Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-01-03; Planning Commission; Resolution 38720 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I I, PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3872 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A RECIRCULATED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A ZONE CHANGE, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT, TENTATIVE MAP, SITE DEVELOPMENT ELAN, AND HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, TO: (1) CHANGE THE ZONING ON THE MCREYNOLDS PARCEL FROM FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE WITH THE QUALIFIED CHANGE THE ZONING ON THE MSP CALIFORNIA LLC PARCEL FROM RESIDENTIAL DENSITY' MULTIPLE SUBDIVIDE THE MCREYNOLDS PROPERTY INTO 49 PLANNED COMMUNITY' ZONE (PC) TO THE ONE- DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE (R-1-7500-Q) AND (RDM) TO ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1-7500); (2) SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS AND ONE OPEN SPACE LOT; AND, (3) PROPOSE 8 FUTURE SECOND-DWELLING UNITS; ALL ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF PASEO DEL NORTE, NORTH OF CAMINO DE LAS ONDAS, AND SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, WITHIN SPECIFIC PLAN 203 AND LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 20. CASE NAME: MAR VISTA CASE NO: ZC 94-04/LCPA 94-04/CT 94-11/SDP 94- 10/HDP 94-09 WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for approval of thc more fully described as a Zone Change, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Tentati Site Development Plan, and Hillside Development Permit, to: (1) change the zonin McReynolds parcel from Planned Community Zone (PC) to the One-family Res Zone with the Qualified Development Overlay Zone (R-1-7500-Q) and change tht on the MSP California LLC parcel from Residential Density Multiple with the Q Development Zone (RDM-Q) to One-family Residential with Qualified Development Zone (R-1-7500); (2) subdivide the McReynolds property into 49 single-family lots open space lot; and, (3) propose 8 future second-dwelling units, for certain propert .... II 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Parcel C of Parcel Map No. 2949, in the City of Carlsbad, County of Sa Diego, State of California, filed in the office of the County Recorder of Sa Diego County, August 9, 1974, as File No. 74-216632 of official records. AND All that certain parcel of land delineated and designated as "Description Nc 1,103.91 Acres'' on Record of Survey Map No. 5715, filed in the Office of th County Recorder of San Diego County, December 19, 1960, being a portio of Lot G of Rancho Agua Hedionda, according to Map thereof No. 823, file1 in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, November It 1896, a portion of which lies within the City of Carlsbad, all being in th County of San Diego, State of California. Excepting therefrom that portio: lying within Parcels "A, ''B'', "C" and "D" of Parcel No. 2993 in the City a Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, filed in the Office of th County Recorder of San Diego County, August 23,1974 as File No. 74-23032 of Official Records. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of Janua~ hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law and provided in Section 19.0 Carlsbad Municipal Code, to consider said request, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all te and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by si considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered a1 relating to the Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the P Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the F Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Recil Mitigated Negative Declaration according to Exhibit "ND", dated Oc 1995, "PII", dated September 18, 1995, the addendum Exhibit "X' January 3,1996, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and the Mi. Monitoring and Reporting Program on file in the Planning Depa based on the following findings and subject to the following conditio .... .... ~ ~ PC RES0 NO. 3872 -2- I1 I( 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Findings: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyz considered Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Mar Vista the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and said COI thereon, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, on file Planning Department, prior to recommending approval of the project. Basec EIA Part-I1 and comments thereon, the Planning Commission finds that the substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environm hereby recommends approval of the Recirculated Mitigated Negative Decla 2. The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Recirculated Mitigated r\ Declaration for the Mar Vista project and Mitigation Monitoring and Re Program have been prepared in accordance with requirements of the Ca Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines, and the Environmental Prc Procedures of the City of Carlsbad. 3. The Planning Commission finds that the Recirculated Mitigated P Declaration for the Mar Vista Project reflects the independent judgmenl Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad. (Note: Permits issued as par Project). 4. The attached addendum to the Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration, "X", dated January 3, 1996, to change the project's description to include t change to R-1-7500 on the MSP California LLC Parcel will have no sig adverse effect of the environment and can be considered a minor technical : to the project's description per Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines. C. from one type of residential zoning (RDM) to another type of residential ZOI 1-7500) effects the type of development standards that are applied to thc residential development. In this case, the proposed R-1-7500 Zone is restrictive residential zone than the existing RDM Zone. Conditions: 1. Sewer/Stormdrain Alternative "A" - Implementation of Alternative "A" Encinas Creek. Prior to the issuance of a final map or grading permits, wl occurs first, the developer shall obtain a Streambed Alteration Agreement f California Fish and Game Department, if required for any proposed altera existing natural watercourses, and shall comply with any and all requirements associated therewith, pursuant to Section 1601/1603 of the E Game Code. The developer, in conjunction with the Department of the An of Engineers shall determine whether a 404 permit shall be required for alt to wetland areas. 2. .05 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) habitat will be directly impacted project. The impacted CSS habitat is regarded as low quality. Pursuan Interim Take provisions of the 4d Rule for the California gnatcatcher, thc PC RES0 NO. 3872 -3- a 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ’ I 28 I shall be required to mitigate this loss of .05 acres of CSS by acquir preservation comparable quality habitat at a 1:l ratio. The developer pro] mitigate this impact by purchasing, for preservation, .05 acres of CSS habita the high quality, coastal sage scrub area found in the Carlsbad Highlands mi bank. This proposal shall require the approval of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS), and the California Department of Fish and Game. Prior to the i of grading permits, the project applicant shall be required to consult with anc necessary “take” permits from the USFWS, the California Department of E Game for impacts to the loss of .05 acres of CSS. 3. Prior to construction of Hidden Valley Road from Palomar Airport Road E Poinsettia Community Park, the developer shall comply with all Ca Department of Fish and Game, Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Fish and ’ Service permits and the approved final biological mitigation plans dated Jul on file in the Planning Department. (Note: All permits for the grading of Valley Road have been issued as part of the Sambi Project) 4. The CC&Rs for the project shall include a requirement, stating that floo from the development shall not projecthhine into the native habitat areas. 5. Approval of the Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration is granted su the approval of CT 94-11, ZC 94-04, LCPA 94-04, SDP 94-10, and HDP 944 Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration is subject to all conditions cont; Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3873,3874,3875,3876, and 3877. .... .... .... .... .... . .. . .... .... .... .... .... PC RES0 NO. 3872 -4- @ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the I Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 3rd day of January, the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Monroy, Nielser Savary and Welshons NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Erwin ABSTAIN: None CARLSBAD PLANNING COMM ATTEST: Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 3872 -5- 0 City 0.f e Carlsbad RECIRCULATED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION South of Palomar Airport Road, east of Paseo Del Norte, adjacent to and north of Poinsettia Park. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A tentative map for 49 single-family residential lots ranging in size from 7500 to 35,298 square feet, a 19.24 acre open space lot, and 8 second-dwelling units. Project improvements include: (1) local public streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and drainage facilities to serve the lots; (2) sewer line and storm drain alignment "B" and new alternative alignment "A" to an existing east/west sewer line along Canyon de las Encina; (3) the construction of Hidden Valley Road from Camino de las Ondas to Palomar Airport Road; (4) the construction of a local public street from Hidden Valley Road to the project site. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date of issuance. If you have Planning Department at (619) 438-1161, exten DATED: OCTOBER 3, 1995 CASE NO: ZC 94-04/CT 94-11/HDP 94-09/SDP 94-1O/LCPA 94-04 CASE NAME MAR VISTA PUBLISH DATE: OCTOBER 3, 1995 Jekr 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 - (619) 438-1 161 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. CT 94-1 1mDP 94-09/SDP 94-10/ZC 94-04/LCP, DATE: SEPTEMBER 18,1995 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Mar Vista 2. APPLICANT: Christa McReynolds 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2316 Calle Chiauita, La Jolla. Califorr (6 19) 454-5385 4. DATE EL4 FORM PART I SUBMITTED: November 7, 1994 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A tentative map for 49 single-family residential lots ranging in 7.500 to 35.353 sauare feet. a 19.25 acre open space lot. and 8 seconddwelling units. imDrovements include; (1) local Dublic streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and drainage facilitie: the lots; (2) two alternative sewer line/stom drain alimments (A&B) that connect from the DJ an existing eastlwest sewer line along Canyon de las Encina; (3) the construction of Hidden Va from Camino de las Ondas to Palomar Airport Road; and (4) the construction of a local public si Hidden Valley Road east to the proiect site. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involvi one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact”, or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless h Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. - Land Use and Planning - Transportation/Circulation - Public Services - Population and Housing - X Biological Resources - Utilities and Service - Geological Problems - Energy and Mineral Resources X Aesthetics - X Water - Hazards - X Cultural Resources - X Air Quality - X Noise - Recreation - X Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 3/28/9! 0 DETERMINATION. 0 (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 NEGAT DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have t added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applic: legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as descri on attached sheets. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is required, but it must analyze only effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL N be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequa in an earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) h been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATN including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Not of Prior Compliance has been prepared. \aDa., . m\ wv PlanneF!%&atgl SAQj%&QC zc ? 1995 Date Date Ot-yI 2 Rev. 3/28/95 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Envi Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Envi Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies an] biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with in to Use % the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Dt 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 adequate supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impal answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact siml does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained wh there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as gene1 standards. “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential imps is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policit “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigati measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significa Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigatic 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 significant. Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on tf environment, but &l potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier E1 or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided ( mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions ( mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstancr requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures require by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no addition environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepar an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicabl standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has bee made pursuant to that earlier EIR. A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the projec or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment, 3 Rev. 3/28/95 0 0 0 If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if the are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigatic measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropria “Potentially Sigmfkant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigatl Negative Declaration may be prepared, An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limit to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overridh Considerations” for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposc mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EM-Pl II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the fo DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to c mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 4 Rev. 3/28/95 e a Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially UdeSS Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): ) - - 6) 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)? () - - X 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? () - - b) Seismic ground shaking? () - - e) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? () - - d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? () - - 5 LessThan Significant Impact - - - - - - - - - - - - Rev. 3/28/95 0 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially Unless LessThan Significant Mitigation Significant hpact Incorporated Impact e) Landslides or mudflows? () f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? () g) Subsidence of the land? () 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? 0 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 body? () e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? () 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 grokdwater recharge capability? () g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? 0 h) Impacts to groundwater quality? () - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - - X - - - - - - X - - X - - - - - - - - - - - 6 Rev. 3/28/95 0 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? 0 - V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? () - X b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? () - 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? 0 - 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? () - Potentially Significant UdeSS LessThan Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact - - - - - - - - - - X - - - - - - 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: 7 Rev. 3/28/91 a 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact 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? () - VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 0 - b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? () - Potentially Significant UdeSS Mitigation Incorporated X - - X - X - - - - LessThan Significant Impact - - - - - - -. 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? () - - - IX. HAZARDS, Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation? () - - - b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? () - - - c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? () - - - d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? () - - - X 8 Rev. 31281' 0 0 Issues (and Supporting information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact e) Increase fue 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? () - b) Police protection? () - c) Schools? () - Potentidly Significant UdeSS Mitigation Incorporated - - X - - - - LessThan Significant Impact X - - - - - - d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 0 - e) Other governmental services? () - XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? () - b) Communications systems? () - c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? () - d) Sewer or septic tanks? () - e) Storm water drainage? () - f) Solid waste disposal? 0 - g) Local or regional water supplies? () - 9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X X - - - - Rev. 312819 0 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Xm. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? () b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? () c) Create light or glare? () 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. RECREATION. .Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? () b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? () Potentially Significant Impact - - - - - - - - - - Potentially Significant UdeSS Mitigation Incorporated X - - - X - - - - - - - LessThan Significant Impact - - - - X - - - - X - - 10 Rev. 312819: e 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially UdeSS LessThan Significant Mitigation Significant Impact 1 Incorporated Impact 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? - X - - 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) - X - - c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? - - 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 followin; on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were review. 8 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 basec on the earlier analysis. 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. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation 11 Rev. 3/28/95 0 0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION PROJECT BACKGROUND AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: This Mitigated Negative Declaration was originally submitted for public review on February 1 , 1995. Clearinghouse (SCH ##!35021007) public review period closed on March 6, 1995. The document is bei and recirculated for public review based on comments received by the State Coastal Commission and thl Game Department, a change in the project description, and an update to the project's biological impac and the Initial Study Checklist. The developer has added an alternative sewer line and stormdrain align for the project from Vista De Olas, through Lot No. 19, and north to the existing east/west sewer line i de las Encinas. In response to State resource agency comments regarding impacts and the level of an updated Biological Survey and Coastal California Gnatcatcher Survey has been submitted with the proj further analyzes the environmental impacts of the project, sewer and stormdrain alignment "B", and the I and stormdrain alignment "A" as shown on the Mar Vista Tentative Map, (See the discussion under 1 Environment). Since the publishing and public review of the original Mitigated Negative Declaration for the projc February 1, 1995, the California Department of Fish and Game, the California Coastal Commission, and Corps of Engineers in a Section 7 Consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service have permits or approvals for the construction of Hidden Valley Road from Palomar Airport Road to the property boundary of the City's Poinsettia Community Park. Hidden Valley Road would provide prh to the project from Palomar Airport Road, and it's construction would not significantly impact the envh conditioned and mitigated through City, State and Federal permits. The project is located south of Palomar Airport Road, east of Paseo Del Norte, adjacent to future Hidd Road, and north of Camino de las Ondas, in the City of Carlsbad. The eastern half of the property is ut agriculture. The majority of the site contains very gently sloping topography that rises from west to f western half of the property consists of a finger canyon which continues north and connects with Cany Encinas. The flat developable areas of the property are rimmed by steep slopes along the west a Topographic elevations on the site range from approximately 52 feet in the canyon floor to 180 feet abc sea level on the gently sloping mesa. The site is underlain by the Eocene Delmar Formation and Friars F which are both capped by Quaternary terrace deposits. These bedrock formations are mantled by alluviun landslide deposits, and undocumented fill soils. Six vegetation types are present on the pro1 ruderal/agriculture on the mesa; (2) pampas grass, diegan coastal sage scrub, and southern mixed chapa the steeper slopes, and; (3) riparian southern willow scrub, and baccharis/mble fat in the canyon.. Vehicular access to the site would be provided by a local street leading from a future non-loaded collec named Hidden Valley Road. Hidden Valley Road would travel east of the property and intersect with C las Ondas to the south and intersect with Palomar Airport Road to the north. The project would sewer 1 connect with the existing eastfwest sewer line in Canyon de las Encinas (Alternative "A" or "B). 1 elevation differential of 28 feet between the low end of the project site at elevation 142 feet (Lot 19) and to the east of the site (Emerald Ridge - West) at elevation 170 feet, it is not physically possible to sewer tl through the already approved sewer line in future Hidden Valley Road, therefore, another sewer line t directly to the north of the site is required. The alignment of future Hidden Valley Road from Paloma Road to Camino del las Ondas has already been environmentally reviewed and approved by two previous the City's Poinsettia Community Park project - (CUP 92-05), and the Sambi Vesting Tentative Map - (C The environmental documents for these projects are on file in the Planning Department. 12 Rev. 3/28/95 e 0 The project site is located within the boundaries of Specific Plan 203 which covers the 640 acre Zone 20 associated with the future buildout of the Zone 20 Specific Plan area and is on file in the Planning De Use of a Program EXR enables the City to characterize the overall environmental impacts of the specific I Final Program EIR contains broad, general environmental analysis that serves as an information b; consulted when ultimately approving subsequent development projects (i.e. tentative maps, site developm grading permits, etc ...) within the specific plan area. The City can avoid having to "reinvent the wheel" subsequent development project by analyzing, in the program EIR, the regional influences, secondq cumulative impacts, and broad alternatives associated with buildout of the planning area. The applic recommended mitigation measures of Final EIR 90-03 will be included as conditions of approval for thi This subsequent expanded "Initial Study" is intended to supplement the Final EIR and provide more fa detailed project level analysis of site specific environmental impacts and, if applicable, provide more refinc level mitigation measures as required by Final EIR 90-03. Mitigation measures that are applicable to tl and already included in Final EIR 90-03 will be added to the tentative map resolution and new mitigation not evaluated in Final EIR 90-03 will be included in this Mitigated Negative Declaration. For example, i environmental impacts not addressed in Final EIR 90-03 include riparian impacts created by the offs alignment "B". In addition to the Final EIR for Specific Plan 203, more recently the City has certified a Fin Environmental Impact Report for an update of the 1994 General Plan. The certified Master EIR is on : Planning Department. The Master EIR serves as the basis of environmental review and impact miti] project's that are consistent with the plan, including projects within Specific Plan 203. Projects covered Master EIR for the General Plan include implementation activities such as rezoning of properties, specj and the approval of development plans, including tentative maps, conditional use permits, and other permits. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT: ToPograr>hv, Geotechnical. & Grading: Development of the site would include 47,000 cubic yards of grading to accommodate building pads, lots drainage structures, and onsite local public roadways. The proposed grading conforms to the City' Development Ordinance and manufactured slopes would be landform/contour graded, screened with la and not exceed 30 feet in height, therefore the alteration of the topography would not be considered a 5 physical impact.. The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Leighton and Associates Inc., ( 18, 1989 states that; "Based on the results of our preliminary geotechnical investigation of the site, it is 01 that the proposed residential development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided the recomm of this report are incorporated into the project plans and specifications". A grading permit is requirt project, therefore, the City's adopted grading permit standards, including required compliance with the gec study, would ensure that the project has proper erosion control measures including landscaping on mar slopes, adequate drainage facilities, and proper soil compaction. These items are all required by the Er Department prior to approval of the grading permit. Water Quality: Section 5.2 of Master EIR 93-01 discussed water quality and sedimentation impacts to Encinas Creek. Del of the project would create impervious surfaces onsite which reduce absorption rates and increase surf: and runoff velocities. In addition, drainage from the project's roofs, streets, driveways, slopes, and ya 13 Rev. 312819 Areat me ~mifiieB Find hogam EIR 90-0 3 for Spesifis Plan 203 addresses the potential environmenta e 0 constitute a potentially significant impact to water quality due to potential pollutants in the "non-poh urban runoff. Buildout of the General Plan, including residential development within Specific Plan significantly impact hydrological resources, therefore, the appropriate, and recommended General Plan 1 measures will be added as a condition of this project - (Section 5.2.5, Page 5.2-8, Master EIR 93-01). approval of a grading permit the applicant must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The applicant would be required to provide the best managemeni to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive biological areas. Compl this requirement would reduce any water quality impacts to below a level of significance. Gradi standards and the Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Plan require adequate drainage facilities to servic Hydrology standards of the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program require that post developme run-off, from a lO-year/6 hour storm event, must not carry any increased velocity at the property line. this standard, energy dissipation facilities (i.e. rip-rap) would be provided along the drainage course, i to a permanent regional basin proposed west of future Hidden Valley Road, adjacent to Encinas Creek foot elevation. Air Quality: Final EIR 90-03 for the Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP 203) discussed air quality impacts, however, this ( has now been supplemented by the Air Quality Section 5.3 of the Master EIR. The implementation c that are consistent with the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power COI and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major co to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin i attainment basin", any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant:. therefore, development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impa air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of I measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and in improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips th implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage 2 modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient buildin: design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applic appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of tl or are included as conditions of project approval. Section 3.3.2.2 of Final EIR 90-03 and Section 5.3.3 of the Master EIR both indicate that construction associated with implementation of the Specific Plan and General Plan will produce short term air qualit: in the form of dust from p'ding and traffic on dirt roads, and emissions from construction equipment. : these short-term construction impacts to the lowest extent possible the project would be conditioned with I measures designed to reduce dust and construction emissions - (Final EIR 90-03, Section 3.3.3, Page I1 Master ElR 93-01, Section 5.3.5, Page 5.3-11). Short-term construction impacts for this project can be mitigated below a level of significance la operation-related emissions are still considered cumulatively significant because the area is located withi attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked '' YES - significant". This projt required to prepare an EIR because the recent certification of the Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air quality impac 14 Rev. 3/28/9: e 0 "Statement Of Overriding Consideration" applies to all projects covered by the Master EIR, including r projects in Spe~ifi~ Plan 203, therefore, no further environmental review of air Quality hpacts is requi Cultural & Paleontological Resources: Section 3.60 of Final EIR 90-03 identified no archaeological or historic sites within the project bounda 9607 is identified as the closest resource site within the area and it is located approximately 100 to 300 n of the property. The offsite public road that provides access to the property through Emerald Ridge - ?T potentially impact CA-SDI-9607, therefore, a Historical/Archaeological Survey of the site was prepared bj & Associates, Dated September 1994.. The report concluded that due to the limited number or artifacl disturbed nature of the deposit, site CA-SD1-9607(W-115) is identified as not important under CEQA an of Carlsbad Guidelines, and no further study or mitigation is required. Section 3.10 of Final EIR 90-03, identified the potential for the presence of significant paleontological throughout the entire specific planning area, with a high potential for the discovery of fossils during futuI and construction activities. To reduce this potential impact to below a level of significance the project conditioned with mitigation measures designed to protect paleontological resources - (Section 3.10.0, Pag Final EIR 90-03). BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT: Background: The Biology Section (3.4) of Final EIR 90-03 provides baseline data at a gross scale due to the large s specific plan area. Given the large number of property owners and their differing development horizor inevitable change in biological conditions over the long-term buildout of the specific plan area, it is no! to mitigate biological impacts from the buildout of the entire specific plan under one comprehensive 01 easement that crosses property lines or a habitat revegetation/enhancement plan sponsored solely by the owners. The implementation of the biological section of the EIR is based on future site specific biologic studies that focus on the impacts created by individual subsequent development projects. These additional 1 studies are required to consider the baseline data and biological open space recommendations of Final E and provide more detailed and current resource surveys plotted at the tentative map scale for each propc range of the future mitigation options may include preservation of sensitive habitat onsite in conjunc enhancement/revegetation plans, payment of fees into a regional conservation plan, or the purchase and I of similar habitat offsite. Project Level Biological Reuorts: To meet these EIR requirements a biological resources field survey was prepared for the project by REC( January 1995 and updated June 20, 1995. In addition, a Biological Survey Report for an adjacent (Emerald Ridge - West), prepared by Brian Mooney Associated, dated August 1995, evaluated impacts c the project's local access road which leads from future Hidden Valley Road through Emerald Ridge - W project site. These subsequent biological studies are intended to provide more focused, current, and detailt level analysis of site specific biological impacts and provide more refined project level mitigation me required by Final EIR 90-03. The project site was surveyed for sensitive plant and animal species and three (3) sensitive plant spec identified onsite, and five (5) sensitive wildlife species were observed either onsite or within the s( 15 Rev. 3/28/95 e 0 alignment "B". All three sensitive plant species would be preserved in the proposed 19.24 acre open The "threatened" coastal California gnatcatcher was observed in the Diegan coastal sage scrub and the scrub along the west side of the site. The least Bell's vireo and the willow flycatcher occur in riparia however, they were not observed on the site. The potential for these species to occur in the area is consi, because of the small size and extent of the riparian habitat. The property was also surveyed for the bunc and the bird was not observed on the site. Offsite Roadway and Utility Impacts and Alternatives: The RECON Biological Report indicates that implementation of the project's off-site sewer and s alignment "B" would create additional significant impacts to riparian habitat not discussed in Final E therefore, mitigation measures designed to reduce biological impacts to below a level of significanc required as part of the project, Alignment "B" may have a potentially significant impact on scnsitiive 1 habitat which is under the jurisdiction of two (2) "Responsible" public resource agencies, the Californj Commission and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). The construction of the proje may be considered an alteration to a streambed and require a permit from the CDFG and the Arm! Engineers. If feasible, the Alternative "B" sewer line should be tunneled under Encinas Creek to avoi to the wetlands. To reduce riparian impacts to below a level of significance, and contingent on the a1 the appropriate resources agencies, any areas of riparian habitat disturbed by construction of the sewer be replanted/enhanced with native riparian species at a 3:l ratio so there is no "net loss" of habitat, an are temporary. The project will be required to obtain all necessary or applicable resources agency per to approval of a final map or grading permit, whichever occurs first. Based on comments from the California Coastal Commission during the last public review period for thl Mitigated Negative Declaration, the developer has proposed a more environmentally sensitive sewer and s alignment "A. If the newly proposed and environmentally preferred alternative sewer and stormdrain I "A" is implemented, then no native habitat would be impacted and habitat mitigation is not requirec analysis provided in the updated Biological Survey Report, prepared by RECON, dated June 20, 1995. The Mooney & Associates Biological Report, dated August 1995, indicates that the project's main ac leading from future Hidden Valley Road, through Emerald Ridge-West, to the project site woul approximately 0.05 acres of disturbed coastal sage scrub habitat (CSS). Because the off-site CSS regarded as disturbed and the remaining high quality CSS habitat in this area would be preserved, the prc be conditioned to mitigate the 0.05 acre CSS impact by acquiring, for preservation, comparable quality a ratio of 1: 1. The developer is proposing to mitigate this impact by purchasing, for preservation, .O! Coastal Sage Scrub habitat within the high quality, coastal sage scrub area found in the Carlsbad 1 mitigation bank (subject to the approval of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Depe Fish). s City's Habitat Manasement Plan. NCCP. and 4d Rule Determination: The construction of the local access road in this area is the least environmentally damaging access alte~ provides primary access to an otherwise landlocked area that is mounded by steep slopes and high qua and it would result in the loss of 0.05 acres of disturbed CSS habitat, therefore, prior to the issuance of permit the City may have to authorize this project to draw from the City's 167.5 acre (5%) CSS take a The take of 0.05 acres of CSS habitat from the Emerald Ridge-West property site will not impair the abil City to implement it's draft Habitat Management Plan (subregional NCCP). Prior to completion of a su NCCP/Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP), interim approval must be secured for losses of coi 16 Rev. 3/28/9: 0 0 scrub habitat. A procedure has been established which allows the local jurisdiction to benefit from the This procedure includes: establishment of the base number of acres of coastal sage scrub habitat in the E calculate 5% for the interim habitat loss, and keep a cumulative record of all interim habitat losses. I3 Carlsbad has calculated that 5% of the base acreage of coastal sage scrub is 165.70 acres. As of March, 1 acres have been taken. The loss of coastal sage scrub due to the Mar Vista project (0.05 acres) woulc a cumulative habitat loss of 4.01 acres for the HMP area once all the approved loses have been taken. does not exceed the 5% guideline of 165.70 acres. The 0.05 acre take area is located outside of an) Planning Areas. The habitat loss will not preclude connectivity between areas of high habitat values sincs is not included as a part of a Linkage Planning Area (LPA).. The habitat loss will not preclude or p- preparation of the Carlsbad HMP in that the area is not a part of a Linkage Planning Area, makes no co: to the overall preserve system and will not significantly impact the use of habitat patches as archipelago 0: stones to surrounding PPAs. The habitat loss has been reduced or mitigated by the design of the project, in that this access alignment i: sensitive in terms of habitat and slope impact. Mitigation for the loss of the 0.05 acres of CSS will be ir of the acquisition of habitat credits as discussed above. The loss of habitat on the Emerald Ridge-Wes will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the gnatcatcher. The habi. located in a disturbed area that is directly adjacent to future Hidden Valley Road and the Poinsettia Cc Park, therefore, large blocks of habitat will not be lost and fragmentation will not occur. The habitat 2 impacted is at the periphery of a larger CSS habitat area; it is not in the center where the loss of habitat more important. The habitat loss is incidental to otherwise lawful activities. The development of the Mar Vista property development and all required permits will be obtained. Mitigation for impacts to the CSS habita accomplished in the form of purchase of equal or better habitat credits at an off-site location. This mitig; has been identified as the Carlsbad Highlands Mitigation Bank site which has previously been accept( California Department of Fish and Game and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Noise and Light Impacts to Gnatcatchers: Since coastal California gnatcatchers are known to occur in the area to the west and north of the proper RECON surveys, there may be an indirect impact to the gnatcatcher from the project's lights. These im be avoided by directing construction and project lighting away from the native habitats. The developme1 conditioned to prohibit any flood lights from projecting into native habitat areas. The RECON report determined that noise from the construction of the project would not significzktly impact gnatcatchers in Future Hidden Valley Road Impacts: An offsite access requirement for this project includes the construction of future Hidden Valley Road fron de las Ondas to Palomar Airport Road. The Initial Study and adopted Mitigated Negative Declaratio Sambi Project - (CT 92-02), identified significant biological impacts associated with the constructic northern segment of Hidden Valley Road from Poinsettia Community Park north to Palomar Airport I; part of the Sambi project a preliminary biological mitigation program was also adopted to reduce si biological impacts associated with the roadway. As of the date of preparation of this Initial Study all Local, State, and Federal permits have been obtained for the construction of Hidden Valley Road. Since ( (Mar Vista) is dependent on this offsite roadway for access, compliance with all approved biological n as part of all local and resource agency permits will become a condition of approval for this projec developer constructs the roadway as part of this project, then that developer must comply with the tl 17 Rev. 3/28/92 0 0 conditions of the applicable permits. A miculture: The relatively level portions of the site are currently being utilized for agricultural purposes. The site's mi Loamy Coarse Sand (MIC) & Chesterson Fine Sandy Loam (CfJ3)) is not considered prime, Clasl agricultural soil. The site is located in the Coastal Agricultural Overlay Zone (Site II) of the Mello Il of the Local Coastal Program. Section 3.0 of Final EIR 90-03 evaluated impacts created by the con1 agricultural land use to urban land use in the overlay zone. The ETR concluded that the curnulati\ agricultural land could be offset with the mitigation measures established and required by Mello II Se the LCP, therefore, the appropriate condition will be added to the project - (Section 3.1.3, Page III-20, E1 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT: Planned Land Use And Density: The project would not alter the planned land use of the site and is consistent with the Residential Medi land use designation and density established by the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan. designation allows up to 8 dwelling units per net acre with a Growth Control Point of 6 dwelling units pe: The project's proposed density is 2.45 dwelling units per net acre. Hazardous Substances: The site has been farmed and cultivated for a number of years and there may be a potential for significan to future residents from accumulations of hazardous chemicals in the soil. To evaluate this potential Preliminary Pesticide Residue Survey was prepared by Geo Soils Inc., dated June 1994. The surv indicates that very low level concentrations of three pesticides (3); 4,4"DDE, 4,4"DDT, and toxaph detected in soil samples taken from the site. The report concluded that the pesticide levels in the rar samples were sufficiently below regulatory levels to not warrant additional testing or assessment. The ref a similar conclusion for two Dioxin isomers found at very low levels in the soil on the site, therefore, the hazard is considered less than significant, and no further analysis is required. Section 3.9.2.3 of Final EIR 90-03 analyzed land use incompatibilities caused by the ongoing use of ag chemicals and the future development of residential land uses. As phased development proceeds within thc plan area, interface conflicts associated with pesticide spraying, irrigation runoff, and odor impacts r between agricultural operations and residential uses. To reduce such impacts to below a level of signific appropriate EIR recommended mitigation measures will be made a condition of the project - (Section 3.' 111-103, Final EIR 90-03). Mitigation will include walls, drainage control, and a notification to all future r( land owners that this area is subject to dust, pesticide, and odors associated with adjacent agricultural 01 Light and Glare: The property is surrounded by open space to the west and north, a future public park with several light( fields to the south, and similar residentially zoned property to the east, therefore, the light generated vehicles, street lights, and homes in this single-family project will not significantly impact the surrounc uses. 18 Rev. 3/28/95 0 0 Circulation: The project would increase local traffic in the area, however, a Traffic Study prepared for the project Traffic Engineering, Inc., dated October 1994, and a Traffic Impact Analysis conducted as part of thc Final Program EIR 90-03, and the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 20 would mitigate any local traffic impacts - (Section 3.5, Page III-58, Final EIR 90-03). Final EIR 90-03 for the Zone 20 Spc (SP 203) evaluated circulation impacts, however, this discussion has now been supplemented by the ( Section 5.7 of Final Master EIR 93-01. Specific Plan indicates that compliance with the circulation requirements of the Zone 20 Specific Plan Public Facilities: The project is located within the Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Plan. Public facility impacts and have been accounted for in this plan to accommodate the residential development. The residential land be consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the project would not significantly impact public fac planned land uses. In addition, a condition will be added to the project to require that the developer en agreement with the appropriate school district to ensure that there are adequate school facilities availab the residential subdivision - (Section 3.1 1, Page Ill-1 12, Final EIR 90-03). Noise: Section 3.8 of Final EIR 90-03 evaluated potential noise impacts for future projects located in Specific and recommended that noise studies be prepared for projects impacted by traffic and airport noise. A the site is located within the 60 to 65 dBA CNEL contour, therefore, noise from existing Palomar Aa Paseo Del Norte, and the airport would create a significant impact on the homes in this project. A Noise Report was prepared for the project by RECON, dated December 1994. Noise levels on the project site v the Noise Element‘s exterior traffic noise standard of 60 CNEL and the interior noise standard of 1 therefore, mitigation measures are required to reduce the noise levels to the adopted standard. The projl conditioned to comply with all the appropriate mitigation recommendations of Section 3.8.3 of Final : and the recommendations of the project’s noise report. Noise mitigation will include perimeter sound 2 walls and the utilization of construction techniques and materials designed to provide adequate sound a Visual Aesthetics: Section 3.13 of Final EIR 90-03 analyzed potentially visual impacts created by development within Sp 203, including this property. It was determined that visual impacts to the Palomar Airport Road (Vantage Point 7, Figure 3.16-6) could be potentially significant. To reduce these potential impacts 1 level significance the EIR recommended mitigation measures, including additional visual analysis - (Sect Page III-49, Final EIR 90-03). The proposed project is a residential lot subdivision, and at this point in time, no residential structures planned. Due to the visual sensitivity of the site and it’s location adjacent to a future public park, thc Department is recommending that the Qualified Overlay Zone be placed on the property. This will en Site Development Plan (SDP), in compliance with the standards of the Qualified Overlay Zone, is prc the placement and design of the future homes. This future SDP will evaluate visual impacts created by tl height, building facades, roof lines, and colors of homes along the northern and western edge of the r SDP will also evaluate the placement of homes on the individual lots in relationship to setbacks, and street scene from intemal public streets. As part of the development of future homes on the site, the F 19 Rev. 3/28/! 0 a be conditioned to require additional visual analysis. This analysis shall consist, at a minimum, of c enhanced photo modifications showing development conditions proposed by the project. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: As discussed in the Biological Section of this EIA, the implementation of sewer alignment “B” will impac resources and the construction of a local public access road will impact .05 acres of coastal sage scru However, mitigation measures included as part of this EL4 and the project will adequately mitigate i: biological resources. The implementation of projects that are consistent with the updated 1994 General Plan will result in traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 f partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no juri: control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad B Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous I measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to enwe the prc circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportatio: trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) partici regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Int State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to cont applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Local traffic impacts for this project can be mitigated below a level of significance, but regional relatec are still considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buildout of the Ger due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked ”YES - significant”. Th is not required to prepare an EIR because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by Cit) Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations“ for circulation impac ”Statement Of Overriding Consideration“ applies to all subsequent projects covered by the Master ELR, 1 residential projects in Specific Plan 203, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation ir required. As previously discussed within this document, this project will not create environmental effects which u substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Alternatives: Project alternatives are required when there is evidence that the project will have a significant adverse i the environment and an alternative would lessen or mitigate those adverse impacts. Public Resources Cod 21002 forbids the approval of projects with significant adverse impacts when feasible alternatives or n measures can substantially lessen such impacts. A “significant effect” is defined as one which has a s\ adverse iinpact. Given the attached mitigation conditions, this project has “NO” significant physical envirt impacts, therefore, there is no substantial adverse impact and no justification for requiring a disc1 alternatives, (an alternative would not lessen an impact if there is no substantial adverse impact). 20 Rev. 3/28/95 e Sources: 0 1. Brian Mooney Associates, Biological Survey and Report for Emerald Ridge - West, August 1995; 2. Final EIR 90-03 - Zone 20 Specific Plan; 3. Gallegos & Associates, Historical/Archaeological Survey of the Kelly Property (Now referred to a Ridge - West) and Test of Site CA-SDI-9607 (W-l15), September 1994; 4. GeoSoils, kc., Preliminary Pesticide Residue Survey, McReynolds Property, June 15, 1994: 5. Leighton and Associates, Inc., Geotechnical Investigation, July 18, 1989, and Supplemental Ge Investigation of Suspect Landslide Area, February 19, 1990; 6. MEIR - 1994 Update Date of the Carlsbad General Plan; 7. RECON Biological Surveys and Coastal California Gnatcatcher Surveys for the McReynolds Propert 13, 1995; 8. RECON Updated Biological Surveys and Coastal California Gnatcatcher Surveys for the McReynold: June 20, 1995; 9. RECON McReynolds Property, Technical Noise Report, December 1994; 10. WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc., Traffic Study for the McReynolds Property, October 27, 1994. a 21 Rev. 3/28/! e e LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (TF APPLICABLE) 1. SewerlStormdrain Alternative "B" - Implementation of Alternative "B" as it crosses Encina would impact .02 acres of riparian vegetation. Mitigation for this impact will require the rep: of this riparian vegetation at a 3:l ratio so there is no "net loss" of habitat, and if feasible, the s( should be tunneled under Encinas Creek to avoid impacts to the streambed and surrounding I All riparian areas impacted along the proposed sewer/stormdrain alignment shall be replantewe! Prior to the issuance of a final map or grading permits, whichever occurs first, the developer required to: consult with the California Department of Fish and Game, Army Corps of Engin the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding specific permits and mitigation for impacts to .OZ riparian vegetation. OR Sewer/Stormdrain Alternative "A" - Implementation of Alternative "A" crosses Encinas Cree to the issuance of a final map or grading permits, whichever occurs first, the developer shall Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Fish and Game Department, if requirec proposed alterations to existing natural watercourses, and shall comply with any and a1 requirements associated therewith, pursuant to Section 1601/1603 of the Fish and Game Cc developer, in conjunction with the Department of the Army Corp of Engineers shall determine a 404 permit shall be required for alterations to wetland areas. 2. .05 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) habitat will be directly impacted by this project. The CSS habitat is regarded as low quality. Pursuant to the Interim Take provisions of the. 4d Ru California gnatcatcher, the project shall be required to mitigate this loss of .05 acres of acquiring for preservation comparable quality habitat at a 1:l ratio. The developer proposes tc this impact by purchasing, for preservation, .05 acres of CSS habitat within the high qualit; sage scrub area found in the Carlsbad Highlands mitigation bank. This proposal shall rec approval of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the California Department of Game. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall be .required to corn and obtain necessary "take" permits from the USFWS, the California Department of Fish and ( impacts to the loss of .OS acres of CSS. 3. Prior to construction of Hidden Valley Road from Palomar Airport Road south to Poinsettia Co Park, the developer shall comply with all California Department of Fish and Game, Army Engineers, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service permits and the approved final biological mitigat dated July, 1995, on file in the Planning Department. 4. The CC&Rs for the project shall include a requirement, stating that flood lights from the dev shall not project/shine into the native habitat areas. ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) See Attached Sheet 22 Rev. 312819 e APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASUl AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJEfl. ,% ;L ,~*'A2AW i ?4 5- C&. c-7, r ..ti5 l(, , lQL ,& ;,rd2a Date Signature , 23 Rev. 3/28/95 a B & 2 zk 3 n 3 & & n m OI PC r( 2 6 $5 38 3- 0 I$ m .. 2 QZ Ed $i 38 LU 4 5 ?< ZZ gs $3 E E2 33 Oh 5% X $8 $$g 2.9 2 Z?b xzs g jj g &.? 3 5 $3 $3 & E.9 2 2 3 g "ag &% a) -3 ..-I .$& E -g 3 s .9 $ .CI E gm 'Fa ,h .Y b a) uE9 50 %E3 &of 0% 3 .P & a) .2 g E 3-0 5s b om 0 -a .9 .9 E 0 *a)& 00 -2 zz E -a 0 8 $j *g 0a)O ::E "$2 g2u $8: 2 g.2 = E* 33 g E --.I 2 E L .s *g 8 &E E -3 0 2 s; a d s 3 z of% of2 a)s of E5 -CI a a) 34G g $-s *g .g 2 * ag €8 - a;, 'is a) 84 9 E EN a 23.2 2-g 3 2 aa -EQE t-c OGm m 3 E I ..-I U of - 3 W a B a B 3 of *a of % -2 g u .9 24 2 z *: .- sa 0 a=.2 3; -3 0022 .9 g E -&s of ma)- E E= d *g .2 3 0 L.r *- 8 .9 2 360 m2 Q) 3 .% 8 8 .. O.SE2 -2 5 3 gj 8ge: 8z= ofp)E 0 cw E 3 '5 2 os a 2 2 2 2:s g2 $ E yya)2 a)cg $5.3 0 $&$;a of- Q) .s O 4 E.2 3 aj-EE; -5 Om .o, '3%jc2 6-YsS E g :2 3 .- a~Ell5 258 gj 0 all 9 zg eb $$2 E Q .? ani24 h.2 8,"s .- ga 3 kgz z a) E-- -3 r=: Y Y aE a) b cb E Za * 3 b .S E -5 .d n c -3 0;II Oof Ef eo& E II il~~a)~ bZcn>d 3 d 2 a2 a 3 a e EX). ADDENDUM TO RECIRCULATED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION After the Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration was sent out for public review t€ project’s zone change request was expanded to include the 56 acre MSP California LLi parcels located directly east (APN 212-040-32, and 36). In accordance with Section 1516 of the CEQA Guidelines this addendum has been added to the Recirculated Mitigate Negative Declaration to consider this minor addition to the project’s description. The project description has been expanded to include the zone change. The requested zon change covers the McReynolds property and the adjacent property to the east, owned t MSP California LLC. The zoning on the MSP California parcel would be changed fro1 Residential Density Multiple with the Qualified Overlay Zone (RDM-Q) to the One-Famil Residential Zone with the Qualified Overlay Zone (R-1-7500-Q). MSP California current1 has tentative map applications in process with the City for single-family residenti; subdivisions on this property (APN 212-040-32, and 36). The zoning on the McReynolo property would be changed from the Planned Community Zone (PC) to One-Famil Residential with the Qualified Overlay Zone (R-1-7500-Q). Both properties currently contain the Residential Medium (RM) General Plan Land Us designation and are topographically isolated from surrounding land uses to the west, nort€ and east. The two requested zone change are considered minor because the changes do nc affect the General Plan residential (RM) land uses on the properties. Changing from on type of residential zoning (PC & RDM) to another type of residential zoning (R-1-7500 only affects the type of development standards that are eventually applied to the futur residential development. In this case, the proposed R-1-7500 Zone is a more restrictiv residential zone than the existing PC and RDM Zones, therefore, the zone changes have n. significant adverse affect of the environment and can be considered a minor technica change to the project’s description.