Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 96-04; Brookfield Meadows; Tentative Map (CT) (4)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CT 96-04/PUD 7UBVHDP 96-04/SDP 96-07 DATE: July 15. 1996 BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. CASE NAME: Brookfield Meadows APPLICANT: Okon Development Co. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: PO Box 577. Del Mar. California 92014. (619)755-7005 DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: March 26. 1996 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project is an amendment to an approved Planned Unit Development. The amendment would provide 29 single family detached dwelling units (5 of which would include attached second dwelling units') rather than the 104-unit apartment project originally approved. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. | | Land Use and Planning [ | Population and Housing [ | Geological Problems Q Water M Air Quality ^ Transportation/Circulation | [ Public Services [""] Biological Resources | | Utilities & Service Systems [~~| Energy & Mineral Resources [~~] Aesthetics [ | Hazards [ [ Cultural Resources [ | Noise [ | Recreation [~~| Mandatory Findings of Significance Rev. 03/28/96 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) [x] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. | | I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Q I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [""] 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 is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. [~~] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-01), including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. Planner Signature < Date Planning Director's Signatuie' Date Rev. 03/28/96 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. • A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. • "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. • "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. • "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. • Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). • When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. • A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. Rev. 03/28/96 • If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. • An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. * A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 3*Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). I LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): () b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? () c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? () d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? () e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)?.() II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? () b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? () c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? () III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (#1 :Pg 5.1-5) b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pg 5.1-12) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pg 5.1-12) . d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pg 5.1-9) e) Landslides or mudflows? (# 1 :Pg 5.1 -11) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? () g) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pg 5.1-11) h) Expansive soils? () i) Unique geologic or physical features? () IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? () b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? () c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? () d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water- Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation incorporated D D D D D D D D D D D D D D d D D D D D D Less Than No Significan Impaci t Impact D IS D E D. IS D 13 D IS D El D IS D IS D IS D IS D IS D El D IS D IS D IS D IS D IS D IS D IS D IS Rev. 03/28/96 39' Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). body? () e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? 0 f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? () g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? () h) Impacts to groundwater quality? () i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? () V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pg 5.3- 4) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (# 1 :Pg 5.3-4) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? () d) Create objectionable odors? () VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pg 5.7-10) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? () c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? () e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? () f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? () g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? () VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? () b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? () c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? () d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? 0 e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? () Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D n Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D D 12 H D D 12 D D D D D D D D D D D Less Than Significan t Impact D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D No Impact 12 12 12 m D B El D 12 R IE! 12 El 13 H 12 El 12 12 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). . VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (#l:Pg 5.12.1 and 5.13.1) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (#l:Pg 5.12.1-4) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? (#l:Pg 5.13-5) IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? ( ) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? () d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (#l:Pg 5.12,5-3) b) Police protection? (#l:Pg 5. 12.6-2) c) Schools? (#l:Pg 5. 12.7.4) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pg 5.12.3-3; Pg 5 1 O A 1 ~\.12.4-1) XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pg 5.12.3-3; Pg 5.12.4-1) b) Communications systems? ( ) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (#l:Pg 5. 12.2-5) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#1 :Pg 5.12.3-4) e) Storm water drainage? (# 1 :Pg 5.2-8) f) Solid waste disposal? (#1 :Pg 5. 12.4-2) Potentially Significant Impact D n* * D D D r~ 1— D D EJ D D D D D D D D D D Dn Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D r— j — D D D ni__i D n nn nnnnn D Dn Dnn Less Than No Significan Impact t impact D E n KI1 1 |£NJ n EI n EI n is n K!^^•-j b_^ n is n EI n isn is n EIn EIn EIn EIn is n isn isn is D ISn isn is Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). g) Local or regional water supplies? (# 1 :Pg 5.12.2-5) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? () b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? () c) Create light or glare? () XIV. a) b) c) d) CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: Disturb paleontological resources? () Disturb archaeological resources? () Affect historical resources? () Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? () e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? () XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#1 :Pg 5.13.8-5) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the -major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D D D D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D Dn Q nn Dn n n n Less Than No Significan impact t Impact D ISI D Ein EIn EI n EIn ma EIn Ei n E D El n EI n n n n n n n 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 8 Rev. 03/28/96 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. Rev. 03/28/96 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The proposed project is an amendment to an approved Planned Unit Development. The approved PUD incorporated a variety of product types, including 104 apartment units to be constructed on the subject site as the last phase of development. The proposed amendment would provide 29 single family detached units (5 of which would include attached second dwelling units) instead of the 104 apartments previously approved. The project site is a previously graded pad now covered with non- native grasses. The pad includes existing 2:1 slopes created by previously approved grading activities and also contains some previously approved stockpile areas. The applicant proposes to regrade the entire site to accommodate the change in product type. This site is the last portion of a larger project area. The other portions have all been developed. However, the overall pad and slope configuration will be generally similar to its current configuration. II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS A. Non-Relevant Items ' t 1. Land Use and Planning (a-e) The proposed project site is designated for medium density residential development by the City's General Plan. The proposed single family project is consistent with this designation. The proposed density of the project (5.91 du/ac) is within the density range allowed by the General Plan (4-8 du/ac) and is below the growth control point (6 du/ac). There is no conflict with the zoning or with any other applicable environmental plans or policies. Residential development of this site will be compatible with surrounding uses, which are also residential. There are no agricultural resources or operations present on the subject site or on surrounding sites. The project also will not disrupt or divide any established communities. The project will form the southern extension of the existing community and will be the final piece of the overall project. 2. Population and Housing (a-c) The proposed project will not cause the population to exceed regional or local projections. The proposed project will actually reduce the expected population in the area because the number of residential units will be reduced from 104 apartments to 29 single family units with five attached second dwelling units. The project will not include growth nor displace any existing housing, but will provide new housing. 3. Geologic Problems (f, h, i) The project proposed will not result in erosion, unstable soil conditions, etc. Development of the proposed project will be required to comply with all City regulations and requirements for grading activities, erosion control, and soil conditions. There are no unique geologic or physical features on the subject site. A soils report was prepared for the previously approved project and updated for this application. 4. Water (a-i) The project site does not contain, and is not adjacent to, any bodies of water. Therefore, there will be no impact to water currents, or other water movements or courses. The project will be conditioned to provide all improvements necessary to manage runoff and erosion from the proposed project. Therefore, the project is not expected to result in any impact to groundwater quality or quantity. The project site is also not in an area of anticipated 10 Rev. 03/28/96 flooding. 5. Air Quality (c, d) The proposed project will be required to comply with all City requirements regarding adequate setbacks and maximum building heights. Accordingly, the project will not result in changes to air movement, climate, etc. The proposed residential development will not be expected to result in objectionable odors. 6. Transportation/Circulation (b-g) The proposed project design will be required to comply with all applicable City regulations governing the design of the streets and circulation system. Therefore, there will be no hazards to safety from design features or incompatible uses. Adequate emergency access will be provided. Parking for the proposed residents and guests must be provided according to applicable City requirements (i.e., a 2-car garage for each primary residence; one parking space for each second dwelling unit; and 10 parking spaces for guests). All required parking must be provided on-site. The project will also be designed to comply with all City requirements regarding bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The project will not impact rail, waterborne, or air traffic. There are no railways or waterways on or near the site. Activities at Palomar Airport will not be impacted by these residences located several miles away. 7. Biological Resources (a-e) There are no endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats on the site. There are no locally designated species or natural communities on the site. There is no wetland habitat on the site. The site does not serve as a migration corridor for wildlife. The project site is a pregraded pad which was designed to be the last phase of an approved project development. 9. Hazards (a-e) The proposed residential development is not expected to result in any risk of explosion, release of hazardous substances, or creation of any potential health hazards. The project will be required to comply with the requirements of the City's Landscape Manual and with Fire Department regulations regarding protection/prevention of fire hazards. 10. Noise (a, b) The proposed residential project is not expected to result in any increase in noise levels or to expose people to severe noise. The noise study prepared for the project concluded that noise levels on the site will not exceed acceptable levels despite expected increased traffic on nearby Melrose Avenue. Any noise resulting from grading and/or building activities will be of a temporary nature and will be subject to all applicable City regulations and restrictions. 11. Public Services (d) The project is designed to include private streets. The project will be conditioned to require maintenance of these private streets by the Homeowners' Association. All other public facilities are in place or will be provided concurrent with development as a condition of approval. 13. Aesthetics (a-c) The project will not have any negative aesthetic impact. The proposed structures are within the City's allowed building height for the site. There are no scenic vistas on or near the project site. The proposed residential project is not expected to produce an inordinant amount of light or glare. Therefore, adjacent residential uses will not be impacted. 11 Rev. 03/28/96 14. Cultural Resources (a-e) The project site is a pregraded pad which contains no recognized/documented paleontological, archaeological, or historical resources. The project will not cause any changes which would affect unique ethnic cultural values. There are no known religious or sacred uses occurring within the area of the project site. 15. Recreational (b) The proposed project will not affect existing recreational opportunities. The recreational requirements of the project itself will be satisfied on-site (private yards) and within the larger overall project site (community swimming pool and several pocket park play areas). B. Environmental Impact Discussion 5. Air Quality The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operatiomrelated 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. 6. Transportation/Circulation The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the 12 Rev. 03/28/96 City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. III. EARLIER ANALYSES USED The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92009, (619) 438-1161, extension 4471. 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department. EBrbfc 13 Rev. 03/28/96 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. 7hi97 Date Signatu Rev. 03/28/96 PROJECT NAME: Brookfield Meadows APPROVAL DATE: FILE NUMBERS: CT 96-04/PUD 71(B)/HDP 96-04/SDP 96-07 CONDITIONAL NEG. DEC.: The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). mz 55oz&m H O5oz oz o/o o o Xmo ;"•.,•'• •'"',„ Mitigation Measure: - '•',,'•;.? ,j.,V/. '• :^', Prior to approval of the final map, the Developer shall be required: 1 ) to consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding the impact of the project on the Coastal California Gnatcatcher, and 2) implement any mitigation measures which may be required by USFWS. <, Monitoring.^ iv/Type^-"' Monitoring;, •Department Planning , Shown on ' ,-' Plans. , ; No Verified Implementation . ' ". v;.V. -V'« '•:. * ', Copy of any required permits OR written documentation from appropriate agency that no mitigation and/or permit is required Remarks •oto (Q(D Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept = Department, or Agendcy, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure, information. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other RD - Appendix P. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II - REVISED (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CT 96-04/PUD 7KBVHDP 96-Q4/SDP 96-07 DATE: February?. 1997 BACKGROUND CASE NAME: Brookfield Meadows APPLICANT: Okon Development Co. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: PO Box 577. Del Mar. California 92014. (619)755-7005 DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: March 26. 1996 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project is an amendment to an approved Planned Unit Development. The amendment would provide 29 single family detached dwelling units (5 of which would include attached second dwelling units) rather than the 104-unit apartment project originally approved. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. | | Land Use and Planning | | Population and Housing [ | Geological Problems [J Water PX] Air Quality E><] Transportation/Circulation | | Public Services [X] Biological Resources | | Utilities & Service Systems | | Energy & Mineral Resources | | Aesthetics | | Hazards | | Cultural Resources | | Noise | | Recreation | | Mandatory Findings of Significance Rev. 03/28/96 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) | | I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [X] 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 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. | | I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. | | I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. | | I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-01), including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. Date Planning Director's Signature Date Rev. 03/28/96 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. • A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. • "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. • "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. • "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. • Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a, potentially significant effect on the environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). • When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. • A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. Rev. 03/28/96 • If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. • An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): ( ) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?c) d) e) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? ( ) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? ( ) Potentially Significant Impact D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D Less Than Significan t Impact No Impact D D D II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) D D D III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (# 1 :Pg 5 . 1 -5) b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pg 5.1-12) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pg 5.1-12) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#1 :Pg 5.1-9) e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pg 5. 1-11) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? () g) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pg 5.1-1 1) h) Expansive soils? ( ) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) D D D D D D D D D IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? () b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? () c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? () D D D D Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? () e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? () f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? () g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? () h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? () Potentially Significant Impact D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D Less Than Significan t Impact D D D D No Impact V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an I—I existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pg 5.3- 4) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#1 :Pg 5.3-4) i—i Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause I I any change in climate? () d) Create objectionable odors? () I I b) c) D D D El VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pg 5.7-10) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? () c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? () e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? () f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? () g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? () VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? () b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? () c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? () d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? () D D D D D D D D D D n nnn n nn n n n n EI n M n EI n n n EI n EI Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (#l:Pg 5.12.1 and 5.13.1) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (#l:Pg 5.12.1-4) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? (#l:Pg 5.13-5) Potentially Significant Impact D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significan t Impact No Impact IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? () b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? () c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? () d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? () e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? () D D D D D D D X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? () b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? () D D D XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (#l:Pg 5.12.5-3) b) Police protection? (#l:Pg 5.12.6-2) c) Schools? (#l:Pg 5.12.7.4) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? () e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pg 5.12.3-3; Pg 5.12.4-1) D D D D D D D D D D XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural .gas? (#l:Pg 5.12.3-3; Pg 5.12.4-1) b) Communications systems? ( ) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (#l:Pg 5.12.2-5) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#1 :Pg 5.12.3-4) e) Storm water drainage? (#1 :Pg 5.2-8) f) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pg 5.12.4-2) D D D a Da a aa Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pg 5.12.2-5) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? () b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? () c) Create light or glare? () Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significan t Impact No Impact n n XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? () b) Disturb archaeological resources? () c) Affect historical resources? ( ) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? () e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#1 :Pg 5.13.8-5) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? () XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Dn n n n nn n n n n n n n n Rev. 03/28/96 XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. 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. 9 Rev. 03/28/96 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The proposed project is an amendment to an approved Planned Unit Development. The approved PUD incorporated a variety of product types, including 104 apartment units to be constructed on the subject site as the last phase of development. The proposed amendment would provide 29 single family detached units (5 of which would include attached second dwelling units) instead of the 104 apartments previously approved. The project site is a previously graded pad now covered with non- native grasses. The pad includes existing 2:1 slopes created by previously approved grading activities and also contains some previously approved stockpile areas. The applicant proposes to regrade the entire site to accommodate the change in product type. This site is the last portion of a larger project area. The other portions have all been developed. However, the overall pad and slope configuration will be generally similar to its current configuration. The project site contains no sensitive biological resources. However, the project does involve some offsite grading which will impact approximately !4 acre of coastal sage scrub on the neighboring property located to the southwest. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game have been consulted regarding this impact, and it was determined that the applicant will be required to mitigate this impact at a ratio of 2:1. Therefore, the applicant will be required to buy mitigation credits for approximately !/2 acre of habitat and will be required to obtain a 4-D Permit. This requirement will be made a condition of approval for the project. II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS A. Non-Relevant Items 1. Land Use and Planning (a-e) The proposed project site is designated for medium density residential development by the City's General Plan. The proposed single family project is consistent with this designation. The proposed density of the project (5.91 du/ac) is within the density range allowed by the General Plan (4-8 du/ac) and is below the growth control point (6 du/ac). There is no conflict with the zoning or with any other applicable environmental plans or policies. Residential development of this site will be compatible with surrounding uses, which are also residential. There are no agricultural resources or operations present on the subject site or on surrounding sites. The project also will not disrupt or divide any established communities. The project will form the southern extension of the existing community and will be the final piece of the overall project. 2. Population and Housing (a-c) The proposed project will not cause the population to exceed regional or local projections. The proposed project will actually reduce the expected population in the area because the number of residential units will be reduced from 104 apartments to 29 single family units with five attached second dwelling units. The project will not include growth nor displace any existing housing, but will provide new housing. 3. Geologic Problems (f, h, i) The project proposed will not result in erosion, unstable soil conditions, etc. Development of the proposed project will be required to comply with all City regulations and requirements for grading activities, erosion control, and soil conditions. There are no unique geologic or physical features on the subject site. A soils report was prepared for the previously approved 10 Rev. 03/28/96 project and updated for this application. 4. Water (a-i) The project site does not contain, and is not adjacent to, any bodies of water. Therefore, there will be no impact to water currents, or other water movements or courses. The project will be conditioned to provide all improvements necessary to manage runoff and erosion from the proposed project. Therefore, the project is not expected to result in any impact to groundwater quality or quantity. The project site is also not in an area of anticipated flooding. 5. Air Quality (c, d) The proposed project will be required to comply with all City requirements regarding adequate setbacks and maximum building heights. Accordingly, the project will not result in changes to air movement, climate, etc. The proposed residential development will not be expected to result in objectionable odors. 6. Transportation/Circulation (b-g) The proposed project design will be required to comply with all applicable City regulations governing the design of the streets and circulation system. Therefore, there will be no hazards to safety from design features or incompatible uses. Adequate emergency access will be provided. Parking for the proposed residents and guests must be provided according to applicable City requirements (i.e., a 2-car garage for each primary residence; one parking space for each second dwelling unit; and 10 parking spaces for guests). All required parking must be provided on-site. The project will also be designed to comply with all City requirements regarding bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The project will not impact rail, waterborne, or air traffic. There are no railways or waterways on or near the site. Activities at Palomar Airport will not be impacted by these residences located several miles away. 7. Biological Resources (b-e) There are no locally designated species or natural communities on the site. There is no wetland habitat on the site. The site does not serve as a migration corridor for wildlife. The project site is a pregraded pad which was designed to be the last phase of an approved project development. The project will result in impacts to coastal sage scrub as discussed in detail in Item 7 of Section B. Environmental Impact Discussion (below). 9. Hazards (a-e) The proposed residential development is not expected to result in any risk of explosion, release of hazardous substances, or creation of any potential health hazards. The project will be required to comply with the requirements of the City's Landscape Manual and with Fire Department regulations regarding protection/prevention of fire hazards. 10. Noise (a, b) The proposed residential project is not expected to result in any increase in noise levels or to expose people to severe noise. The noise study prepared for the project concluded that noise levels on the site will not exceed acceptable levels despite expected increased traffic on nearby Melrose Avenue. Any noise resulting from grading and/or building activities will be of a temporary nature and will be subject to all applicable City regulations and restrictions. 11. Public Services (d) The project is designed to include private streets. The project will be conditioned to require maintenance of these private streets by the Homeowners' Association. All other public 11 Rev. 03/28/96 facilities are in place or will be provided concurrent with development as a condition of approval. 13. Aesthetics (a-c) The project will not have any negative aesthetic impact. The proposed structures are within the City's allowed building height for the site. There are no scenic vistas on or near the project site. The proposed residential project is not expected to produce an inordinant amount of light or glare. Therefore, adjacent residential uses will not be impacted. 14. Cultural Resources (a-e) The project site is a pregraded pad which contains no recognized/documented paleontological, archaeological, or historical resources. The project will not cause any changes which would affect unique ethnic cultural values. There are no known religious or sacred uses occurring within the area of the project site. 15. Recreational (b) The proposed project will not affect existing recreational opportunities. The recreational requirements of the project itself will be satisfied on-site (private yards) and within the larger overall project site (community swimming pool and several pocket park play areas). B. Environmental Impact Discussion 5. Air Quality The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. 12 Rev. 03/28/96 6. Transportation/Circulation The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. 7. Biological Resources (a) There are no endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats on the site. However, the project involves some offsite grading which would impact approximately 1A acre of coastal sage scrub community located to the southwest of the project perimeter. This offsite grading will require a 4-D Permit, and the applicant will be required to mitigate this impact at a 2:1 ratio. This requirement will be made a condition of approval of the project. 13 Rev. 03/28/96 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) 1. This project is approved subject to the condition that the applicant/developer mitigate the impacts to coastal sage scrub by the purchase of l/i acre of mitigation credit and the approval of a 4-D Permit prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM OF APPLICABLE) 1. Responsible Party: Planning Department Action: Purchase of 1A acre of mitigation credit When: Prior to approval of a Grading Permit 2. Responsible Party: Planning Department Action: Approval of a 4-D Permit When: Prior to approval of a Grading Permit 14 Rev. 03/28/96 III. EARLIER ANALYSES USED The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92009, (619) 438-1161, extension 4471. 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department. 15 Rev. 03/28/96 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. 7 Date Signatun Rev. 03/28/96 PROJECT NAME: Brookfield Meadows APPROVAL DATE: FILE NUMBERS: CT 96-04/PUD 71(B)/HDP 96-04/SDP 96-07 CONDITIONAL NEC. DEC.: The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). Mitigation Measure \ Prior to approval of the final map, the Developer shall be required: 1) to consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding the impact of the project on the Coastal California Gnatcatcher, and 2) implement any mitigation measures which may be required by USFWS. Monitoring Type Monitoring Department Planning Shown on Plans No Verified Implementation Copy of any required permits OR written documentation from appropriate agency that no mitigation and/or permit is required Remarks mz 55o m oZ O2 zo oXmo •ou(Q(D Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept = Department, or Agendcy, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure, information. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other RD - Appendix P.