIVENHAIN FARMS (TPM 90-530 Project Title EAST OF BROOKSIDE LANE SOUTH OF CAMINO DEL RANCHO Location AND LONE JACK ROAD. 4 LOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. Description RICHARD R. DAY Project Sponsor FINDING: Based upon information provided In the Initial Study, along vlith . Comments and Responses to the Notice of Preparation of a Negative Declaration which have been presented to the City Council/Planning Commission/Community Advisor~ Board, City of Encinitas, at a duly called meeting on JUNE 5, 1 90 , the Council/Commission/Board finds that the project will not a have a significant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES: Mitigation measures included In the project as a condition of project approval to avoid potentially significant effects include: A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to substantiate the finding. Dr dô, /i9Ò ~ / Ha.' r, city Council Chairman, Planning Co ission Chairman, Community Advisory Board . City of Encinitas MB/04/BP2-144WP5 (7-12-90/3) 11 . . CITY OF ENCINITAS . NEGATIVE DECLARATION Olivenhain Farms Project Title South of Lone Jack Road and East of Brookside Lane. Olivenhain Location Tentative Parcel Map to create four residential lots of more than 2 acres each. on property of 15.18 acres. with more than 5.44 acres proposed in open space. Description Olivenhain Farms. A California General Partnership Project Sponsor FINDING: Based upon information provided in the Initial Study, along with Comments and Responses to the Notice of Preparation of a Negative Declaration which have been presented to the City Council/planning Commission/Community Advisory Board, City of Encinitas, 'at a duly called meeting on September 4, 1990, the Council/Commission/Board finds that the project will not a have a significant effect on the environment. . MITIGATION MEASURES: Mitigation measures included in the project as a condition of project approval to avoid potentially significant effects include: The project was designed to avoid potential impacts to biological resources. Potential significant geological constraints will be mitigated by implementation of the recommendations found on pages 7 to 14 of the "Geotechnical Investigation." Potential drainage impacts will be mitigated by'providing' a bridge design which is consistent with the City's requirements, and by approval by the city Engineering Department. Potentially significant short-term construction impacts would occur, including dust generation and noise, and these would be mitigated by standard dust control and noise curtailment measures. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to substantiate the finding. ( September 4. 1990 ~ Date or, City Council Chairman, Planning C ission ch9irman,_Community Advisory Board LN/CAB24-219wp ~ity of En~ . 1 . . NEGATIVE DECLARATION . TO: County Clerk FROM: City of Encinitas Agency 527 Encinitas Blvd. 220 W. Broadway Encinitas, CA 92024 Address San Dieqo, CA ! PROJECT TITLE: Olivenhain Farms (90-053-TPM/EIA) PROJECT APPLICANT: Olivenhain Farms, A California General Partnership A determination has been made by the City of Encinitas staff based on an initial study that: . - The project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared for the project. ~ ~ The project COULD have a significant effect, but revisions to the project plans made by the applicant and/or an enforceable commitment from the applicant to include mitigation measures i would reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels; " il therefore, a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared for the i! project. , Any comments you may wish to make regarding the action are hereby invited. Comments must be received in the offices of the Community Development Director, city of Encinitas within 30 days of receipt of this Notice. The description, location, and the probable environmental effects are contained in the attached materials. A copy of the Initial study is attached, which includes mitigation measures, if any, to avoid potentially significant effect. Please send your response to Community Development Department at the address shown above. We will need the name of a contact person in your agency. Date 5/22/90 Signature Title Asso iate Telephone (619) LN/CAB24-219wp ! . . . CITY OF ENCINITAS . DETERMINATION BASED ON INITIAL STUDY Olivenhain Farms Name of Project South of Lone Jack Road and East of Brookside Lane. Olivenhain Location Entity or Person Undertaking Project: City of Encinitas Name 527 Encinitas Blvd.. Encinitas CA 92024 Address Staff Determination: The City of Encinitas staff, having undertaken and completed an Initial study of this project in accordance with the City's CEQA Guidelines for the purpose of determining whether the. proposed project might have a significant effect on the environment, has reached the following conclusion: 1. The project could not have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, a Negative Declaration will be prepared. XX 2. The project could not have a significant effect on the enyironment, due to mitigation measures accepted by the applicant which include: Mitiqation Measures are documented in the proposed Neqative Declaration for Case No. 90-053-TPM/EIA: Olivenhain Farms on file in the City of Encinitas Department of Planninq and Community Development 3. The proj ect could have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared.' ð d q~4ó( 196 ~Æ)~~4 Date! City of Encinit LN/CAB24-219wp . . . APPENDIX I ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKliST FORM . (To Be Completed By Lead Agency) 1. Background 1. Name of Proponent Mr. Rick Day. 01ivenhain Farms. a California General Partnership - .' 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 786 Pointsettia Park North Encinitas. CA 92024 3. Date of Checklist Submitted 10-22-90 4. Agency Requiring Checklist City of Encinitas 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable 01ivenhain Farms TPM II.. Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) Yes Maybe No 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? - _ .x b. Disruptions, displacement, compaction or overcovering of the soil? -X - - c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? -X - - d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? - - .x e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? - -L - f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet, or lake? - _ .x g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? - - X I . . . Yes Maybe No . 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? - _ ...x b. The creation of objectionable odors? - - X c. Alteration of air moyement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either 10cal1y or regional1y? - _ ...x 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes m currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? - _ ...x b. Changes m absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? - -2L - c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? - _ ...x d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? - -2L - e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved m..)'gen or turbidity? - - ...x f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? - - ...x g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? - - ...x h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otheIWise available for public water supplies? - _ -X 1. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? - _ -X . . . Yes - Maybe No . 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants? - -K- - b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? - -K- - c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? - -K- - d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? - _ ..x 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change In the diversity of specIes, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? - -K- - b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, , rare or endangered species of animals? - -K- I - , , Introduction of new species of animals into c. an area, or result In a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? - -K- - d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? - -K- - 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? X - - b. Exposure of people to seyere noise levels? ..x - - 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? .x. - - 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result In a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? _ ..x - ! . . Yes Maybe No , 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. InCrease in the rate of use of any natural resources? .x - - 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not Iimi ted to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? - - ..x b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency eyacuation plan? - - ..x 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? - - ..x 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? - - ..x 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional yehicular movement? - - ..x b. Effects on existing parking fa ci Ii ties, or demand for new parking? - - ..x c. Substantial impact upon existin a b transportation systems? - - X d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? - - ..x e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? ..x - - f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclïsts or pedestrians? - - X . . Yes Maybe No . 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? - - ..x b. Police protection? - - ..x c. Schools? - - ..x d. Parks or other recreational facilities? , - - ..x e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? - - ..x f. Other governmental services? - - ..x 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? - - ..x b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? - - ..x 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: Water, sewer - - ..x 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? - - ..x b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? - - ..x 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? - - ..x 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? - - ..x . . Yes - Maybe No 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? - - -X b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? - ~ -X c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural yalues? - - -X d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? - - -X 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have. the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife to drop below self sustaining levels, threatened 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? - - -X b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short- term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) - - -X c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) - - -X d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? - - X . . III. Discussion of Enyironmental Eyaluation (Narrative description of environmental impacts.) , See Attached IV. Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on D the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on [8¡- 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. the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the D environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ,Ø-~JrO Date I For: (Note: This is only a suggested form. Public agencies are free t for initial studies.) . . DISCUSSION . 1. The project proposes to grade the existing topography for future deyelopment of four residences. Grading and future development will compact and overcoyer the soil, modify the existing topography, and expose.soils to erosion agents (b., c. and e.). The Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the project discusses potential significant geotechnical constraints and recommends measures to mi tiga te these. Implementation of these measures, found on pages 7 through 14 of the Geotechnical Investigation, will mitigate any potentially significant soils or geological impacts to future residences and residents to below a level of significance. The "Geotechnical Investigation" is available for reyiew at the City Planning Department. 2. Though grading and construction could create dust, standard dust control measures are proposed by the applicant, and will be required by the City. Implementation of these measures would ayoid potential significant dust impacts. Regarding vehicle emissions, approximately 40 yehicle trips expected per day from the future four residences would not create sigpificant air quality impacts. 3. The project site includes an intermittent tributary of Escondido Creek in the northwest portion of the site. The area of inundation of a 100-year storm (1.14 acres) is proposed to be left in open space except where the existing road crosses over the drainage. The existing 24-foot roadway over the drainage is anticipated to be removed and replaced with a wood bridge. The bridge is presently being designed. Hydrological information used in the drainage basin and bridge design is taken from a hydrological study prepared by San Dieguito Engineering for the adjacent downstream development project (Pacific Scene - TM 4376-1). This study calculated the flow through the project site drainage during a 1O0-year storm to be 1,700 cubic feet per second. The City Engineering Department will review the drainage channel and drainage facilities (bridge) proposed for this project for consistency with the hydrological study and with City standards. Approval of the designs will provide a mechanism whereby consistency with standards would be expected to be achieved, and significant impacts to drainage would thus not be expected. It is thus reiterated that these designs must be reviewed for adequacy by the City Engineering Department. - 1 - 90-11.005 OS/22/90 I . . 4. The "Report of a Biological Survey of Olivenhain Farms" is ayailable for reyiew at . the City Planning Department. Figure 3 shows biological resources on site, and in summary, the sensitiye onsite resources include the following: Resource Size or Quantity Vegetation Mule-fat Riparian .83 acre Perennial Grassland Vegetation 1.0 acre Plants Adolphia Californica NA Polioptila Californica NA Artemisia palmeri NA J uncus actus NA Iya hayseiana NA Vertebrates Red-shouldered Hawk 1 Northern Harrier 1 Sharp-shinned Hawk 1 California Gnatcatcher 7 Coastal Sage Sparrow 3 Rufous-crowned Sparrow 2 The biological consultant met with the applicant prior to site layout to determine areas of constraints and, thus, avoidance. As a result, the proposed grading for the pads was concentrated in the area of annual grasslands because it was the area of greatest disturbance. Permanent open space (5.44 acres) in the southern portion of the property would protect the majority of the Adolphia Californica and Polioptila Californica. Also, 1.0 acre of Mule-fat riparian vegetation, including the plants Juncus acutus, Iva hayesiana and artemesia palmeri, and an additional 0.6 acres of Diegan Sage Scrub would be protected within the floodway. Thus, grading would result in the loss of about 0.1 acre of Perennial Grassland, 0.5 acres of the Diegan Sage Scrub and 2.2 acres of Annual Grassland. Since no development is to occur in any substantial portion of the Sage Scrub, the impact to this and the Gnatcatcher habitat is not considered significant. No significant impacts would occur to other resources either due to the site layout and protection of resources through implementation of open space. - 2 - 90-11.005 OS/22/90 . . . The intermittent tributary crossing would probably require an California Department ' of Fish and Game Streambed Alteration Agreement (permit). Their requirements would not be known until permit processing begins. 5. See No.4 above. 6. Grading and construction of future residences would produce noise which could exceed noise standards set by the City. These impacts, though possibly significant, would be short-term. In order to mitigate this potential noise impacts, hours of construction would be subject to City limits. Long-term post construction noise impacts are not expected to occur from the four residences. 7. Future development of the four residences would result in new light to the area, but this increase is not considered significant as this is a rural residential area and this contribution would be consistent with the surrounding area. 8. The proposed project is within, and actually well under, the maximum allowable residential development planned for this area by the City's General Plan and Zone. 9. The project would result in an increase in the use of natural resources, specifically fossil fuels, timber, and water, howeyer, the increase is negligible by itself. This incremental increase does, however, contribute to a larger, significant regional demand on the resources. The City could require that conservation techniques be implemented in the building design. 10. The project does not include the use of any hazardous materials. 11. The project is consistent with City plans, thus, does not alter the expected human population growth rate of the area. 12. The project is consistent with City plans, thus, the project acts to implement the e),."pected use of the site, which is housing. 13. The project would utilize the exiting area circulation system, and would add approximately 40 average daily yehicle trips to the system, which is not considered significan 1. '"I - .") - 90-11.00S OS/22/90 . . . . 14. The residences would place an incrementally greater demand on City services and utilities, however, the City has anticipated this demand in the General Plan, thus, no significant impacts would occur. The applicant, in order to mitigate the incremental demand, will be subject to payment of fees required by these District's for development. 15. See No.9 above. 16. Letters from the Districts indicate that service would be ayailable. The applicant would be subject to payment of any fees required by these Districts. 17. The project would not create any human health hazards. 18. The type of project, that is rural residential development, is compatible with the surrounding area. The residential designs will be subject to approval by the City's Design Reyiew procedures. No aesthetic impacts are thus anticipated. 19. The project proposes a 10-foot wide equestrian trail along the northwestern boundary. This is considered a beneficial contribution to area equestrian facilities. . Otherwise, the project would not create a significant demand for recreational resources as it is of a small size. 20. A "Cultural Resources Survey and Report" was prepared for the site to determine the existence of archaeological or historical resources. The survey included both a site survey and a records search. The survey and records search found that no cultural resources are located on the site, thus, no impacts would occur. This report is ayailable at the City's Planning Department. 21. Based on the environmental review conducted for the proposed project, no significant impacts would occur to environmental resources from project deyelopment, and a. Negatiye Declaration is recommended as the CEQA action. , - 4 - 90-1 i.005 OS/22/90 . . Date q 110 /'10 Name .:::D. A" rt> -T. M,vJ )J I ~ (, Address B3? MARI'5A LANE - ,1'7 ErJCJloJrrAs t CA. CfZOZ4 . , . . . -, . As the proponent(s) for this annexation of property identified as 2lP4-DCII-/3 . .. to the C!a r" d ì.(f . Assessor's Parcel ~umber~ 5:1I1'+èltìoT1 District, I understand and agree that annexing into the District does not guarantee sewer -.. service or commit sewer capacity to the subject property , being annexed. Also, the District by accepting the ' , application does not represent that it will provide any treatment plant expansions or sewer line extension to provide capacity or service for the subject area to be annexed. Acceptance of this application and final annexation of the property only allows the property to be served at such time as the owner(s) of the annexed property pay all necessa ry costs for the sewerage facilities which can transport, treat and dispose of the wastewater generated by the property. This may mean the proponent(s) shall pay for a part or all of the required facilities to serve the property. * 2/2-012 . . . . . Oa te e¡ //0 1'10 Name ~.~~ f~ Address 7 (P' '. NbC"'¡'h . ~~:; L.~ki) CA. ':¡-z.oU .. f. . . . As the proponent(s) for this annexation of property . i dent Hicd as . 2.fo4-- - 13 .. to the . Assessor s Parce flumber s Ca"d,~ :at'\1 'on Di stri ct. I understand and agree that annexing into the District does not guarantee sewer ~ service or commit sewer capacity to the subject property , being annexed. Also, the District by accepting the r r application does not represent that it will provide any treatment plant expansions or sewer line extension to provide capacity or service for the subject area to be annexed. Acceptance of this application and final annexation of the property only allows the property to be served at such time as the owner(s) of the annexed property pay all necessary costs for the sewerage facilities which can transport, treat and dispose of the wastewater generated by the property. This may mean the proponent(s) shall pay for a part or all of the required facilities to serve the property, * ~cf1 Signature of Annexatio~ant 2/2-012 ~ìc..h;¡Y"d "R. Pdj . . . .' . Date c¡ 110/'10 Name RU~~FLL i JLlUE: JóH~ Address 1811 "R E:t.A1 R. Tl5Ø?Aæ '. !~/, ëÞJG/~,rA'5r a.. CfZDU .......':"";;;Yi ,.' . .. : f . As the proponent(s) for this annexation of property identified as £."4-Dt!tI-/3 ,.. to the Assessor's Parcel ~umber~ ~t+ CSarÙ+ä+ìo'1 District, I understand and agree that annexing into the District does not guarantee sewer -.. service or commit sewer capacity to the subject property , being annexed. Also, the District by accepting the ' , application does not represent that ;t will provide any treatment plant expansions or sewer line extension to provi de capacity or serv; ce for the subject area to be annexed. Acceptance of this application and final annexation of the prope rty on 1 y allows the property to be served at such time as the owner( s) of the annexed property pay all necessa ry costs for the sewerage facilities which can transport, treat and dispose of the wastewater generated by the property. This may mean the proponent(s) shall pay for a part or all of the required facilities to serve the property. * 2/2-012 . ---- / ¡rvS <..., .