Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 95-05; Emerald Ridge East; Tentative Map (CT) (3)City of Carlsbad Planning Department PUBLIC NOTICE OF PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE Please Take Notice: The Planning Department has determined that the environmental effects of the project described below have already been considered in conjunction with previously certified environmental documents and, therefore, no additional environmental review will be required and a notice of determination will be filed. Project Title:EMERALD RIDGE EAST Project Location: South of Palomar Airport Road, East of future Hidden Valley Road, and North of Camino de las Ondas Project Description: A tentative map for 60 standard single family residential lots ranging in size from 7,630 to 36,876 square feet in area and three open space lots, and a site development plan for 9 onsite second dwelling units and one offsite affordable housing credit to satisfy the project's inclusionary housing requirement. Onsite and offsite project improvements include local public streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and drainage facilities to serve the lots, the construction of Hidden Valley Road between Camino de las Ondas and Palomar Airport Road, and alignment of a trail segment along the project's northern boundary. Justification for this determination is on file in the Planning Department, Community Development, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within thirty (30) days of date of publication. DATED: CASE NO: CASE NAME: MAYS, 1996 CT 95-05/SDP 95-11/HDP 95-12 EMERALD RIDGE EAST MICHAEL J. HOLZMfcLER Planning Director PUBLISH DATE: MAY 3, 1996 AHrbk 2O75 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 - (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-O894 * •ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. CT 95-05/SDP 95-11/HDP 95-12 DATE: December 3. 1996 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Emerald Ridge East 2. APPLICANT: Ladwig Design Group, Inc. 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 703 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 300. Carlsbad, CA 92009, (619) 438-3182 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: October 3. 1995 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A tentative map for 60 standard single family residential lots ranging in size from 7,630 to 36,876 square feet in area and three open space lots, and a site development plan for 9 onsite second dwelling units and one offsite affordable housing credit to satisfy the project's inclusionarv housing requirement. Qnsite and offsite project improvements include local public streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and drainage facilities to serve the lots, the construction of Hidden Valley Road between Camino de las Ondas and Palomar Airport Road, and alignment of a trail segment along the project's northern boundary. 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. X Land Use and Planning X Transportation/Circulation Public Services Population and Housing X Biological Resources Utilities and Service Systems Geological Problems Energy and Mineral Resources X Aesthetics Water Hazards Cultural Resources X Air Quality X Noise Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance Rev. 3/28/95 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 the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. D 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. D I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. D I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. D 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 EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. Ixl Planner SignatureQ (\ Date Planning DirecfbT^Signatirf-e Date Rev. 3/28/95 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to ^prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. • A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. • "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. • "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. • "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant'effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. Rev. 3/28/95 • If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. • An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. Rev. 3/28/95 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Sources #1 and 8:) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (Sources #1 and 8) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (Source #1 and 2) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (Source # 2) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? (Source #2) II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (Source #1) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (Source #2) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (Source #2) III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (Sources #2 and 3) b) Seismic ground shaking? (Sources #2 and 3) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (Source #3) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact X No Impact X X X X X X X _2L X Rev. 3/28/95 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (Source #3) e) Landslides or mudflows? (Source #3) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? Source #3) g) Subsidence of the land? (Source #3) h) Expansive .soils? (Source #3) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (Source #3) IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (Source #2) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (Source #2) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (Source #2 ) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (Sources #2) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (Source #1) f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (Sources #2 and 3) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact X X X No Impact X X X JL X X X X X Rev. 3/28/95 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (Source #2 and 3) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (Source #2 and 3) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (Source #1) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source #1) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( Source #1) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (Source #1) d) Create objectionable odors? (Sources #1 and 2) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Source #1) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (Source #2) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (Source #2) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (Source #2) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact X X No Impact X X X x x X X Rev. 3/28/95 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (Source #1 and 2) X f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Source #1 and 2) X g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (Source #1 and 2) X VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? (Sources #2 and?) X _ b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (Sources #2 and 7) X c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Sources #2 and?) X d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (Sources #2 and 7) X e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( Sources #2 and 7) X VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (Source #1) _X_ b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (Source #1) , X Rev. 3/28/95 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? (Source #1) 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? (Source #1) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source #1) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? (Source #1) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (Source #1) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (Source #2) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Sources #2 and 5) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Sources # 2 and 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? (Sources #1 and 2)) b) Police protection? (Source #1) c) Schools? (Sources #1 and 2) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X x Rev. 3/28/95 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (Source #1) X e) Other governmental services? (Sources #1 and 2) X XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (Source #1) X b) Communications systems? (Source #1) X c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (Sources #1 and 2) X d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Sources #1 and 2) X e) Storm water drainage? (Sources #1 and 2) X f) Solid waste disposal? (Source #1) X g) Local or regional water supplies? (Sources #1 and 2) X XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (Source #2) X _ b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (Source #2) X c) Create light or glare? (Source #1) X XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (Source #2) X b) Disturb archaeological resources? (Source #2) X 10 Rev. 3/28/95 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): c) Affect historical resources? (Source #2) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (Source #2) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (Source #2) XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (Sources #1 and 2 ) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (Source #2) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X 11 Rev. 3/28/95 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wild life species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 12 Rev. 3/28/95 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Project Background and Environmental Setting: The project is located south of Palomar Airport Road, east of future Hidden Valley Road, and north of Camino de las Ondas in the City of Carlsbad. Canyon de las Encinas, an ephemeral stream, is located along the property's northern boundary and a small residential development is located along the parcel's northeastern boundary. Agricultural and undeveloped parcels surround the property to the west, north and south. Earth materials encountered onsite include the Eocene age bedrock Santiago Formation and surficial soils. The property rises in elevation from west to east approximately 100 feet and from north to south approximately 200 feet.. The majority of the site consists of hillside topography with 25% or less gradient. Steeper slopes exist along the parcel's northern and southern boundaries, and within two small east-west finger canyons. Although the majority of the property is disturbed by past agricultural activities, the property supports two native habitat types: Diegan coastal sage scrub and wetland vegetation. There is a drainage channel near the southern property boundary which supports some upland plant species. Three sensitive bird species (turkey vulture, northern harrier, and California gnatcatcher) were observed onsite during field surveys. Vehicular access to the site would be provided by a local street leading from Hidden Valley Road, a non-loaded collector street, which extends from Camino de las Ondas to Palomar Airport Road. Although the project would be conditioned to improve Hidden Valley Road, the alignment of this roadway from Palomar Airport Road to Camino de las Ondas has already been environmentally reviewed and approved by two previous projects and rough grading of the roadway has occurred. The previous projects are the City's Poinsettia Community Park project (CUP 92-05) and the Sambi Vesting Tentative Map (CT 92-02). Subsequent to the submittal of this project, the California Department of Fish and Game, the California Coastal Commission, and the Army Corps of Engineers in a Section 7 Consultation with the USFWS have all issued permits or approvals for the construction of Hidden Valley Road from Palomar Airport Road to the project's southern boundary. The environmental documents for these projects are on file in the Planning Department. The project site is located within the boundaries of the Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP-203) which covers the 640 acre Zone 20 Planning Area. The certified Final Program EIR 90-03 (PEIR) for SP 203 addresses the potential environmental impacts associated with the future buildout of the Zone 20 Specific Plan area and is on file in the Planning Department. Use of a Program EIR enables the city to characterize the overall environmental impacts of the specific plan. The Final Program EIR contains broad, general environmental analysis that serves as an information base to be consulted when ultimately approving subsequent projects (i.e., tentative maps, site development plans, grading permits, etc...) within the specific plan area. The applicable and recommended mitigation measures of Final EIR 90-03 will be included as conditions of approval for this project. This subsequent expanded Initial Study is intended to supplement the Final EIR and provide more focused and detailed project level analysis of site specific environmental impacts, and, if applicable, provide more refined project level mitigation measures as required by Final EIR 90-03. Through the aid of the required additional project specific biological, soils/geological, noise, slope, and viewshed analyses performed for this project, no additional significant environmental impacts beyond those identified by the Final EIR 90-03 have been identified. Mitigation measures that are applicable to the project and already included in Final EIR 90-03 will therefore be added to the tentative map resolution. 13 Rev. 3/28/95 In addition to the Final EIR for Specific Plan 203, the City has certified a Final Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR) for an update of the 1994 General Plan. The certified MEIR is on file in the Planning Department. The MEIR serves as the basis of environmental review and impact mitigation for projects that are subsequent to and consistent with the General Plan, including projects within the Zone 20 Specific Plan area. I. LAND USE A. Zoning A zone change from the RDM-Q (multiple family) zone to the R-1-7500-Q (one family) zone has been approved by the City and is pending Coastal Commission approval for the subject property. Since the property currently contains the Residential Medium (RM) density land use designation allowing 4-8 residential dwelling units/acre, the single family lots and product type proposed with this project at a density of 3.05 dwelling units/acre and designed in accordance with the R-l-7500 zone standards are consistent with the RM General Plan designation and the R-1-7500-Q zoning. Therefore, no significant environmental impacts will result from the development of the single family project. B. MelloIILCP The project is also subject to the Mello II LCP segment of Carlsbad's Local Coastal Program. Mello II Policy 4-3 requires the preservation of slopes exceeding 25% grade which possess coastal sage scrub habitat (dual criterion slopes). If the application of the policy would preclude any reasonable use of the property, an encroachment not to exceed 10% of the steep slope area may be permitted. The site contains two isolated finger canyons which contain "dual criterion" slopes and are approximately .5 acres in area. While the project will preserve'the majority of both of these finger canyons (.47 acres) through an open space easement, minimal disturbance will result due to grading .03 acres for the purpose of creating reasonable building pads on lots adjacent to these canyons. This 2% disturbance represents less than 10% of the 1.47 total acres of dual criterion slopes. Development of the site requires the preservation in open space of approximately 7.063 acres along the northern and southern property boundaries, or 26% of the 27.4 acre site, as mitigation for biological, noise, and visual impacts. Development of the site is thereby limited to the central portions where the two isolated finger canyons are located. The City's Hillside Development Ordinance further restricts development of the parcel through grading regulations which require grading to be consistent with existing hillside topography. The application of the above numerous development restrictions results in a project density of 3.05 dwelling units per acre which is well below the maximum of 8 dwelling units per acre allowed by General Plan, The minor .03 acre encroachment into dual criterion slopes is therefore necessary to allow a reasonable use of the property without further reducing the project density. Mello II Policy 4-3 also provides for the preservation of all 25% slopes unless: 1. the findings of a soils investigation determine that the slopes areas are stable and any corrective grading necessary for the project will be completed; 2. grading is essential to the development design and intent; 3. slope disturbance will not result in substantial damage or alteration to major wildlife habitat or native vegetation areas; 4. no more than one third of the area (>10 acres) shall be subject to major grade changes; 5. north facing slopes shall be preserved. 14 Rev. 3/28/95 The above findings can be made for the project which contains approximately 6.8 acres of 25% + slopes. A geotechnical analysis has been prepared for the project by GeoSoils, Inc. The conclusion of the report is that "based on our field exploration, laboratory testing, engineering and geologic analyses, it is our opinion that the project site is suited for development from a geotechnical engineering and geologic viewpoint. The recommendations presented....should be incorporated into the final design, grading, and construction phasing of development." The project will be conditioned to comply with the recommendations of this report thereby ensuring stable earth conditions for the life of the project. Since the west-facing hillside parcel consists of gentle to steep slopes which have been disced for agricultural use, it is necessary to grade a portion of the 25% slopes to create a terraced grading design for the single family lot subdivision, however, slopes exceeding 40% grade are almost entirely avoided. The proposed grading design results in disturbance to less than 25% of the steep slopes and will preserve north facing slopes along the northern project boundary. The project will avoid major wildlife habitat or native vegetation areas existing along the northern and southern property boundaries since these areas will be preserved through an open space easement. Hydrology standards of the Mello II segment of Carlsbad's LCP require that post development surface run-off from a 10-year/6 hour storm even must carry any increased velocity at the property line. Drainage from the project will be provided through storm drains beneath Hidden Valley Road which will flow into a drainage course located adjacent to the west of this roadway. In accordance with the provisions of the PEIR, energy dissipation facilities (i.e. rip-rap) has been provided along the drainage course in addition to a permanent regional basin west of future Hidden Valley Road, adjacent to Encinas Creek at the 67 foot elevation. D. Agriculture The site is located in the Coastal Agricultural Overlay Zone (Site II) of the Mello II segment of Carlsbad's Local Coastal Program. Section 3.0 of Final EIR 90-03 evaluated impacts created by the conversion of agricultural land use to urban land use in the overlay zone. The PEIR concluded that the cumulative loss of agricultural land could be offset with the mitigation measures established and required by the Mello II segment of the LCP; therefore, the tentative map will be conditioned to require the payment of an agricultural mitigation fee prior to approval of a final map. As detailed by the PEIR, Zone 20 is comprised of agricultural uses which are typically incompatible with residential uses due to physical and operational characteristics such as tilling and pesticide/herbicide spraying. The Emerald Ridge East tentative map will be conditioned to include the applicable mitigation measures required by the PEIR to reduce impacts to agricultural resources. Since the project is buffered by open space along the northern and southern boundaries, Hidden Valley Road along the western boundary, and landscaped slopes along the eastern boundary, the required 25' wide open space easement between open field agricultural operations and onsite developable areas is incorporated into the project. PEIR mitigation requiring the notification of to all future residential land owners that this area is subject to dust, pesticide, and odors associated with adjacent agricultural operation and the provision of temporary road connections to maintain continued access to adjacent agricultural properties will be conditions of map approval. 15 Rev. 3/28/95 II. POPULATION AND HOUSING B. Growth Inducing As specified by the Zone 20 PEIR, the development of projects including transportation routes, public services, and land uses within the Zone 20 Planning Area is not growth inducing since the area has been previously planned and designed for residential development by the City's General Plan, Growth Management Program, and Zone 20 LFMP. Although the project will be conditioned to construct Hidden Valley Road, it is a planned north-south collector already approved to provide access to projects located to the south within Zone 20. Development already exists or has been approved to the south, north, west and east; therefore, urbanization of the area is inevitable. III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS Consistent with the Zone 20 PEIR, These recommendations will be incorporated as project conditions in accordance with the PEIR. IV. WATER QUALITY As anticipated by the water quality discussion in Section 5.2 of the Master EIR (MEIR) 93-01 and the Zone 20 Program EIR (PEIR), sedimentation impacts to Encinas Creek due to the creation of impervious surfaces onsite, the reduction of absorption rates, and an increase in surface runoff and runoff velocities would result without mitigation. As required by the PEIR, previously approved projects were required to install energy dissipation facilities (i.e. rip-rap) along the drainage course in addition to a permanent regional basin located within the drainage course approximately 250' south of Encinas Creek. The remaining appropriate PEIR and MEIR mitigation measures which include requirements for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and consistency with the City's Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan will be added to the project as conditions of approval. V. AIR QUALITY The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. 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 16 Rev. 3/28/95 mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. VI. CIRCULATION The project would increase local traffic in the area, however, a Traffic Study prepared for the project by WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. dated September 13, 1995, and a Traffic Impact Analysis conducted as part of the Zone 20 Specific Plan indicates that compliance with the circulation mitigation of the Zone 20 Specific Plan PEIR and the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 20 would mitigate any significant local traffic impacts (Section 3.5, Page 111-58, Final EIR 90-03). The project will therefore be conditioned to construct and/or improve all roadways necessary for or impacted by this development. These include Hidden Valley Road from Camino de las Ondas to Palomar Airport Road including a traffic signal at the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and all internal streets to City standards. The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding 17 Rev. 3/28/95 Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. VII. BIOLOGY The Biology Section (3.4) of the Zone 20 Specific Plan PEIR provides baseline data at a gross scale due to the large size of the specific plan area. Given the large number of property owners and their differing development horizons and the inevitable change in biological conditions over the long-term buildout of the area, it is not possible to mitigate biological impacts from the buildout of the entire specific plan under one comprehensive open space easement that crosses property lines or a habitat revegetation/enhancement plan sponsored solely by the property owners. The implementation of the biological section of the EIR is based on future site specific biological survey studies that focus on the impacts created by individual subsequent development projects. These additional biological studies are required to consider the baseline data and biological open space recommendations of the PEIR and provide more detailed and current resource surveys plotted at the tentative map scale for each properly. The range of future mitigation options specified by the PEIR may include preservation of sensitive habitat onsite in conjunction with enhancement/revegetation plans, payment of fees into a regional conservation plan, or the purchase and protection of similar habitat offsite. To satisfy these PEIR mitigation requirements, a biological field survey was prepared for the project by Brian F. Mooney, Associates, dated September, 1995. This subsequent biological study provides more focused, current, and detailed project level analysis of site specific biological impacts and provides more refined project level mitigation measures as required by the Zone 20 PEIR. The property was surveyed and three sensitive bird species (turkey vulture, northern harrier, and California gnatcatcher) were observed onsite in the southern portion of the site during the field surveys in an area containing .97 acres of mid to high quality coastal sage scrub. This area is proposed to be dedicated in open space. The biological report indicates that a total of .64 acres of sage scrub would be impacted by the project which represents a significant environmental impact without mitigation.. In accordance with the PEIR biological mitigation requirements, the tentative map will be conditioned as follows: 1. .83 acres of coastal sage scrub within an 1.78 acre area will be preserved by open space easement in substantial conformance with the PEIR biological mitigation map (Figure 3.4-3); 2. a total of .14 acres of sage scrub habitat, which will be disturbed along the northern edge of the open space easement for the purpose of providing a 60' fire suppression buffer between the natural vegetation and single family units, will be mitigated through the purchase of .28 acres of equal quality habitat to be preserved in an offsite habitat mitigation bank; 3. .5 acres of unoccupied and isolated CSS habitat located within two small finger canyons generally identified by the PEIR and specifically by the Mooney biological study, which although not directly disturbed will be indirectly impacted due to the proposed development, will be mitigated through the purchase of .5 acres of equal quality habitat to be preserved in an offsite habitat mitigation bank; and, 4. possible construction noise impacts to breeding gnatcatchers and other potential bird species will be avoided by prohibiting heavy construction adjacent to CSS habitat during the breeding season (March 1 to July 31). 18 Rev. 3/28/95 NCCP/HMP. 4D RULE The project is not located within any of the Preserve Planning Areas defined by the City's draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP) dated July, 1994, Although disturbance to .64 acres of coastal sage scrub will result from implementation of the project, it will not preclude connectivity between PPA's nor preclude the preservation of CSS habitat. Moreover, this project provides mitigation in the form of offsite preservation because it will result in the purchase for preservation .78 acres of habitat in an offsite habitat mitigation bank. Since completion of a subregional NCCP/HMP, has not occurred, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the City may have to authorize this project to draw from the City's 167.5 acres (5%) CSS take allowance (4d rule) to ensure that the project does not preclude the City's draft HMP. The take of .64 acres of CSS habitat will not exceed the 5% allowance, nor jeopardize the HMP since it is located outside the HMP preserve planning areas (PPA) and/or linkage planning areas (LPA), makes no contribution to the overall preserve system, and will not significantly impact the use of habitat patches as archipelago or stepping stones to surrounding PPA's. Since mitigation for the habitat loss will result in the preservation of equal or better habitat in an offsite location, the project will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the gnatcatcher. The habitat loss is incidental to otherwise lawful activities. The development of the Emerald Ridge East property is a legal development which is consistent with the City's General Plan and all required permits will be obtained. X. NOISE Section 3.8 of the Zone 20 PEIR evaluated potential noise impacts for future projects located in the Specific Plan area and recommended that noise studies be prepared for projects impacted by traffic and airport noise. A portion of the site is located within the 60 to 65 dBA CNEL airport and Palomar Airport Road noise contours, therefore, noise from existing Palomar Airport Road and the airport would create a potential impact on the homes in this project. In the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan, residential development is considered conditionally compatible within the 60 to 65 CNEL contour area. A Noise Study was prepared for the project by Pacific Noise Control dated September 26,1995. Noise levels on the project site are projected to be significant since they exceed the City's 60 CNEL noise standard on Lots 8, 9, and 26 due to future noise generated by traffic on Palomar Airport Road. Therefore, in accordance with the Zone 20 PEIR mitigation requirements, the tentative map will be conditioned to comply with the noise study recommendations requiring the construction of a 5' high masonry noise barrier wall at the top of slope on Lots 8, 9, and 26 to attenuate the exterior noise level to 60 dBA CNEL or less, the provision of interior noise mitigation, if necessary, and legal notification to future homeowners of potential airport noise impacts. XI and XII. PUBLIC FACILITIES The project is located within the Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Zone. Public facilities and financing have been accounted for in the Zone 20 LFM Plan to accommodate the residential development. The residential land use would be consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the project would not significantly impact the provision of public facilities. In addition, a condition will be added to the project to require that the developer enter into an agreement with the appropriate school district to ensure that there are adequate school facilities available to serve the residential subdivision - (Section 3.11, Page III-112, Zone 20 PEIR). 19 Rev. 3/28/95 XIII. VISUAL AESTHETICS Section 3.13 of the Zone 20 PEIR analyzed potential visual impacts created by development within the Specific Plan area. It was determined that visual impacts to the Palomar Airport Road Viewshed (Vantage Points 7 and 8, Figure 3.16-6) could be potentially significant. To reduce these potential impacts to below a level of significance, the PEIR mitigation measures include additional visual analysis, landform-contour grading and landscaping, and compliance with visual design guidelines. The Emerald Ridge East project includes a hillside development permit application (HDP 95-12) which requires compliance with hillside architectural and grading standards. The project is in compliance with these standards which are consistent with the PEIR mitigation requiring landform grading and contouring. Additional visual analysis performed by the applicant has identified that units will be visible from the Palomar Airport Road viewshed and future structures will therefore require compliance with the PEIR visual design guidelines including combination of one and two story homes, a variety of roof heights and roof massing, a variety of earth tone roof and wall materials and colors, and enhanced fenestration. The proposed project is a residential lot subdivision, and at this point in time, no residential structures are being proposed. Due to the visual sensitivity of the site from Palomar Airport Road and its location adjacent to a future public park, the property's zoning contains the Qualified Overlay (Q) Zone. The Q-Overlay zone requires approval of a site development plan, including architectural elevations. Therefore, to avoid visual impacts , the tentative map will be conditioned to require that prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant must amend the site development plan by submitting architectural elevations for Planning Commission approval which ensure that future structures are consistent with the PEIR visual design guidelines and hillside architectural guidelines. SOURCES 1. MEIR - 1994 General Plan Update of the Carlsbad General Plan. 2. Final EIR 90-03 - Zone 20 Specific Plan. 3. Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment prepared by GeoSoils, Inc., dated September 6, 1994, and supplemental letter dated December 6, 1995. 4. Preliminary Pesticide Residue Survey prepared by GeoSoils, Inc. dated July 25, 1994. 5. Pacific Noise Control, Noise Assessment, dated September 26, 1995. 6. WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc., Traffic Study for Emerald Ridge East, dated September 13,1995. 7. Biological Survey and Report for Emerald Ridge East prepared by Brian F. Mooney, Associates dated September, 1995. 8. Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum for Mar Vista (ZC 94-04/CT 94- 11/HDP 94-09/SDP 94-10/LCPA 94-04) dated October 3, 1995. 20 Rev. 3/28/95 LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) N/A ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE^) N/A 21 Rev. 3/28/95 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature 22 Rev. 3/28/95 CASE DATE: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I (To be Completed by APPLICANT) Applicant: MSP California, LLC. a Colorado Limited Liability Company Address Of Applicant: 650 South Cherry Street. Suite 435. Denver. Colorado 80222 Phone Number: (303) 399-9804 Name, address and phone number of person to be contacted (if other than Applicant: GENERAL INFORMATION: (Please be specific) Project Description a 60 lot standard R-l-7500 square-foot lot subdivision (60 residential units plus 9 second/affordable units and three open space lot on 27.4 acres in Zone 20. area "B" of. City of Carlsbad, CA Project Location/Address: south of Palomar Airport Road, east of future Hidden Valley Road and north of Poinsettia Park Assessor Parcel Number: 212 -040 -32 and a portion of 212-040-35. 36 & 48 General Plan/Zone of Subject Property: RM L RD-MO Local Facilities Management Zone: 20 Is the site within Carlsbad's Coastal Zone? yes Please describe the area surrounding the site to the North: Encinas Creek East: Vacant Property and Sudan Mission South: Vacant Property West: Vacant MSP Property List all other applicable permits & approvals related to this project: Tentative Map. Hillside Development Permit and Site Development Permit (Please be Specific. Attach Additional Pages or Exhibits, if necessary) 1. Please describe the project site, including distinguishing natural and manmade characteristics. Also provide precise slope analysis when a slope of 15' or higher and 15% grade or greater is present on the site. This 27.4 acre site is currently vacant. 2. Please describe energy conversation measures incorporated into the design and/or operation of the project. A gravity sewer is proposed along with minimal grading. New slopes are minimal and drought tolerant planting will be used to minimize irrigation requirements. 3 PLEASE ATTACH A PROJECT SUMMARY SHEET WHICH SHOWS THE FOLLOWING: a. If a residential project identify the number of units, type of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household size expected, average daily traffic generation (latest SANDAG rates). There will be 60 R-l-7500 square-foot minimum lots and 3 open space lots. In addition, as an option, 9 second dwelling units will be built for a total unit count of 69 and a total ADT of 654. b. If a commercial project, indicate the exact type, activity (ies), square footage of sales area, average daily traffic generation (latest SANDAG rates), parking provided, and loading facilities. N/A c. If an industrial project, indicate the exact type or industry (ies), average daily traffic generation (latest SANDAG rates), estimated employment per shift, time of shifts, and loading facilities. N/A d. If an institutional project, indicate the major project/site function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project. N/A ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS Please Answer each of the following questions by placing a check in the appropriate space. Then, fully discuss and explain why each item was checked yes or no. Provide supporting data if applicable. Attach additional sheets as necessary. YFR NIP EXPLANATION: No legal residents reside on the property. 5) Could the activity increase the number of low and moderate cost housing units in the City? EXPLANATION: 9 affordable, low income 2nd units will be built along with the 60 market rate homes in the future. 1) Could the project significantly impact or change present or future land uses in the vicinity of the activity? x EXPLANATION: No General Plan change is proposed. 2) Could the activity affect the use of a recreational area, or area of aesthetic value? X_ EXPLANATION: No changes are being proposed to the existing specific plan for Zone 20. 3) Could the activity affect the functioning of an established community or neighborhood? X_ EXPLANATION: The property that will be affected by access for this project is currently undeveloped. 4) Could the activity result in the displacement of community residents? X_ YFS NO 6) Could the activity significantly affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? ' X_ EXPLANATION: No homes exist in the immediate vicinity of access to the property. No jobs are being proposed or demand for additional housing. 7) Are any of the natural or man-made features in the activity area unique, that is, not found in other parts of the county, state or nation? X_ EXPLANATION: This area is similar to surrounding properties - none identified. 8) Could the activity significantly affect an historical or archaeological site or its settings? X_ EXPLANATION: None are known to exist based on the recent EIR for the Specific Plan for Zone 20. 9) Could the activity significantly affect the potential use, extraction, or conservation of a scarce natural resource? *_ EXPLANATION: None are known to exist. 10) Could the activity significantly affect fish, wildlife or plant resources? x EXPLANATION: Minor disturbance/vegetation removal associated with the construction of Hidden Valley Road will be revegetated. 11) Are there any rare or endangered plant or animal species in the activity area? —X_ EXPLANATION: No threatened or endangered plant species were observed. 12 sensitive. plant species have been reported in the area, none onsite. 4 sensitive bird species were observed during the field surveys as noted by Brian F. Mooney and Associates in their Biological Survey and Report for . Hidden Valley Estates dated September 1994. YFS ND 12) Could the activity change existing features of any of the city's stream, lagoons, bays, tidelands or beaches? EXPLANATION: Any disturbance from the proposed construction of Hidden Valley Road will be restored. 13) Could the activity result in the erosion or elimin- ation of agricultural lands? EXPLANATION: The land is not being farmed. 14) Could the activity serve to encourage develop- ment of presently undeveloped areas or intensify development of already developed areas? EXPLANATION: Hidden Valley road through the MSP and neighboring Parcel could encourage development of other vacant properties in the area. 15) Will the activity require a variance from established environmental standards (air, water, noise, etc.)? EXPLANATION: All environmental standards are being met or exceeded. 16) Is the activity carried out as part of a larger project or series of projects? EXPLANATION: Emerald Ridge East will be developed on half of the MSP California. LLC residential property. Residential development is planned on the western half /balance of the property. YFPi MO 17) Will the activity require certification, authoriza- tion of issuance of a permit by any local, state or federal environmental control agency? EXPLANATION: Minor impacts to Coastal California Gnatcatcher habitat will require a permit by USFWS under Section 10(a) of the ESA. The construction of Hidden Valley Road will require a stream bed alteration permit from CDFG and a Corps of Engineers Nation Wide Permit. Minor on-site impacts to Coastal Sage Scrub are anticipated. A re- vegetation in the proposed on-site open- space lots is proposed. 18) Will the activity require issuance of a variance or conditional use permit by the City? X_ EXPLANATION: None requested. 19) Will the activity involve the application, use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials? X_ EXPLANATION: None are known to exist. 20) Will the activity involve construction of facilities in the flood plain? X_ EXPLANATION: Property is shown in Zone C of FIRM Maps (Parcel 066285 0004 D) 21) Will the activity involve construction of facilities in the area of an active fault? K. EXPLANATION: The geotechnical investigation for the property by GeoSoils, Inc. states that there are no known active faults on or adjacent to the subject property. 22) Could the activity result in the generation of significant amounts of dust? —X_ EXPLANATION: Grading will be performed under a permit from the City of Carlsbad and dust control measures will be taken. 6 YFR NQ 23) Will the activity involve the burning of brush, trees, or other materials? X. EXPLANATION: No burning is anticipated. 24) Could the activity result in a significant change in the quality of any portion of the region's air or water resources? (Should note surface, ground water, off-shore.) X_ EXPLANATION: There will be temporary dust and emission from grading equipment during eventual construction. 25) Will the project substantially increase fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.)? X_ EXPLANATION: There will be temporary increases during construction and then a small increase of consumption of fuels as the project is occupied. 26) Will the activity involve construction of facilities on a slope of 25 percent or greater? x EXPLANATION: Some slopes that are to be graded are in the 25% - 40% range. 27) Will there be a significant change to existing land form? X_ (a) Indicate estimated grading to be done in , Cubic yards: 176.712 . (b) Percentage of alteration to the present land form: 73% . © Maximum height of cut or fill slopes: 37 Feet . EXPLANATION: 176.712 cubic yards on 20 acres = 8836 cubic yards/acre YFS MD 28) Will the activity result in substantial increases in the use of utilities, sewers, drains, or streets? X_ EXPLANATION: There will be 60 single- family units and 9 affordable 2nd units for a total of 69 units. Carlsbads Growth Management Plan would allow 139 units or 70 less than anticipated (50% of allowed) . 29) Will the project significantly increase wind or water erosion of soils? X_ EXPLANATION: New slopes will be planted and irrigated and storm water will be carried in a closed system to a point of discharge on the property. 30) Could the project significantly affect existing fish or wildlife habitats? —X_ EXPLANATION: All the natural vegetation will be retained or restored in proposed open-space lots. 31) Will the project significantly produce new light or glare? X. EXPLANATION: This will be a normal single-family subdivision with safety lighting. STATEMENT OF NON-SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS If you have answered yes to any of the questions in Section I but think the activity will have no significant environmental effects, indicate your reasons below: #5 The project will help reduce the over-all need for affordable housing. #14 The adjacent McReynolds and MSP parcels are currently in the predevelopment process. #16 The future development of the remaining west half of the MSP property is currently planned to follow or develop concurrently with the easterly half. #17 Minor impacts requiring State and Federal in addition to Local Permits will be required for the crossing of Encinas Creek with the construction of Hidden Valley Road. Also, minor impacts to Coastal Sage Scrub are to be mitigated with a re-vegetation plan that was prepared for the Sambi Project (CT 92-02). The minor on-site Coastal Sage Scrub impacts will either be re-vegetated in on-site open-space lots or an off-site purchase will be made. #26 Some 25% slopes will be impacted by the construction of Hidden Valley Road, which is the only access to this portion of Zone 20. Also, some minor on-site slopes in the 25% to 40% range will be graded. COMMENTS OR ELABORATIONS TO ANY OF THE QUESTIONS IN SECTION I (if any additional space is needed for answering any questions, attach additional sheets as needed.) Signature Date Signed (Person Completing/Report)