Loading...
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-