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.