HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 94-11; Mar Vista; Tentative Map (CT) (9)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. CT 94-11/HDP 94-09/SDP 94-10/ZC 94-04/LCPA 94-04
DATE: SEPTEMBER 18, 1995
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Mar Vista
2. APPLICANT: Christa McRevnolds
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2316 Calle Chiquita. La Jolla. California 92073,
(619) 454-5385
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: November 7. 1994
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A tentative map for 49 single-family residential lots ranging in size from
7.500 to 35.353 square feet, a 19.25 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) two alternative sewer line/storm drain alignments (A&B) that connect from the property 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; and (4) the construction of a local public street from
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, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact", or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation
Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning Transportation/Circulation Public Services
Population and Housing X Biological Resources Utilities and Service Systems
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. 3/28/95
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared. D
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been
added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. D
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. D
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one
potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described
on attached sheets. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed. 0
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT
be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately
in an earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have
been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice
of Prior Compliance has been prepared. D
\ ^ Sgy-^kr Z<3 1775
Planner Sfg'natur^ Date
Plannir^Directaf Signature / Daterectof Signature /
Rev. 3/28/95
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental
Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental
Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical,
biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information
to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration,
or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
• A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact"
answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply
does not apply to projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when
there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general
standards.
• "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact
is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies.
• "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant
Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation
measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
• "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant.
Based on an "EIA-Part IT, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the
environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances
requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required
by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare
an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable
standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been
made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project
or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
Rev. 3/28/95
• If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there
are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation
measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate
"Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated
Negative Declaration may be prepared.
° An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited
to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or
mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to
mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding
Considerations" for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed
mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part
n analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to
below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing
mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
Rev. 3/28/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): )
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project? ()
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? ()
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)? ()
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? ()
H. 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? ()
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
x
JL
x
Rev. 3/28/95
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? ()
h) Expansive soils? ()
i) Unique geologic or physical features? ()
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface runoff? ()
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? ()
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? ()
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water 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 groundwater recharge
capability? ()
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
0
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ()
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
x
X
X
Rev. 3/28/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
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? ()
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? 0
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? ()
VH. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
X
No
Impact
X
X
x
X
Rev. 3/28/95
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? ()
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ()
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)? ()
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ()
VEI. 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? ()
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? ()
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
X
Less Than
Significant
Impact
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? ()
X
X
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
Rev. 3/28/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? ()
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ()
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ()
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? ().
b) Police protection? ()
c) Schools? 0
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
0
e) Other governmental services? ()
XH. 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? ()
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
X
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
Rev. 3/28/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
. 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
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
X
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
x
x
X
X
X
10 Rev. 3/28/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wild life species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
XVH. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following
on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for
review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based
on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from
the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the
project.
11 Rev. 3/28/95
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING:
This Mitigated Negative Declaration was originally submitted for public review on February 1, 1995. The State
Clearinghouse (SCH #95021007) public review period closed on March 6, 1995. The document is being revised
and recirculated for public review based on comments received by the State Coastal Commission and the Fish and
Game Department, a change in the project description, and an update to the project's biological impact analysis
and the Initial Study Checklist. The developer has added an alternative sewer line and stormdrain alignment "A"
for the project from Vista De Olas, through Lot No. 19, and north to the existing east/west sewer line in Canyon
de las Encinas. In response to State resource agency comments regarding impacts and the level of analysis, an
updated Biological Survey and Coastal California Gnatcatcher Survey has been submitted with the project which
further analyzes the environmental impacts of the project, sewer and stormdrain alignment "B", and the new sewer
and stormdrain alignment "A" as shown on the Mar Vista Tentative Map, (See the discussion under Biological
Environment).
Since the publishing and public review of the original Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, dated
February 1, 1995, the California Department of Fish and Game, the California Coastal Commission, and the Army
Corps of Engineers in a Section 7 Consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service have all issued
permits or approvals for the construction of Hidden Valley Road from Palomar Airport Road to the northern
property boundary of the City's Poinsettia Community Park. Hidden Valley Road would provide primary access
to the project from Palomar Airport Road, and it's construction would not significantly impact the environment as
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 Hidden Valley
Road, and north of Camino de las Ondas, in the City of Carlsbad. The eastern half of the property is utilized for
agriculture. The majority of the site contains very gently sloping topography that rises from west to east. The
western half of the property consists of a finger canyon which continues north and connects with Canyon de las
Encinas. The flat developable areas of the property are rimmed by steep slopes along the west and north.
Topographic elevations on the site range from approximately 52 feet in the canyon floor to 180 feet above mean
sea level on the gently sloping mesa. The site is underlain by the Eocene Delmar Formation and Friars Formation,
which are both capped by Quaternary terrace deposits. These bedrock formations are mantled by alluvium, topsoil,
landslide deposits, and undocumented fill soils. Six vegetation types are present on the property: (1)
ruderal/agriculture on the mesa; (2) pampas grass, diegan coastal sage scrub, and southern mixed chaparral along
the steeper slopes, and; (3) riparian southern willow scrub, and baccharis/mule fat in the canyon.
Vehicular access to the site would be provided by a local street leading from a future non-loaded collector street
named Hidden Valley Road. Hidden Valley Road would travel east of the property and intersect with Camino de
las Ondas to the south and intersect with Palomar Airport Road to the north. The project would sewer north and
connect with the existing east/west sewer line in Canyon de las 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 ridge
to the east of the site (Emerald Ridge - West) at elevation 170 feet, it is not physically possible to sewer the project
through the already approved sewer line in future Hidden Valley Road, therefore, another sewer line that flows
directly to the north of the site is required. The alignment of future Hidden Valley Road from Palomar Airport
Road to Camino del las Ondas has already been environmentally reviewed and approved by two previous projects;
the City's Poinsettia Community Park project - (CUP 92-05), and the Sambi Vesting Tentative Map - (CT 92-02).
The environmental documents for these projects are on file in the Planning Department.
12 Rev. 3/28/95
The project site is located within the boundaries of Specific Plan 203 which covers the 640 acre Zone 20 Planning
Area. The certified Final Program EIR 90-03 for Specific Plan 203 addresses the potential environmental impacts
associated with the future buildout of the Zone 20 Specific Plan area and is on file in the Planning Department.
Use of a Program EIR enables the City to characterize the overall environmental impacts of the specific plan. The
Final Program EIR contains broad, general environmental analysis that serves as an information base to be
consulted when ultimately approving subsequent development projects (i.e. tentative maps, site development plans,
grading permits, etc...) within the specific plan area. The City can avoid having to "reinvent the wheel" with each
subsequent development project by analyzing, in the program EIR, the regional influences, secondary effects,
cumulative impacts, and broad alternatives associated with buildout of the planning area. The applicable and
recommended mitigation measures of Final EIR 90-03 will be included as conditions of approval for this project.
This subsequent expanded "Initial Study" is intended to supplement the Final EIR and provide more focused and
detailed project level analysis of site specific environmental impacts and, if applicable, provide more refined project
level mitigation measures as required by Final EIR 90-03. Mitigation measures that are applicable to the project
and already included in Final EIR 90-03 will be added to the tentative map resolution and new mitigation measures
not evaluated in Final EIR 90-03 will be included in this Mitigated Negative Declaration. For example, additional
environmental impacts not addressed in Final EIR 90-03 include riparian impacts created by the offsite sewer
alignment "B".
In addition to the Final EIR for Specific Plan 203, more recently the City has certified a Final Master
Environmental Impact Report for an update of the 1994 General Plan. The certified Master EIR is on file in the
Planning Department. The Master EIR serves as the basis of environmental review and impact mitigation for
project's that are consistent with the plan, including projects within Specific Plan 203. Projects covered under the
Master EIR for the General Plan include implementation activities such as rezoning of properties, specific plans,
and the approval of development plans, including tentative maps, conditional use permits, and other land use
permits.
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT:
Topography. Geotechnical. & Grading:
Development of the site would include 47,000 cubic yards of grading to accommodate building pads, lots, utilities,
drainage structures, and onsite local public roadways. The proposed grading conforms to the City's Hillside
Development Ordinance and manufactured slopes would be landform/contour graded, screened with landscaping,
and not exceed 30 feet in height, therefore the alteration of the topography would not be considered a significant
physical impact. The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Leighton and Associates Inc., dated July
18, 1989 states that; "Based on the results of our preliminary geotechnical investigation of the site, it is our opinion
that the proposed residential development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided the recommendations
of this report are incorporated into the project plans and specifications". A grading permit is requked for the
project, therefore, the City's adopted grading permit standards, including required compliance with the geotechnical
study, would ensure that the project has proper erosion control measures including landscaping on manufactured
slopes, adequate drainage facilities, and proper soil compaction. These items are all required by the Engineering
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. Development
of the project would create impervious surfaces onsite which reduce absorption rates and increase surface runoff
and runoff velocities. In addition, drainage from the project's roofs, streets, driveways, slopes, and yards would
13 Rev. 3/28/95
constitute a potentially significant impact to water quality due to potential pollutants in the "non-point source"
urban runoff. Buildout of the General Plan, including residential development within Specific Plan 203, may
significantly impact hydrological resources, therefore, the appropriate, and recommended General Plan mitigation
measures will be added as a condition of this project - (Section 5.2.5, Page 5.2-8, Master EIR 93-01). Prior to
approval of a grading permit the applicant must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The applicant would be required to provide the best management practices
to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive biological areas. Compliance with
this requirement would reduce any water quality impacts to below a level of significance. Grading Permit
standards and the Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Plan require adequate drainage facilities to service the site.
Hydrology standards of the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program require that post development surface
run-off, from a 10-year/6 hour storm event, must not carry any increased velocity at the property line. To meet
this standard, energy dissipation facilities (i.e. rip-rap) would be provided along the drainage course, in addition
to a permanent regional basin proposed west of future Hidden Valley Road, adjacent to Encinas Creek at the 67
foot elevation.
Air Quality:
Final EIR 90-03 for the Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP 203) discussed air quality impacts, however, this discussion
has now been supplemented by the Air Quality Section 5.3 of the Master EIR. The implementation of projects
that are consistent with the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption
and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors
to ah" pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a "non-
attainment basin", any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued
development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the
air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation
measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection
improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the
implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative
modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site
design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project
or are included as conditions of project approval.
Section 3.3.2.2 of Final EIR 90-03 and Section 5.3.3 of the Master EIR both indicate that construction activities
associated with implementation of the Specific Plan and General Plan will produce short term air quality impacts
in the form of dust from grading and traffic on dirt roads, and emissions from construction equipment. To reduce
these short-term construction impacts to the lowest extent possible the project would be conditioned with mitigation
measures designed to reduce dust and construction emissions - (Final EIR 90-03, Section 3.3.3, Page DI-33; and
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 locally, but
operation-related emissions are still considered cumulatively significant because the area is located within a "non-
attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked " YES - significant". This project is not
required to prepare an EIR because the recent certification of the Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council
Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air quality impacts. This
14 Rev. 3/28/95
"Statement Of Overriding Consideration" applies to all projects covered by the Master EIR, including residential
projects in Specific Plan 203, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required.
Cultural & Paleontological Resources:
Section 3.60 of Final EIR 90-03 identified no archaeological or historic sites within the project boundaries. Sdi-
9607 is identified as the closest resource site within the area and it is located approximately 100 to 300 meters east
of the property. The offsite public road that provides access to the property through Emerald Ridge - West could
potentially impact CA-SDI-9607, therefore, a Historical/Archaeological Survey of the site was prepared by Gallegos
& Associates, Dated September 1994. The report concluded that due to the limited number or artifacts and the
disturbed nature of the deposit, site CA-SDI-9607(W-115) is identified as not important under CEQA and the City
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 resources
throughout the entire specific planning area, with a high potential for the discovery of fossils during future grading
and construction activities. To reduce this potential impact to below a level of significance the project would be
conditioned with mitigation measures designed to protect paleontological resources - (Section 3.10.0, Page III-107,
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 size of the
specific plan area. Given the large number of property owners and their differing development horizons and the
inevitable change in biological conditions over the long-term buildout of the specific plan area, it is not possible
to mitigate biological impacts from the buildout of the entire specific plan under one comprehensive open space
easement that crosses property lines or a habitat revegetation/enhancement plan sponsored solely by the property
owners. The implementation of the biological section of the EIR is based on future site specific biological survey
studies that focus on the impacts created by individual subsequent development projects. These additional biological
studies are required to consider the baseline data and biological open space recommendations of Final EIR 90-03
and provide more detailed and current resource surveys plotted at the tentative map scale for each property. The
range of the future mitigation options may include preservation of sensitive habitat onsite in conjunction with
enhancement/revegetation plans, payment of fees into a regional conservation plan, or the purchase and protection
of similar habitat offsite.
Project Level Biological Reports:
To meet these EIR requirements a biological resources field survey was prepared for the project by RECON, dated
January 1995 and updated June 20, 1995. In addition, a Biological Survey Report for an adjacent property
(Emerald Ridge - West), prepared by Brian Mooney Associated, dated August 1995, evaluated impacts created by
the project's local access road which leads from future Hidden Valley Road through Emerald Ridge - West to the
project site. These subsequent biological studies are intended to provide more focused, current, and detailed project
level analysis of site specific biological impacts and provide more refined project level mitigation measures as
required by Final EIR 90-03.
The project site was surveyed for sensitive plant and animal species and three (3) sensitive plant species were
identified onsite, and five (5) sensitive wildlife species were observed either onsite or within the sewer line
15 Rev. 3/28/95
alignment "B". All three sensitive plant species would be preserved in the proposed 19.24 acre open space lot.
The "threatened" coastal California gnatcatcher was observed in the Diegan coastal sage scrub and the mule fat
scrub along the west side of the site. The least Bell's vireo and the willow flycatcher occur in riparian habitat,
however, they were not observed on the site. The potential for these species to occur in the area is considered low
because of the small size and extent of the riparian habitat. The property was also surveyed for the burrowing owl
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 stormdrain
alignment "B" would create additional significant impacts to riparian habitat not discussed in Final EIR 90-03,
therefore, mitigation measures designed to reduce biological impacts to below a level of significance will be
required as part of the project. Alignment "B" may have a potentially significant impact on sensitive biological
habitat which is under the jurisdiction of two (2) "Responsible" public resource agencies, the California Coastal
Commission and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). The construction of the project's sewer
may be considered an alteration to a streambed and require a permit from the CDFG and the Army Corp of
Engineers. If feasible, the Alternative "B" sewer line should be tunneled under Encinas Creek to avoid impacts
to the wetlands. To reduce riparian impacts to below a level of significance, and contingent on the approval of
the appropriate resources agencies, any areas of riparian habitat disturbed by construction of the sewer line shall
be replanted/enhanced with native riparian species at a 3:1 ratio so there is no "net loss" of habitat, and impacts
are temporary. The project will be required to obtain all necessary or applicable resources agency permits prior
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 the project's
Mitigated Negative Declaration, the developer has proposed a more environmentally sensitive sewer and stormdrain
alignment "A. If the newly proposed and environmentally preferred alternative sewer and stormdrain alignment
"A" is implemented, then no native habitat would be impacted and habitat mitigation is not required, per the
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 access road
leading from future Hidden Valley Road, through Emerald Ridge-West, to the project site would impact
approximately 0.05 acres of disturbed coastal sage scrub habitat (CSS). Because the off-site CSS habitat is
regarded as disturbed and the remaining high quality CSS habitat in this area would be preserved, the project shall
be conditioned to mitigate the 0.05 acre CSS impact by acquiring, for preservation, comparable quality habitat at
a ratio of 1:1. The developer is proposing to mitigate this impact by purchasing, for preservation, .05 acres of
Coastal Sage Scrub habitat within the high quality, coastal sage scrub area found in the Carlsbad Highlands
mitigation bank (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 alternative, it
provides primary access to an otherwise landlocked area that is surrounded by steep slopes and high quality CSS,
and it would result in the loss of 0.05 acres of disturbed CSS habitat, therefore, prior to the issuance of a grading
permit the City may have to authorize this project to draw from the City's 167.5 acre (5%) CSS take allowance.
The take of 0.05 acres of CSS habitat from the Emerald Ridge-West property site will not impair the ability of the
City to implement it's draft Habitat Management Plan (subregional NCCP). Prior to completion of a subregional
NCCP/Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP), interim approval must be secured for losses of coastal sage
16 Rev. 3/28/95
scrub habitat. A procedure has been established which allows the local jurisdiction to benefit from the 4(d) rule.
This procedure includes: establishment of the base number of acres of coastal sage scrub habitat in the subregion,
calculate 5% for the interim habitat loss, and keep a cumulative record of all interim habitat losses. The City of
Carlsbad has calculated that 5% of the base acreage of coastal sage scrub is 165.70 acres. As of March, 1995,3.96
acres have been taken. The loss of coastal sage scrub due to the Mar Vista project (0.05 acres) would result in
a cumulative habitat loss of 4.01 acres for the HMP area once all the approved loses have been taken. This loss
does not exceed the 5% guideline of 165.70 acres. The 0.05 acre take area is located outside of any Preserve
Planning Areas. The habitat loss will not preclude connectivity between areas of high habitat values since this area
is not included as a part of a Linkage Planning Area (LPA). The habitat loss will not preclude or prevent the
preparation of the Carlsbad HMP in that the area is not a part of a Linkage Planning Area, makes no contribution
to the overall preserve system and will not significantly impact the use of habitat patches as archipelago or stepping
stones to surrounding PPAs.
The habitat loss has been reduced or mitigated by the design of the project, in that this access alignment is the most
sensitive in terms of habitat and slope impact. Mitigation for the loss of the 0.05 acres of CSS will be in the form
of the acquisition of habitat credits as discussed above. The loss of habitat on the Emerald Ridge-West property
will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the gnatcatcher. The habitat loss is
located in a disturbed area that is directly adjacent to future Hidden Valley Road and the Poinsettia Community
Park, therefore, large blocks of habitat will not be lost and fragmentation will not occur. The habitat area being
impacted is at the periphery of a larger CSS habitat area; it is not in the center where the loss of habitat would be
more important.
The habitat loss is incidental to otherwise lawful activities. The development of the Mar Vista property is a legal
development and all required permits will be obtained. Mitigation for impacts to the CSS habitat will be
accomplished in the form of purchase of equal or better habitat credits at an off-site location. This mitigation area
has been identified as the Carlsbad Highlands Mitigation Bank site which has previously been accepted by the
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 property per the
RECON surveys, there may be an indirect impact to the gnatcatcher from the project's lights. These impacts can
be avoided by directing construction and project lighting away from the native habitats. The development will be
conditioned to prohibit any flood lights from projecting into native habitat areas. The RECON report was also
determined that noise from the construction of the project would not significantly impact gnatcatchers in the area.
Future Hidden Valley Road Impacts:
An offsite access requirement for this project includes the construction of future Hidden Valley Road from Camino
de las Ondas to Palomar Airport Road. The Initial Study and adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Sambi Project - (CT 92-02), identified significant biological impacts associated with the construction of the
northern segment of Hidden Valley Road from Poinsettia Community Park north to Palomar Airport Road. As
part of the Sambi project a preliminary biological mitigation program was also adopted to reduce significant
biological impacts associated with the roadway. As of the date of preparation of this Initial Study all required
Local, State, and Federal permits have been obtained for the construction of Hidden Valley Road. Since CT 94-11
(Mar Vista) is dependent on this offsite roadway for access, compliance with all approved biological mitigation
as part of all local and resource agency permits will become a condition of approval for this project. If the
developer constructs the roadway as part of this project, then that developer must comply with the terms and
17 Rev. 3/28/95
conditions of the applicable permits.
Agriculture:
The relatively level portions of the site are currently being utilized for agricultural purposes. The site's soil (Marina
Loamy Coarse Sand (MIC) & Chesterson Fine Sandy Loam (CfB)) is not considered prime, Class I or n,
agricultural soil. The site is located in the Coastal Agricultural Overlay Zone (Site n) of the Mello n Segment
of the Local Coastal Program. Section 3.0 of Final EIR 90-03 evaluated impacts created by the conversion of
agricultural land use to urban land use in the overlay zone. The EIR concluded that the cumulative loss of
agricultural land could be offset with the mitigation measures established and required by Mello n Segment of
the LCP, therefore, the appropriate condition will be added to the project - (Section 3.1.3, Page IH-20, EIR 90-03).
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 Medium (RM)
land use designation and density established by the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan. The RM
designation allows up to 8 dwelling units per net acre with a Growth Control Point of 6 dwelling units per net acre.
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 significant impacts
to future residents from accumulations of hazardous chemicals in the soil. To evaluate this potential impact a
Preliminary Pesticide Residue Survey was prepared by Geo Soils Inc., dated June 1994. The survey report
indicates that very low level concentrations of three pesticides (3); 4,4'-DDE, 4,4'-DDT, and toxaphene were
detected in soil samples taken from the site. The report concluded that the pesticide levels in the random soil
samples were sufficiently below regulatory levels to not warrant additional testing or assessment. The report made
a similar conclusion for two Dioxin isomers found at very low levels in the soil on the site, therefore, the potential
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 agricultural
chemicals and the future development of residential land uses. As phased development proceeds within the specific
plan area, interface conflicts associated with pesticide spraying, irrigation runoff, and odor impacts may arise
between agricultural operations and residential uses. To reduce such impacts to below a level of significance, the
appropriate EIR recommended mitigation measures will be made a condition of the project - (Section 3.9.3, Page
ni-103, Final EIR 90-03). Mitigation will include walls, drainage control, and a notification to all future residential
land owners that this area is subject to dust, pesticide, and odors associated with adjacent agricultural operations.
Light and Glare:
The property is surrounded by open space to the west and north, a future public park with several lighted sports
fields to the south, and similar residentially zoned property to the east, therefore, the light generated from the
vehicles, street lights, and homes in this single-family project will not significantly impact the surrounding land
uses.
18 Rev. 3/28/95
Circulation:
The project would increase local traffic in the area, however, a Traffic Study prepared for the project by WPA
Traffic Engineering, Inc., dated October 1994, and a Traffic Impact Analysis conducted as part of the Zone 20
Specific Plan indicates that compliance with the circulation requirements of the Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP 203),
Final Program EIR 90-03, and the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 20 would mitigate any significant
local traffic impacts - (Section 3.5, Page HI-58, Final EIR 90-03). Final EIR 90-03 for the Zone 20 Specific Plan
(SP 203) evaluated circulation impacts, however, this discussion has now been supplemented by the Circulation
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 and financing
have been accounted for in this plan to accommodate the residential development. The residential land use would
be consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the project would not significantly impact public facilities and
planned land uses. In addition, a condition will be added to the project to require that the developer enter into an
agreement with the appropriate school district to ensure that there are adequate school facilities available to serve
the residential subdivision - (Section 3.11, Page HI-112, Final EIR 90-03).
Noise:
Section 3.8 of Final EIR 90-03 evaluated potential noise impacts for future projects located in Specific Plan 203
and recommended that noise studies be prepared for projects impacted by traffic and airport noise. A portion of
the site is located within the 60 to 65 dBA CNEL contour, therefore, noise from existing Palomar Airport Road,
Paseo Del Norte, and the airport would create a significant impact on the homes in this project. A Noise Technical
Report was prepared for the project by RECON, dated December 1994. Noise levels on the project site will exceed
the Noise Element's exterior traffic noise standard of 60 CNEL and the interior noise standard of 45 CNEL,
therefore, mitigation measures are required to reduce the noise levels to the adopted standard. The project will be
conditioned to comply with all the appropriate mitigation recommendations of Section 3.8.3 of Final EIR 90-03
and the recommendations of the project's noise report. Noise mitigation will include perimeter sound attenuation
walls and the utilization of construction techniques and materials designed to provide adequate sound attenuation.
Visual Aesthetics:
Section 3.13 of Final EIR 90-03 analyzed potentially visual impacts created by development within Specific Plan
203, including this property. It was determined that visual impacts to the Palomar Airport Road Viewshed
(Vantage Point 7, Figure 3.16-6) could be potentially significant. To reduce these potential impacts to below a
level significance the EIR recommended mitigation measures, including additional visual analysis - (Section 3.13.3,
Page m-49, Final EIR 90-03).
The proposed project is a residential lot subdivision, and at this point in time, no residential structures are being
planned. Due to the visual sensitivity of the site and it's location adjacent to a future public park, the Planning
Department is recommending that the Qualified Overlay Zone be placed on the property. This will ensure that a
Site Development Plan (SDP), in compliance with the standards of the Qualified Overlay Zone, is processed for
the placement and design of the future homes. This future SDP will evaluate visual impacts created by the building
height, building facades, roof lines, and colors of homes along the northern and western 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
19 Rev. 3/28/95
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 will impact .05 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat.
However, mitigation measures included as part of this EIA 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
adverse impact. Given the attached mitigation conditions, this project has "NO" significant physical environmental
impacts, therefore, there is no substantial adverse impact and no justification for requiring a discussion of
alternatives, (an alternative would not lessen an impact if there is no substantial adverse impact).
20 Rev. 3/28/95
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 as Emerald
Ridge - West) and Test of Site CA-SDI-9607 (W-115), September 1994;
4. GeoSoils, Inc., Preliminary Pesticide Residue Survey, McReynolds Property, June 15, 1994;
5. Leighton and Associates, Inc., Geotechnical Investigation, July 18, 1989, and Supplemental Geotechnical
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 Property, January
13, 1995;
8. RECON Updated Biological Surveys and Coastal California Gnatcatcher Surveys for the McReynolds Property,
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.
21 Rev. 3/28/95
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
1. Sewer/Storm drain Alternative "B" - Implementation of Alternative "B" as it crosses Encinas Creek,
would impact .02 acres of riparian vegetation. Mitigation for this impact will require the replacement
of this riparian vegetation at a 3:1 ratio so there is no "net loss" of habitat, and if feasible, the sewer line
should be tunneled under Encinas Creek to avoid impacts to the streambed and surrounding wetlands.
All riparian areas impacted along the proposed sewer/stormdrain alignment shall be replanted/enhanced.
Prior to the issuance of a final map or grading permits, whichever occurs first, the developer shall be
required to: consult with the California Department of Fish and Game, Army Corps of Engineers, and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding specific permits and mitigation for impacts to .02 acres of
riparian vegetation.
OR
Sewer/Stormdrain Alternative "A" - Implementation of Alternative "A" crosses Encinas Creek. Prior
to the issuance of a final map or grading permits, whichever occurs first, the developer shall obtain a
Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Fish and Game Department, if required for any
proposed alterations to existing natural watercourses, and shall comply with any and all permit
requirements associated therewith, pursuant to Section 1601/1603 of the Fish and Game Code. The
developer, in conjunction with the Department of the Army Corp of Engineers shall determine whether
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 impacted
CSS habitat is regarded as low quality. Pursuant to the Interim Take provisions of the 4d Rule for the
California gnatcatcher, the project shall be required to mitigate this loss of .05 acres of CSS by
acquiring for preservation comparable quality habitat at a 1:1 ratio. The developer proposes to mitigate
this impact by purchasing, for preservation, .05 acres of CSS habitat within the high quality, coastal
sage scrub area found in the Carlsbad Highlands mitigation bank. This proposal shall require the
approval of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the California Department of Fish and
Game. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall be required to consult with
and obtain necessary "take" permits from the USFWS, the California Department of Fish and Game for
impacts to the loss of .05 acres of CSS.
3. Prior to construction of Hidden Valley Road from Palomar Airport Road south to Poinsettia Community
Park, the developer shall comply with all California Department of Fish and Game, Army Corps of
Engineers, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service permits and the approved final biological mitigation plans
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 development
shall not project/shine into the native habitat areas.
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
See Attached Sheet
22 Rev. 3/28/95
ft
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES
AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
tfc
Date Signature
23 Rev. 3/28/95
piiB
•uopBttuojui Jaqjo JGJ JO 'aansBSUl uopeSpiui 3uio§uo jo SHJBJS Suiquosap JQJ B3jy =
aq HIM uuinjoo siqj 'pajuauiaidun uaaq ssq sjnsBaui uopsSpiui usq/^ = uopBjU9ui9|dmi
puB pqBijiu; aq fliM uiunioo siqj 'suBjd uo u/vvoqs si sjnsBaui uopBSpiiu uaq^ = SUBJJ uo
SUIJOJTUOUI JDJ qqisuodsaj 'yt)U9§v JO *}U9Ui}JBd9Q =
•9ApB|ntuno 'SuioSuo '
S3UlpB9JJ JO
dBui jBug
JO JBAOjddB O} JOIJJ
PBO^ Xq^A usppjH
joj ;iuiJ9d SuipBjS
jo aouBnssi oj JOTJ<J
jiuijad
SuipBjS jo dBui |Bug
jo aouBnssi oj Jou<j
jiiujgd
SuipBjS jo dBiu [Bug
jo aouBnssi o; JOTJJ
SiJJBlUS^uopn^uauiajduii
P9TJI49A
sireu
uo UAvoqs
SUIUUBJJ
SUIUUBJJ
§UIUUB|<J
SuiUUBJJ
^uaaqjedag
Suuojiuoj^
pgfojj
pgfojj
josfojj
pafojj
8<L£XSuuajiuopv
S^^OO J9C^ SB9JB
jBjiqBq o;ui Sumiqs s;qSij jo uopoujs^j
PBOH MJBA
U9PP!H JOJ sjiui-isd Xbu9§B qjiAv gouBijduio^
sjiuijdd AbuaSB qqBoijddB
- ..V,, JU9UIU§IJB UIBJp UIJO)S pUB J9M9§
S}TUIJ9d AOU9§B pUB UB|d UOpBSpTUI UBUBdlJ
- ugu ;U9UIU3}1B UTBJp UIJOJS pUB J9M9§
danseajv UDi)eSi^i]^
•(9'180IZ
S90jnos9^ onqnj) Q8l£ ll!9 ^tqtuassv oj psdsaa qji/w s^uguiajinbgj Suuojiuoui S^IQ gqj sipjinj pus 'p9;u9ui9|duii pus qji/vv paiiduioo U99q
9jnsB9ui uopBSpim siq; jBqj sajBojpui gjnsBsai uopsSpiui qoB9 joj jsipiosqo psuSis pUB pajsjduioo v 'souBogiuSisui jo pA9j B oj spsdiui
i 9}B§piui o; jgpjo ui pgfojd siq; JQJ iBAOJddv jo suopipuoQ gqj ojui pgjBJodjooui SJSM sgjnsBSiu uopsSpiui IBJUSUIUOJIAUS §UIMOHOJ
dCIS/60-t>6
"OHQ 'OHN TVNOLLIONODDZ :s>T3awnN mu VXSIA -LDHJTOHd
ENVIRON^NTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOlBr- PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. CT 94-11/HDP 94-09/SDP 94-10/ZC 94-04/LCPA 94-04
DATE: December 29. 1994
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Mar Vista
2. APPLICANT: Christa McRevnolds - Trustee
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2316 Calle Chiauita
La Jolla CA 92037
(619) 454-5385
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: November 7. 1994
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A tentative map for 49 single-family residential lots ranging in size from 7.500
to 35.298 sq. ft., 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) a sewer line that
connects from the property to an existing east/west sewer line along Encinas Creek: (3) the construction of
Hidden Valley Road from Camino de las Qndas to Palomar Airport Road: (4) the alignment of a trail adjacent
to the northern segment of Hidden Valley Road, and: (5) the construction of a local public street from Hidden
Valley Road to the project site.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact
Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact
Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist, identifies any physical, biological and
human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for
deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration.
* A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its
aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" will be checked to indicate this
determination.
* An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the project may
cause a significant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negative Declaration however, if adverse
impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemed insignificant These findings are shown in the
checklist under the headings "YES-sig" and "YES-insig" respectively.
NOTE; If "YES sig" is checked, the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been
analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a
"Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION
OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which
would otherwise be determined significant.
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO
(sig) (insig)
1. Result in unstable earth conditions or
increase the exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards?
2. Appreciably change the topography or any
unique physical features?
3. Result in or be affected by erosion of soils
either on or off the site?
4. Result in changes in the deposition of beach
sands, or modification of the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or
any bay, inlet or lake?
5. Result in substantial adverse effects on
ambient air quality?
6. Result in substantial changes in air
movement, odor, moisture, or temperature?
7. Substantially change the course or flow of
water (marine, fresh or flood waters)?
8. Affect the quantity or quality of surface
water, ground water or public water supply?
9. Substantially increase usage or cause
depletion of any natural resources?
10. Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
11. Alter a significant archeological,
paleontological or historical site,
structure or object?
-2-
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO
(sig) (insig)
12. Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic
plants)?
13. Introduce new species of plants into an area,
or a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
14. Reduce the amount of acreage of any
agricultural crop or affect prime, unique
or other farmland of state or local
importance?
15. Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals, all water dwelling organisms
and insects?
16. Introduce new species of animals into an
area, or result hi a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals?
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO
(sig) (insig)
17. Alter the present or planned land use
of an area? X
18. Substantially affect public utilities,
schools, police, fire, emergency or other
public services?
-3-
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO
(sig) (insig)
19. Result in the need for new or modified sewer
systems, solid waste or hazardous waste
control systems? X
20. Increase existing noise levels?
21. Produce new light or glare?
22. Involve a significant risk of an explosion
or the release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
23. Substantially alter the density of the
human population of an area?
24. Affect existing housing, or create a demand
for additional housing?
25. Generate substantial additional traffic?
26. Affect existing parking facilities, or
create a large demand for new parking?
27. Impact existing transportation systems or
alter present patterns of circulation or
movement of people and/or goods?
28. Alter waterborne, rail or ah" traffic?
29. Increase traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
30. Interfere with emergency response plans or
emergency evacuation plans?
31. Obstruct any scenic vista or create an
aesthetically offensive public view?
32. Affect the quality or quantity of
existing recreational opportunities?
-4-
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO
(sig) (insig)
33. Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal, or
eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory. X
34. Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals? (A short-
term impact on the environment is one which
occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period
of time while long-term impacts will endure well
into the future.)
35. Does the project have the possible environmental
effects which are individually limited but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that
the incremental effects of an individual 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.)
36. Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
-5-
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 Hidden Valley
Road, and north of Camino de las Ondas, in the City of Carlsbad. The eastern half of the property is utilized
for agriculture. The majority of the site contains very gently sloping topography that rises from west to east.
The western half of the property consists of a finger canyon which continues north and connects with Canyon
de las Encinas. The flat developable areas of the property are rimmed by steep slopes along the west and north.
Topographic elevations on the site range from approximately 52 feet in the canyon floor to 180 feet above mean
sea level on the gently sloping mesa. The site is underlain by the Eocene Delmar Formation and Friars
Formation, which are both capped by Quaternary terrace deposits. These bedrock formations are mantled by
alluvium, topsoil, landslide deposits, and undocumented fill soils. Six vegetation types are present on the
property: (1) ruderal/agriculture on the mesa; (2) pampas grass, diegan coastal sage scrub, and southern mixed
chaparral along the steeper slopes, and; (3) riparian southern willow scrub, and baccharis/mule fat in the canyon.
Vehicular access to the site would be provided by a local street leading from a future non-loaded collector street
named Hidden Valley Road. Hidden Valley Road would travel east of the property and intersect with Camino
de las Ondas to the south and intersect with Palomar Airport Road to the north. The project would sewer north
and connect with the existing east/west sewer line in Canyon de las Encinas. The alignment of future Hidden
Valley Road from Palomar Airport Road to Camino del las Ondas has already been environmentally reviewed
and approved by two previous projects; the City's Poinsettia Community Park project - (CUP 92-05), and the
Sambi Vesting Tentative Map - (CT 92-02). The environmental documents for these projects are on file in the
Planning Department.
The project site is located within the boundaries of Specific Plan 203 which covers the 640 acre Zone 20
Planning Area. The certified Final Program EIR 90-03 for Specific Plan 203 addresses the potential
environmental impacts associated with the future buildout of the Zone 20 Specific Plan area and is on file in
the Planning Department. Use of a Program EIR enables the City to characterize the overall environmental
impacts of the specific plan. The Final Program EIR contains broad, general environmental analysis that serves
as an information base to be consulted when ultimately approving subsequent development projects (i.e. tentative
maps, site development plans, grading permits, etc...) within the specific plan area. The City can avoid having
to "reinvent the wheel" with each subsequent development project by analyzing, in the program EIR, the regional
influences, secondary effects, cumulative impacts, and broad alternatives associated with buildout of the planning
area. The applicable and recommended mitigation measures of Final EIR 90-03 will be included as conditions
of approval for this project. This subsequent expanded "Initial Study" is intended to supplement the Final EIR
and provide more focused and detailed project level analysis of site specific environmental impacts and, if
applicable, provide more refined project level mitigation measures as required by Final EIR 90-03. As an
example, additional environmental impacts not addressed in Final EIR 90-03 include riparian impacts created
by the offsite alignment of the new sewer, and the proposed trail along Hidden Valley Road north to Palomar
Airport Road.
In addition to the Final EIR for Specific Plan 203, more recently the City has certified a Final Master
Environmental Impact Report for an update of the 1994 General Plan. The certified Master EIR is on file in
the Planning Department. The Master EIR serves as the basis of environmental review and impact mitigation
for subsequent project's that are consistent with the plan, including projects within Specific Plan 203.
Subsequent projects under the Master EIR for the General Plan include implementation activities such as
-6-
rezoning of properties, specific plans, and the approval of development plans, including tentative maps,
conditional use permits, and other land use permits.
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT:
Topography. Geotechnical. & Grading:
Development of the site would include 47,000 cubic yards of grading to accommodate building pads, lots,
utilities, drainage structures, and local public roadways. The proposed grading conforms to the City's Hillside
Development Ordinance and manufactured slopes would be landform/contour graded, screened with landscaping,
and not exceed 30 feet in height, therefore the alteration of the topography would not be considered a significant
physical impact. The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Leighton and Associates Inc., dated
July 18,1989 states that; "Based on the results of our preliminary geotechnical investigation of the site, it is our
opinion that the proposed residential development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided the
recommendations of this report are incorporated into the project plans and specifications". A grading permit
is required for the project, therefore, the City's adopted grading permit standards, including required compliance
with the geotechnical study, would ensure that the project has proper erosion control measures including
landscaping on manufactured slopes, adequate drainage facilities, and proper soil compaction. These items are
all required by the Engineering 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.
Development of the project would create impervious surfaces onsite which reduce absorption rates and increase
surface runoff and runoff velocities. In addition, drainage from the project's roofs, streets, driveways, slopes,
and yards would constitute a potentially significant impact to water quality due to potential pollutants in the
"non-point source" urban runoff. Buildout of the General Plan, including residential development within Specific
Plan 203, may significantly impact hydrological resources, therefore, the appropriate, and recommended General
Plan mitigation measures will be added as a condition of this project - (Section 5.2.5, Page 5.2-8, Master EIR
93-01). Prior to approval of a grading permit the applicant must comply with the requirements of the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The applicant would be required to provide the best
management practices to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive
biological areas. Compliance with this requirement would reduce any water quality impacts to below a level
of significance. Grading Permit standards and the Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Plan require adequate
drainage facilities to service the site. Hydrology standards of the Mello n Segment of the Local Coastal
Program require that post development surface run-off, from a 10-year/6 hour storm event, must not carry any
increased velocity at the property line. To meet this standard, energy dissipation facilities (i.e. rip-rap) would
be provided along the drainage course, in addition to a permanent regional basin proposed west of future Hidden
Valley Road, adjacent to Encinas Creek at the 67 foot elevation.
Air Quality:
Final EIR 90-03 for the Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP 203) discussed air quality impacts, however, this discussion
has now been supplemented by the Air Quality Section 5.3 of the Master EIR. The implementation of
subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result hi
increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases
in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended
-7-
participates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego
Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions are
considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated
General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation
measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection
improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the
implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative
modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and
site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the
project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Section 3.3.2.2 of Final EIR 90-03 and Section 5.3.3 of the Master EIR both indicate that construction activities
associated with implementation of the Specific Plan and General Plan will produce short term air quality impacts
in the form of dust from grading and traffic on dirt roads, and emissions from construction equipment. To
reduce these short-term construction impacts to the lowest extent possible the project would be conditioned with
mitigation measures designed to reduce dust and construction emissions - (Final EIR 90-03, Section 3.3.3, Page
HI-33; and 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 locally, but
operation-related emissions are still considered cumulatively significant because the area is located within a
"non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "YES - significant". This project is not
required to prepare an EIR because the recent certification of the Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council
Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air quality impacts. This
"Statement Of Overriding Consideration" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the Master EIR, including
residential projects in Specific Plan 203, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is
required.
Cultural & Paleontological Resources:
Section 3.60 of Final EIR 90-03 identified no archaeological or historic sites within the project boundaries. Sdi-
9607 is identified as the closest resource site within the area and it is located approximately 100 to 300 meters
east of the property, therefore, no further cultural resource review is required.
Section 3.10 of Final EIR 90-03, identified the potential for the presence of significant paleontological resources
throughout the entire specific planning area, with a high potential for the discovery of fossils during future
grading and construction activities. To reduce this potential impact to below a level of significance the project
would be conditioned with mitigation measures designed to protect paleontological resources - (Section 3.10.0,
Page HI-107, Final EIR 90-03).
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT:
The Biology Section (3.4) of Final EIR 90-03 provides baseline data at a gross scale due to the large size of
the specific plan area. Given the large number of property owners and their differing development horizons and
the inevitable change in biological conditions over the long-term buildout of the specific plan area, it is not
-8-
possible to mitigate biological impacts from the buildout of the entire specific plan under one comprehensive
open space easement that crosses property lines or a habitat revegetation/enhancement plan sponsored solely by
the property owners. The implementation of the biological section of the EIR is based on future site specific
biological survey studies that focus on the impacts created by individual subsequent development projects.
These additional biological studies are required to consider the baseline data and biological open space
recommendations of Final EIR 90-03 and provide more detailed and current resource surveys plotted at the
tentative map scale for each property. The range of the future mitigation options may include preservation of
sensitive habitat onsite in conjunction with enhancement/revegetation plans, payment of fees into a regional
conservation plan, or the purchase and protection of similar habitat offsite.
To meet these EIR requirements a biological resources field survey was prepared for the project by RECON,
dated January 1995. This subsequent biological study is intended to provide more focused, current, and detailed
project level analysis of site specific biological impacts and provide more refined project level mitigation
measures as required by Final EIR 90-03. The biological report indicates that implementation of the project
(off-site sewer and trail alignment) would create additional significant impacts to riparian habitat not discussed
hi Final EIR 90-03, therefore, mitigation measures designed to reduce biological impacts to below a level of
significance will be required as part of this environmental document - (Mitigated Negative Declaration).
The project site was surveyed for sensitive plant and animal species and three (3) sensitive plant species were
identified onsite, and five (5) sensitive wildlife species were observed either onsite or within the sewer easement.
All three sensitive plant species would be preserved in the proposed 19.24 acre open space lot. The "threatened"
coastal California gnatcatcher was observed in the Diegan coastal sage scrub and the mule fat scrub along the
west side of the site. The least Bell's vireo and the willow flycatcher occur in riparian habitat, however, they
were not observed on the site. The potential for these species to occur in the area is considered low because
of the small size and extent of the riparian habitat. The property was also surveyed for the burrowing owl and
the bird was not observed on the site.
An offsite access requirement for this project includes the construction of future Hidden Valley Road from
Camino de las Ondas to Palomar Airport Road. The Initial Study and adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the Sambi Project - (CT 92-02), identified significant biological impacts associated with the construction of
the northern segment of Hidden Valley Road from Poinsettia Community Park north to Palomar Airport Road.
As part of the Sambi project a preliminary biological mitigation program was also adopted to reduce significant
biological impacts associated with the roadway. Since CT 94-11 is dependent on this offsite roadway, all
previously adopted biological mitigation will become a condition of this project and must be implemented
concurrent with the construction of the roadway.
The project's sewer alignment may have a potentially significant impact on sensitive biological habitat which
is under the jurisdiction of two (2) "Responsible" public resource agencies, the California Coastal Commission
and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). The construction of the project's sewer and the
northern segment of Hidden Valley Road across Enemas Creek may both be considered an alteration to a
streambed and require a permit from the CDFG and the Army Corp of Engineers. If feasible, the sewer line
should be tunneled under Enemas Creek to avoid impacts to the wetlands. To reduce riparian impacts to below
a level of significance, and contingent on the approval of the appropriate resources agencies, any areas of
riparian habitat disturbed by construction of the sewer line shall be replanted/enhanced with native riparian
species at a 3:1 ratio so there is no "net loss" of habitat, and impacts are temporary. The project will be
required to obtain all necessary or applicable resources agency permits prior to approval of a final map.
-9-
Agriculture:
The relatively level portions of the site are currently being utilized for agricultural purposes. The site's soil
(Marina Loamy Coarse Sand (MIC) & Chesterson Fine Sandy Loam (CfB)) is not considered prime, Class I or
n, agricultural soil. The site is located in the Coastal Agricultural Overlay Zone (Site n) of the Mello n
Segment of the Local Coastal Program. Section 3.0 of Final EIR 90-03 evaluated impacts created by the
conversion of agricultural land use to urban land use in the overlay zone. The EIR concluded that the
cumulative loss of agricultural land could be offset with the mitigation measures established and required by
Mello n Segment of the LCP, therefore, the appropriate condition will be added to the project - (Section 3.1.3,
Page m-20, EIR 90-03).
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 Medium (RM)
land use designation and density established by the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan. The RM
designation allows up to 8 dwelling units per net acre with a Growth Control Point of 6 dwelling units per net
acre. 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 significant
impacts to future residents from accumulations of hazardous chemicals hi the soil. To evaluate this potential
impact a Preliminary Pesticide Residue Survey was prepared by Geo Soils Inc., dated June 1994. The survey
report indicates that very low level concentrations of three pesticides (3); 4,4'-DDE, 4,4'-DDT, and toxaphene
were detected in soil samples taken from the site. The report concluded that the pesticide levels in the random
soil samples were sufficiently below regulatory levels to not warrant additional testing or assessment. The report
made a similar conclusion for two Dioxin isomers found at very low levels in the soil on the site, therefore, the
potential 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 agricultural
chemicals and the future development of residential land uses. As phased development proceeds within the
specific plan area, interface conflicts associated with pesticide spraying, irrigation runoff, and odor impacts may
arise between agricultural operations and residential uses. To reduce such impacts to below a level of
significance, the appropriate EIR recommended mitigation measures will be made a condition of the project -
(Section 3.9.3, Page ffl-103, Final EIR 90-03). Mitigation will include walls, drainage control, and a notification
to all future residential land owners that this area is subject to dust, pesticide, and odors associated with adjacent
agricultural operations.
Light and Glare:
The property is surrounded by open space to the west and north, a future public park with several lighted sports
fields to the south, and similar residentiary zoned property to the east, therefore, the light generated from the
vehicles, street lights, and homes in this single-family project will not significantly impact the surrounding land
uses.
-10-
Circulation:
The project would increase local traffic in the area, however, a Traffic Study prepared for the project by WPA
Traffic Engineering, Inc., dated January 19, 1995, and a Traffic Impact Analysis conducted as part of the Zone
20 Specific Plan indicates that compliance with the circulation requirements of the Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP
203), Final Program EIR 90-03, and the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 20 would mitigate any
significant local traffic impacts - (Section 3.5, Page HI-58, Final EIR 90-03).
Final EIR 90-03 for the Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP 203) evaluated circulation impacts, however, this discussion
has now been supplemented by the Circulation Section 5.7 of Final Master EIR 93-01. The implementation of
subsequent projects that are consistent with and included hi 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.
Public Facilities:
The project is located within the Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Plan. Public facility impacts and
financing have been accounted for in this plan to accommodate the residential development. The residential
land use would be consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the project would not significantly impact public
facilities and planned land uses. In addition, a condition will be added to the project to require that the
developer enter into an agreement with the appropriate school district to ensure that there are adequate school
facilities available to serve the residential subdivision - (Section 3.11, Page ItI-112, Final EIR 90-03).
-11-
Noise:
Section 3.8 of Final EIR 90-03 evaluated potential noise impacts for future projects located in Specific Plan 203
and recommended that noise studies be prepared for projects impacted by traffic and airport noise. A portion
of the site is located within the 60 to 65 dBA CNEL contour, therefore, noise from existing Palomar Airport
Road, Paseo Del Norte, and the airport would create a significant impact on the homes in this project. A Noise
Technical Report was prepared for the project by RECON, dated December 1994. Noise levels on the project
site will exceed the Noise Element's exterior traffic noise standard of 60 CNEL and the interior noise standard
of 45 CNEL, therefore, mitigation measures are required to reduce the noise levels to the adopted standard. The
project will be conditioned to comply with all the appropriate mitigation recommendations of Section 3.8.3 of
Final EIR 90-03 and the recommendations of the project's noise report. Noise mitigation will include perimeter
sound attenuation walls and the utilization of construction techniques and materials designed to provide adequate
sound attenuation.
Visual Aesthetics:
Section 3.13 of Final EIR 90-03 analyzed potentially visual impacts created by development within Specific Plan
203, including this property. It was determined that visual impacts to the Palomar Airport Road Viewshed
(Vantage Point 7, Figure 3.16-6) could be potentially significant. To reduce these potential impacts to below
a level significance the EIR recommended mitigation measures, including additional visual analysis - (Section
3.13.3, Page ffl-49, Final EIR 90-03).
The proposed project is a residential lot subdivision, and at this point hi tune, no residential structures are being
planned. Due to the visual sensitivity of the site and it's location adjacent to a future public park, the Planning
Department is recommending that the Qualified Overlay Zone be placed on the property. This will ensure that
a Site Development Plan (SDP), in compliance with the standards of the Qualified Overlay Zone, is processed
for the placement and design of the future homes. This future SDP will evaluate visual impacts created by the
building height, building facades, roof lines, and colors of homes along the northern and western 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.
-12-
DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, because the
environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conjunction with
previously certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review is required.
Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared.
X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet
have been added to the project. A Mitigated Negative Declaration will be proposed.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
Date
Date Planning Director
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES OF APPLICABLE)
1. Prior to approval of a final map, approval of a grading permit, or approval of improvement plans, whichever
occurs first, for the project and Hidden Valley Road from Poinsettia Park north to Palomar Airport Road,
a detailed final biological mitigation, restoration, enhancement, and monitoring plan to mitigate the project
(sewer line) and Hidden Valley Road biological impacts, per the mitigation recommendations of Final EIR
90-03, the Biological Technical Report of the Sambi Project, dated July 1993, and the project's Biological
Report, prepared by RECON dated January 1995, shall be prepared and approved by the City.
Li addition, and pursuant to Section 1601/1603 of the Fish and Game Code, the applicant shall obtain a
Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Fish and Game Department if required for any proposed
alterations to existing natural watercourses and shall comply with any and all permit requirements associated
therewith. All riparian areas impacted along the proposed sewer alignment shall be replanted/enhanced at
a 3:1 ratio so there is no "net loss" of habitat, and if feasible, the sewer line should be tunneled under Encinas
Creek to avoid impacts to the streambed and surrounding wetlands.
The applicant, hi conjunction with the Department of the Army Corp of Engineers shall determine whether
a 404 permit shall be required for alterations to wetland areas. The applicant, in conjunction with the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service shall determine if a 10A permit or other restrictions of the NCCP and
-13-
Endangered Species Act process is required for impacts to coastal sage scrub habitat. If applicable, the
applicant shall obtain said permits and comply with those conditions and requirements imposed therewith.
2. Prior to approval of a final map, approval of a grading permit, or approval of improvement plans for Hidden
Valley Road from Poinsettia Park north to Palomar Airport Road, the applicant, in consultation with the
California Department of Fish and Game and as part of the Streambed Alteration Agreement, shall provide,
if appropriate and feasible, the incorporation of an oversized culvert under Hidden Valley Road at the Encinas
Geek crossing to mitigate the effects of fragmentation of the open space and wildlife corridor caused by the
roadway, and to enhance wildlife mobility hi the area.
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES
AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
JG:Ih
-14-