Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-01-17; Planning Commission; Resolution 3879ii e e . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3879 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A TENTATIVE MAP, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, TO: (1) SUBDIVIDE THE MSP LOTS, ONE 8.3 ACRE OPEN SPACE LOT, AND A 27.4 ACRE REMAINDER PARCEL, AND (2) ALLOW 9 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: EMERALD RIDGE WEST CASE NO: CT 95-03/SDP 95-06/HDP 95-06 CALIFORNIA LLC PROPERTY INTO 61 SINGLE-FAMILY FUTURE SECOND-DWELLING UNITS; ALL ON WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for approval of thc I 14 more fully described as a Tentative Map, Site Development Plan, and Hillside Deve 15 16 Permit, to subdivide the MSP California LLC property into 61 single-family lots, acre open space lot, a 27.4 acre remainder parcel, and allow 9 future second-dwellin 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 for certain property to wit: All that certain parcel of land delineated and designated as "Description No 1,103.91 Acres" on Record of Survey Map No. 5715, filed in the Office of thj 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, filec in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, November 16 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 thc County Recorder of San Diego County, August 23,1974 as File No. 74-23032( of Official Records. i i ~ WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of Januar hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law and provided in Chapter 28 the Carlsbad Municipal Code, to consider said request, and .. ll 0 e 1 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all te 2 4 considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered a1 3 and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by SI 5 relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 6 ll NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the P 7 8 Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 9 10 11 12 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the P Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Mitigated r\ Declaration according to Exhibit "ND", dated October 27, 1995, th dated October 3, 1995, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Re Program on file in the Planning Department, attached hereto and 1 part hereof, based on the following findings: 13 11 Findings: 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyz considered Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Emerald Ridge West proj environmental impacts therein identified for this project and said comments tl and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, on file in the P Department, prior to recommending approval of the project. Based on tl Part-I1 and comments thereon, the Planning Commission finds that therm substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environmt hereby recommends approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Decl for the Emerald Ridge West 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. 23 24 3. The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration 25 26 28 Encinas Creek.' Prior to the issuance of a final map or grading permits, wh. 27 occurs first, the developer shall obtain a Streambed Alteration Agreement fr Emerald Ridge West project reflects the independent judgment of the PI Commission of the City of Carlsbad. Conditions: 1. Sewer/Stormdrain Alternative "A' - Implementation of Alternative "A" I PC RES0 NO. 3879 -2- 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 0 0 California Fish and Game Department, if required for any proposed alterz existing natural watercourses, and shall comply with any and all requirements associated therewith, pursuant to Section 1601/1603 of the f Game Code. The developer, in conjunction with the Department of the A~I of Engineers shall determine whether a 404 permit shall be required for alt to wetland areas. 2. 0.12 acres of coastal sage scrub (CSS) habitat will be directly impacted project. The impacted CSS habitat is regarded as disturbed habitat (0.05 ac medium to high quality habitat (0.07). Pursuant to the Interim Take provi the 4d Rule for the California gnatcatcher, the project shall be required to this loss of .12 acres of CSS by acquiring, for preservation, comparable habitat at a 1:l ratio for the disturbed CSS and 2:l for the higher quality C developer proposes to mitigate this impact by purchasing, for preservation, . of CSS habitat within the high quality, coastal sage scrub area found in the C Highlands mitigation bank. This proposal shall require the approval of 1 Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the California Department of Fish an( and the City of Carlsbad. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall be required to consult with and obtain necessary “take” perm the USFWS, the California Department of Fish and Game for impacts create loss of the .12 acres of CSS. 3. The CC&Rs for the project shall include a requirement, stating that floo from the development shall not project/shine into the native habitat areas. 4. Heavy construction adjacent to coastal sage scrub and chaparral habitat are, the east and north side of the site during the California gnatcatcher breedin; (March 1 to July 31) shall be prohibited. 5. Approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration is granted subject to the 2 of LCPA 94-04, ZC 94-04, CT 95-03, SDP 95-06, and HDP 95-06. The M Negative Declaration is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Corn Resolution Nos. 3873,3874,3880,3881, and 3882. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... PC RES0 NO. 3879 -3- ll 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 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th day of J 1996, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Erwin, Monroy, Noble, Savary and Welshons NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None lh2l.A +/- WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairpersc CARLSBAD PLANNING COMM ATTEST: . Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 3879 -4- @ City of 0 Carlsbad MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: San Diego County, City of Carlsbad, Accessor: Parcel Number 212-040-32, 35, 36, 38. East o Paseo del Norte and south of Palomar Airpor Road. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A tentative map for 61 singlefamily residential lots ranging in size from 7,500 to 19,201 sq. ft., a 8.3 acre open space lot, and 10 second. dwelling units. Project improvements .include: (1) local public streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and drainage facilities to serve the lots; (2) two alternative sewer and stormdrain alignments (A and B) that connect from the property to an existing east/west sewer line along Encinas Creek; (3) the construction of Hidden Valley Road from Camino de las Ondas to Palomar Airport Road; (4) the alignment of a trail between the northern segment of Hidden Valley Road and the residential lots, and; (5) 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 any questions, please call Jeff Gibson in the Planning Department at (61 9) 438-1 161 ,‘extension 4455. DATED: OCTOBER 27, 1995 CASE NO: CT 95-03/HDP 95-O6/SDP 95-06 Planning Director CASE NAME: EMERALD RIDGE WEST PUBLISH DATE: OCTOBER 27, 1995 JG: kr 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-1 161 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) BACKGROUND CASE NO. CT 95-031HDP 95-06/S1 DATE: Octobe 1. CASE NAME: Emerald Ridge West 2. APPLICANT: Ladwig Design Grouu. Inc. 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT 703 Palomar Aimort Road. Su Carlsbad CA 92009, (619) 438-3182 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: May 26. 1995 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A tentative map for 61 single-family residential lots ranging; ir 7.500 to 19.201 sa. ft., a 8.3 acre own mace lot, and 10 seconddwelling units. imurovements include: (1) local public streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and drainage faciliti. the lots; (2) two alternative sewer and stormdrain alignments (A and B) that connect prowrty to an existing: &/west sewer line along Encinas Creek: (3) the construction 4 Valley Road from Camino de las Ondas to Palomar Airport Road; (4) the aliment of a tra the northern segment of Hidden Valley Road and the residential lots, and; (5) the constru local public street from Hidden Valley Road to the proiect site. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AmCTED: 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 Sigmfkant Impact Unless 1 Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. - Land Use and Planning - X Transportation/Circulation - Public Services - Population and Housing - X Biological Resources - Utilities and - Geological Problems - Energy and Mineral Resources X Water - - Hazards - X Air Quality - X Noise Systems X Aesthetics X Cultural Resource - Recreation - - X Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 312819. 0 0 - DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGA? DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there wil be a significant effect in this case because the mitigatim measures described on a,n attached sheet haye added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a signifrcant 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 descr on attached sheets. An MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is required, but it must analyze o@ effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a signifrcant effect on the environment, there WILL 1 be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequ; in an earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATJSE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATI including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Nc of Prior Compliance has been prepared. O~,tb)zpC 24. 199s Planner Slgh&e Date * IOI-WJK Planning Director si-ghatury Date 1 2 Rev. 312819 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 it to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative DI or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. 0 A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequatc supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Tmpa answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact sh does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained wl there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as gene standards. “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential imp is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policj 0 “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigat measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Signifc Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigat 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 “EM-Part XI”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on environment, but & potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier E or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and o>) 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 circumstan requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures requi by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additio environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prep an EIR if the signifcant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applica standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has bc made pursuant to that earlier EIR. 0 A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the pro] or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. 3 Rev. 31281’ 0 0 0 If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if thc are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than signifcant, and those mitigati measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropri “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitiga Negative Declaration may be prepared. An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limi 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 Overrid Considerations” for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) propok mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EM-P 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 fc DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 4 Rev. 312819 e 0 Issues (and supporting hlfolmatim sources): Potentially Significant Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): ) - b) Conflict with appIicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? () - c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? () - d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? () - e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? () - II. POPULATION AND HOUSING, Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? () - b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? () - c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? () - HI. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? () - b) Seismic ground shaking? () - c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? () - d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? () - 5 Potentially Significant Unless LessThan Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact - - - - - - X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Rev. 3/28/S 0 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): e) Landslides or mudflows? () f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? () g) Subsidence of the land? 0 h) Expansive soils? 0 i) Unique geologic or physical features? () IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of Surface runoff? () b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? 0 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 come or direction of water movements? () 0 Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? 0 g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? 0 h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 Potentially Significant Impact - - - - - - - - - - - - - Potentially Significant UdeSS Mitigation Incorporated - - - - - X - - X - - - - - - LessThan Significant Impact - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6 Rev. 312.81 0 m Issues (and supporting Infomatim sources): Potentially Significant Potentially UlllesS LessThan Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incurporated 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? 0 - - - 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? () - - - d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? () - - - e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? 0 - - - f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? () - - - g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 0 - - - VIT. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: 7 Rev. 312811 e 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially UIlleSS LessThan Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, anrmals, and birds? () - - X - b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? () - - - c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? () - - X - d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? 0 - - X - e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 - - - 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? () - - - 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? 0 - - - 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. 3/28! a 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact e) Increase frre 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? () - 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? () - g) Local or regional water supplies? () - 9 Potentially Significant UIlleSS LessThan Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact - x - - X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Rev. 31281 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? 0 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? 0 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 =ea? () XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase- the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? () b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? () 10 m Potentially significant Potentially UnleSS LessThan Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact X - - - - - - - - - X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - - - - - - Rev. 312819: 0 0 Issues (and supporting Information sources): Potentially Significant Potentially UllleSS LessThan Significant Mitigation Significant Impact 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). h 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 review. MEIR - 1994 update of the Carlsbad General Plan/Final EIR 90-03 for Specific PI’ file in the Planning Department at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad CA. 92009. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures base. on the earlier analysis. See following discussion. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. See following discussion. 11 Rev. 3/28/9: 0 a - DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION PROJECT BACKGROUND AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The project is located south of Palomar Airport Road, east of Paseo Del Norte, adjacent to future Hid( Road, and north of Camino de las Ondas, in the City of Carlsbad. The western half of the property is 1 agriculture. The majority of the site contains very gently sloping topography that rises from west to eastern half of the property consists of a frnger canyon which continues north and connects with Can Encinas. The flat developable areas of the property are rimmed by steep slopes along the east i Topographic elevations on the site range from approximately 80 feet in the canyon floor to 180 feet at sea level on the gently sloping mesa. The site is underlain by the Eocene age bedrock. Santiago Form known as Delmar and Friars Formation), which is capped by Quaternary terrace deposits. Thes formations are mantled by alluvium, topsoil, and artificial fill soils. Six vegetation types are pres property: (1) ruderal/agriculture on the mesa; (2) pampas grass, diegan coastal sage scrub, and south chaparral along the steeper slopes, and; (3) riparian southern willow, scrub, and baccharis/mule fat in tl Vehicular access to the site would be provided by a local street leading from a future non-loaded collc named Hidden Valley Road. Hidden Valley Road would travel east of the property and intersect with ' las Ondas to the south and intersect with Palomar Airport Road to the north. The project would se through the Mar Vista project ((2" 94-1 1) and connect with the existing east/west sewer line in Can: Encinas (Alternative "A" or "B"). Due to an elevation differential of 28 feet between the low end of the project site at elevation 142 feet (Lot 19) and the high point on Emerald Ridge - West at elevation 18( not physically possible to sewer the project through the already approved sewer line in future Hidden Va therefore, another sewer line that flows directly to the north of the site is required. The alignment of futt Valley Road from Palomar Airport Road to Camino de las Ondas has already been environmentally rev approved by two previous projects; the City's Poinsettia Community Park project - (CUP 92-05), and Vesting Tentative Map - (CT 92-02). The environmental documents for these projects are on file in tht Department. Subsequent to the submittal of this project to the City on May 26, 1995, the California Department 0. Game, the California Coastal Commission, and the Army Corps of Engineers in a Section 7 Consultatio. United States Fish and Wildlife Service have all issued permits or approvals for the construction of Hidc Road from Palomar Airport Road to the northern property boundary of the City's Poinsettia Cornmu Hidden Valley Road would provide primary access to the project from Palomar Airport Road, and it's co would not significantly impact the environment as conditioned and mitigated through City, State an permits. The project site is located within the boundaries of Specific Plan 203 which covers the 640 acre Zone 2C Area. The certified Final Program EIR 90-03 for Specific Plan 203 addresses the potential environment associated with the future buildout of the Zone 20 Specific Plan area and is on file in the Planning Dt Use of a Program EIR enables the City to characterize the overall environmental impacts of the specific 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, secondar cumulative impacts, and broad alternatives associated with buildout of the planning area. The appli recommended mitigation measures of Final EIR 90-03 will be included as conditions of approval for th This subsequent expanded "Xnitial Study" is intended to supplement the Final EIR and provide more fa 12 Rev. 312819 e a a detailed project level analysis of site specific environmental impacts and, if applicable, provide more refm level mitigation measures as required by Final EIR 90-03. Mitigation measures that are applicable to t and already included in Final EIR 90-03 will be added to the tentative map resolution and new mitigation not evaluated in Final ER 90-03 wiiI be included in this Mitigated Negative Declaration. For example, environmental impacts not addressed in Final EIR 90-03 include riparian impacts created by the off 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, spec and the approval of development plans, including tentative maps, conditional use permits, and othel permits. PHYSICAL ENVJRONMENT: Topography, Geotechnical, & Grading: Development of the site would include 129,205 cubic yards of grading to accommodate building pads, lot drainage structures, onsite local public roadways, and Hidden Valley Road. The proposed grading coda City's Hillside Development Ordinance and manufactured slopes would be landform/contour graded, scrc landscaping, and not exceed 30 feet in height, therefore the alteration of the topography would not be ( a significant physical impact. The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation prepared by GeoSoils, I September 6, 1994 states that; "Based on our field exploration, laboratory testing, engineering anc analyses, it is our opinion that the project site is suited for development from a geotechnical engine geologic standpoint". A grading permit is required for the project, therefore, the City's adopted gradi standards, including required compliance with the geotechnical study, would ensure that the project E erosion control measures including landscaping on manufactured slopes, adequate drainage facilities, a soil compaction. These items are all required by the Engineering Department prior to approval of th permit. Water Ouality: 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 surfi and runoff velocities. In addition, drainage from the project's roofs, streets, driveways, slopes, and ya constitute a potentially significant impact to water quality due to potential pollutants in the "non-poi 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 I Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The applicant would be required to provide the best management to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive biological areas. Complj this requirement would reduce any water quality impacts to below a level of significance. Gradit standards and the Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Plan require adequate drainage facilities to servic Hydrology standards of the Mello 11 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. 13 Rev. 312819 0 e this standard, energy dissipation facilities (i.e. riprap) would be provided along the drainage course, ir to a permanent regional basin proposed west of future Hidden Valley Road, adjacent to Encinas Creek foot elevation. Air Ouality: Final EIR 90-03 for the Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP 203) discussed air quality impacts, however, this I 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 monoxidc organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major cc to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin : 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 measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and ir 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 i modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient buildir design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The appli appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of 1 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 qualil in the form of dust from grading 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 measures designed to reduce dust and construction emissions - (Final EIR 90-03, Section 3.3.3, Page I Master EIR 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 IC operation-related emissions are still considered cumulatively significant because the area is located with attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked I' YES - significant". This pro: required to prepare an EIR because the recent certification of the Final Master EIR 93-01, by Cit Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air quality impa "Statement Of Overriding Consideration" applies to all projects covered by the Master EIR, including projects in Specific Plan 203, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is requ Cultural & Paleontological Resources: Section 3.60 of Final EIR 90-03 identified an archaeological site within the project boundaries (CA-S The project would impact CA-SDI-9607, therefore, a Historical/Archaeological Survey of the site wa: by Gallegos & Associates, dated September 1994, The report concluded that due to the limited number ( and the disturbed nature of the deposit, site CA-SDI-9607 is identified as not important under CEQA an of Carlsbad Guidelines, and no further study or mitigation is required. 14 Rev. 312815 e 0 ' Section 3.10 of Final EIR 90-03, identified the potential for the presence of significant paleontologicd throughout the entire specific planning area, with a high potential for the discovery of fossils during futu and construction activities. To reduce this potential impact to below a level of sigmfkance the projed conditioned with mitigation measures designed to protect paleontological resources - (Section 3.10.0, Pa, 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 specific plan area. Given the large number of property owners and their differing development horiza inevitable change in biological conditions over the long-term buildout of the specific plan area, it is nc to mitigate biological impacts from the buildout of the entire specific plan under one comprehensive c easement that crosses property lines or a habitat revegetation/enhancement plan sponsored solely by th owners. The implementation of the biological section of the EIR is based on future site specific biologi studies that focus on the impacts created by individual subsequent development projects. These additional studies are required to consider the baseline data and biological open space recommendations of Final : and provide more detailed and current resource surveys plotted at the tentative map scale for each pro1 range of the future mitigation options may include preservation of sensitive habitat onsite in conjun enhancement/revegetation plans, payment of fees into a regional conservation plan, or the purchase and of similar habitat offsite. Proiect Level Biological Remrts: To meet these EIR requirements a biological resource field survey was prepared by RECON, dated Jan and updated June 20, 1995 (sewer and stormdrain impacts), and a Biological Survey Report, prepared Mooney Associated, dated August 1995, which evaluated impacts created by the project. These s biological studies are intended to provide more focused, current, and detailed project level analysis of si biological impacts and provide more refined project level mitigation measures as required by Final El The project site was surveyed for sensitive plant and animal species and no sensitive plant species were onsite, and three (3) sensitive wildlife species (turkey vulture, northern harrier, and California gnatcatc observed onsite. The "threatened" coastal California gnatcatcher was observed in the Diegan coastal : along the east and north side of the site. The property was also surveyed for the burrowing owl and thc not observed on the site. Offsite Roadway and Utility ImDacts 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 signifkant impact on sensitive habitat which is under the jurisdiction of two (2) "Responsible" public resource agencies, the Californ 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 15 Rev. 312819 e 0 + the appropriate resources agencies, any arm 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 frrst. Based on comments from the California Coastal Commission during the public review period for the project‘s (located directly west) Mitigated Negative Declaration, the developer has proposed a more enviro sensitive sewer and stormdrain alignment ”A. If the newly proposed and environmentally preferred i sewer and stormdrain alignment “A” is implemented, then no native habitat would be impacted a] mitigation is not required, per the analysis provided in the updated Biological Survey Report, prepared b1 dated June 20, 1995. During the writing of this Initial Study the Carlsbad Water District has decided 1 pursue approval for Alternative ”A”, from the California Coastal Commission and the State Fish a Department, in order to provide sewer for the City’s Poinsettia Community Park as well as other prop must gravity sewer in this direction within the area. Phase I of the park is estimated to be completed t of the smer of 1996, therefore, the Water District anticipates having all environmental clearances and i resource agency permits for the sewer line prior to the summer so that the sewer line constructic coordinated with the completion of the park. The Mooney & Associates Biological Report, dated August 1995, indicates that the project’s main a( leading from future Hidden Valley Road to the project site would impact approximately 0.05 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat (CSS), and grading for the residential building pads would impact 0.07 acre The impacted CSS habitat area is small in size, linear in shape, partially disturbed and located along tl larger habitat areas, thus the significance of the impact is reduced. To offset the loss of 0.12 acres o project shall be conditioned to mitigate the 0.12 acre CSS impact by acquiring, for preservation, comparal habitat. The developer is proposing to mitigate this impact by purchasing, for preservation, .19 acres sage scrub habitat within the high quality, coastal sage scrub area found in the Carlsbad Highlands mitiga (subject to the approval of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish). City’s Habitat Management 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 surrounded by steep slopes and high qui and it would result in the loss of 0.05 acres of CSS habitat. The .07 acre impact within the 60 foot b is small and linear in size and shape and will not adversely effect the larger habitat area to be pre permanent open space (Lot 62). Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the City may have to autl project to draw from the City’s 167.5 acre (5%) CSS take allowance. The take of 0.12 acres of CSS ha the Emerald Ridge-West property site will not impair the ability of the City to implement it’s dra Management Plan (subregional NCCP). Prior to completion of a subregional NCCP/Carlsbad Habitat Ma Plan (HMP), interim approval must be secured for losses of coastal sage scrub habitat. A procedure established which allows the local jurisdiction to benefit from the 4(d) rule. This procedure establishment of the base number of acres of coastal sage scrub habitat in the subregion, calculate 5’ interim habitat loss, and keep a cumulative record of all interim habitat losses. The City of Carlsbad has ( that 5% of the base acreage of coastal sage scrub is 165.70 acres. As of March, 1995,3.96 acres have b The loss of coastal sage scrub due to the project (0.12 acres) would result in a cumulative habitat loss of d for the HMP area once all the approved loses have been taken. This loss does not exceed the 5% gu 165.70 acres. The 0.12 acre take area is located outside of any Preserve Planning Areas. The habitat 10s preclude connectivity between areas of high habitat values since this area is not included as a part of I Planning Area (LPA). The habitat loss will not preclude or prevent the preparation of the Carlsbad Hh 16 Rev. 312819. 0 e - the area is not a part of a Linkage Planning Area, makes no contribution to the overall preserve syster not significantly impact the use of habitat patches as archipelago or stepping stones to surrounding PP The habitat loss has been reduced or mitigated by the design of the project, in that this access alignment j sensitive in terms of habitat and slope impact. Mitigation for the loss of the 0.12 acres of CSS will be i of the acquisition of habitat credits as discussed above. The loss of habitat on the Emerald Ridge-We: will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the gnatcatcher. The habitat lo in size, located along the edge, and in a disturbed area that is directly adjacent to future Hidden Valley the Poinsettia Community Park, therefore, large blocks of habitat will not be lost and fragmentation will The habitat area being impacted is at the periphery of a larger CSS habitat area; it is not in the center loss of habitat would be more important. The habitat loss is incidental to otherwise lawful activities. The development of the Emerald Ridge We5 is a legal development and all required permits will be obtained. Mitigation for impacts to the CSS h be accomplished in the form of purchase of equal or better habitat credits at an off-site location. This area has been identified as the Carlsbad Highlands Mitigation Bank site which has previously been a( the California Department of Fish and Game and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Noise and Light ImDacts to Gnatcatchers: Since coastal California gnatcatchers are known to occur in the area to the east and north of the proper biological surveys, there may be an indirect impact to the gnatcatcher from the project's lights. These in be avoided by directing construction and project lighting away from the native habitats. The developmc conditioned to prohibit any flood lights from projecting into native habitat areas. In addition, possible co noise impacts to breeding gnatcatchers should be avoided, therefore, the project shall be conditioned t heavy construction adjacent to CSS and chaparral habitat areas during the breeding season (March 1 tc Future Hidden Valley Road ImDacts: An offsite access requirement for this project includes the construction of future Hidden Valley Road fro1 de las Ondas to Palomar Airport Road. The Initial Study and adopted Mitigated Negative Declaratic Sambi Project - (CT 92-02), identified significant biological impacts associated with the constmcti 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 5 biological impacts associated with the roadway. As of the date of preparation of this Initial Study al 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 1 as part of all local and resource agency permits will become a condition of approval for this projet developer constructs the roadway as part of this project, then that developer must comply with the 1 conditions of the applicable permits. 17 Rev. 312819: - e 0 * Agriculture: The relatively level portions of the site are currently being utilized for agricultural purposes. The site's sc Loamy Coarse Sand (MIC) & Chesterson Fine Sandy Loam (CfB)) is not considered prime, Cla5 agricultural soil. The site is located in the Coastal Agricultural Overlay Zone (Site KI) of the Mello I of the Local Coastal Program. Section 3.0 of Fmal EIR 90-03 evaluated impacts created by the con agricultural land use to urban land use in the overlay zone. The EIR concluded that the cumulati agricultural land could be offset with the mitigation measures established and required by Mello lI S the LCP, therefore, the appropriate condition will be added to the project - (Section 3.1.3, Page It", El 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 Med 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 3.01 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 significa 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 July 1994. The survey reporl that very low level/minute concentrations of four pesticides (3); 4,4"DDE, 4,4"DDT, Aroclor- 1254 (PCB (HpCDD, HxCDD, and OCDD) were detected in soil samples taken from the site. The report conclude pesticide levels in the random soil samples were sufficiently below regulatory levels to not warrant testing or assessment, therefore, the potential hazard is considered less than significant, and no further 2 required. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project, per Final EIR 90-03 Section 3.9.3 , the survey report shall be reviewed and approved by the County Health Department. Section 3.9.2.3 of Final EIR 90-03 analyzed land use incompatibilities caused by the ongoing use of ai chemicals and the future development of residential land uses. As phased development proceeds within th plan area, interface conflicts associated with pesticide spraying, irrigation runoff, and odor impacts I between agricultural operations and residential uses. To reduce such impacts to below a level of signif% 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 I land owners that this area is subject to dust, pesticide, and odors associated with adjacent agricultural o Light and Glare: The property is surrounded by open space to the east and north, a future public park with several lighi fields to the south, and similar residentially zoned property to the west, therefore, the light generated vehicles, street lights, and homes in this single-family project will not SigJllficantly impact the surrouni uses. 18 Rev. 3/28/91 - e e * Circulation: The project would increase local trafic in the area, however, a Traffic Study prepared for the projeci Traffic Engineering, Inc., dated November 23, 1994, and a Traffic Impact Analysis conducted as part o 20 Specific Plan indicates that compliance with the circulation requirements of the Zone 20 Specific Plar 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 Sp (SP 203) evaluated circulation impacts, however, this discussion has now been supplemented by the ( Section 5.7 of Final Master EIR 93-01. Public Facilities: The project is located within the Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Plan. Public facility impacts anc 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 ID- 112, Final EIR 90-03). Noise: Section 3.8 of Final EIR 90-03 evaluated potential noise impacts for future projects located in SpecXi 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 Air Paseo Del Norte, and the airport would create a potential impact on the homes in this projec Comprehensive McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Plan, residential development is considered co compatible within the 60 to 65 CNEL contour area. A Noise Technical Report was prepared for the Pacific Noise Control, dated May 1995. Noise levels on the project site will not exceed the Noise exterior traffk noise standard of 60 CNEL. Prior to approval of the Site Development Plan for siting family homes on the lots, additional interior noise analysis will be required for the project. If interior n in the homes exceed the interior noise standard of 45 CNEL, mitigation measures are required to reduc levels to the adopted standard. The project will be conditioned to comply with all the appropriate recommendations of Section 3.8.3 of Final EIR 90-03 and the recommendations of the project's nc including but not limited to interior noise mitigation, if applicable, and legal notification of potential ai impacts to future land owners. Visual Aesthetics: Section 3.13 of Final EIIR 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 level significance the EIR recommended mitigation measures, including additional visual analysis - (Sect Page 111-49, Final EIR 90-03). The proposed project is a residential lot subdivision, and at this point in time, no residential structure: planned. Due to the visual sensitivity of the site from Palomar Airport Road and it's location adjacent public park, the property's zoning contains the Qualified Development Overlay Zone. The Q-OVI requirement for a Site Development Plan will ensure that future development is consistent with the ov 19 Rev. 3/28] This future SDP will evaluate visual impacts created by the building height, building facades, roof lines, and colors of homes along the northem and eastern edge of the mesa. The SDP will also evaluate the placement of homes on the individual lots in relationship to setbacks, and the visual street scene from internal public streets. As part of the development of future homes on the site, the project will be conditioned to require additional visual analysis. This analysis shall consist, at a minimum, of computer-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 impact riparian resources and the construction of a local public access road and grading of the site will impact .12 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat. However, mitigation measures included as part of this EM and the project will adequately mitigate impacts to biological resources. The implementation of projects that are consistent with the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Local traffic impacts for ,this project can be mitigated below a level of significance, but regional related impacts are still considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “YES - significant”. This project is not required to prepare an EIR because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Consideration” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the Master EIR, including residential projects in Specific Plan 203, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. As previously discussed within this document, this project will not create environmental effects which will cause 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 impact on the environment and an alternative would lessen or mitigate those adverse impacts. Public Resources Code Section 21002 forbids the approval of projects with significant adverse impacts when feasible alternatives or mitigation measures can substantially lessen such impacts. A “significant effect” is defined as one which has a substantial 20 Rev. 3128195 - e 0 adverse impact. Given the attached mitigation conditions, this project has "NO" sign5cant physical envi impacts, therefore, there is no substantial adverse impact and no justification for requiring a disc alternatives, (an alternative would not lessen an impact if there is no substantial adverse impact). Sources: 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, Inc., Preliminary Pesticide Residue Survey, Kelly Property, July 25, 1994; 5. GeoSoils, Inc., Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment, Kelly Property, September 6, 1994; 6. MEIR - 1994 Update Date of the Carlsbad General Plan; 7. Pacific Noise Control, Noise Assessment, dated May 24, 1995; 8. RECON Biological Surveys and Coastal California Gnatcatcher Surveys for the McReynolds Propert 13, 1995; 9. RECON Updated Biological Surveys and Coastal California Gnatcatcher Surveys for the McReynold: June 20, 1995; 10. WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc., Traffic Study for the Kelly Property, November 23, 1994. LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) 1. Sewer/Stormdrain Alternative IIB'I - Implementation of Alternative "B" as it crosses Encim would impact .02 acres of riparian vegetation. Mitigation for this impact will require the re] of this riparian vegetation at a 3:l ratio so there is no "net loss" of habitat, and if feasible, the should be tunneled under Encinas Creek to avoid impacts to the streambed and surrounding All riparian areas impacted along the proposed sewer/stormdrain alignment shall be replanted(( Prior to the issuance of a final map or grading permits, whichever occurs first, the develope required to: consult with the California Department of Fish and Game, Army Corps of En@ the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding specific permits and mitigation for impacts to .(I riparian vegetation. OR SewerlStormdrain Alternative "A" - Implementation of Alternative "A" crosses Encinas Cre to the issuance of a final map or grading permits, whichever occurs first, the developer shd Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Fish and Game Department, if requirc proposed alterations to existing natural watercourses, and shall comply with any and i 21 Rev. 31281 c *. e 0 a requirements associated therewith, pursuant to Section 1601/1603 of the Fish and Game Ci developer, in conjunction with the Department of the Army Corp of Engineers shall determinl a 404 permit shall Ibe required for alterations to wetland areas. 2. .12 acres of coastal sage scrub (CSS) habitat will be directly impacted by this project. The CSS habitat is regarded as disturbed habitat (0.05 acres) and medium to high quality habi be required to mitigate this loss of .12 acres of CSS by acquiring, for preservation, cornpara€ habitat at a 1:l ratio for the disturbed CSS and 2:l for the higher quality CSS. The developel to mitigate this impact by purchasing, for preservation, .19 acres of CSS habitat within the hi$ coastal sage scrub area found in the Carlsbad Highlands mitigation bank. This proposal sb the approval of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the California Department o Game. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall be required to co and obtain necessary “take” permits from the USFWS, the California Department of Fish and impacts to the loss of .12 acres of CSS. Pursuant to the Interim Take provisions of the 4d Rule for the California gnatcatcher, the prl 3. The CC&Rs for the project shall include a requirement, stating that flood lights from the del shall not project/shine into the native habitat areas. 4. Heavy construction adjacent to coastal sage scrub and chaparral habitat areas along the east, side of the site during the California gnatcatcher breeding season (March 1 to July 31: prohibited. ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM IIF APPLICABLE) See Attached Sheet 22 Rev. 3/28/! * 4 0 0 * APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURE AND CONCUR "El THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. L /D-PO.- y 1- &,e- "- Date "$l@aturew 23 Rev. 3/28/! ,- 3, d \o m o\ 9 a @ \d v, o\ a v1 ** ? n 2iu b6 zg o\ UW z $4 tx< wz 32 @ "0 du &I E F w 0 H n U i w @ I w Wk Zd wo $8 6s 8E 22 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST Page 1 of 1 0 QA * h .z d3 *ZS %E;g .2 8 a * *a 2 +F-J Q .r( eo% 0 (d *- g.3 5 .13 * ,E sng b 2.g Q 0 3za E&* a % .9 &.s y *a$ z bo= 0 '5; 2 :2 z 4 -z e; 83 6 3as * 00 E3 G u in >= * OQ E* Q a- "<-q y 4 Em (d 0" e4 (d E 8 '51 a .s .9 .p $ g.sp a*& 3 O a0 *z Eu 23 u * Q z(d3z QOQ3 E::; E3 *g 0 (da *s QtQ.2 * E 9s 9.- * 3 +iEZe4 * 8 zg :#a: E.2 &= .m E ?fa& &Z *$ 0 33-0 =: Q g* **e 0**5 eoQ & Q*S% * i? 3 .9 8 a a, 0 (d EN Ll Ea Q>O -4 Q 0 -3 E >-am Q 4 -3 .: -"cI 8 2 z 3 $ U a cd a 5 "13 2 +a -- P) 4 .E Ea P) E: e= d .rl 0 e= 0 sz 3.2 -33 g E *g .z 3 8 93% 553 P) 3 4 eP) so.2 z 0-JZ.c 'S .= u y 2 3="0 cd EZG ac P) h ta2 0 h *z 8 9 P)- EO 9.2 a2 -2 s .g 2 pco E:oE h22 Q) E: a a2.a 2 0.G & 2 2 g 2:z oo=E as 8 62 2 3 ccuu ;:e .- E -z q E.2 3 E: 2-s 0 &cd 6- a .9 0 202 e 6 u" ';: 5 s; 3 0.9s 2 EgzSz a 2 E II -z m &a6 c 3 G.562.24 s $01 sz$ dj4 -Ea U Y *- 0 cuk *$@aje ~~~~~~~ g'&taq II 5 -s PI .E c cll9cP)ha 2 o'z 3G p2 5 OCI CrlkZvlSdP: