Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 95-03; Emerald Ridge West; Tentative Map (CT) (4)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. CT 95-03/HDP 95-06/SDP 95-06 DATE: October 3. 1995 BACKGROUND CASE NAME: Emerald Ridge West APPLICANT: Ladwig Design Group. Inc. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 703 Palomar Airport Road. Suite 300 Carlsbad CA 92009. (619)438-3182 DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: Mav 26. 1995 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A tentative map for 61 single-family residential lots ranging in size from 7.500 to 19.201 sq. ft., a 8.3 acre open space lot, and 10 second-dwelling units. Project improvements include: (1) local public streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and drainage facilities to serve the lots: (2) two alternative sewer and stormdrain alignments (A and B) that connect from the property to an existing east/west sewer line along Encinas Creek; (3) the construction of Hidden Valley Road from Camino de las Ondas to Palomar Airport Road: (4) the alignment of a trail between the northern segment of Hidden Valley Road and the residential lots, and: (5) the construction of a local public street from Hidden Valley Road to the project site. 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. X Land Use and Planning Population and Housing Geological Problems Water X Air Quality X Transportation/Circulation Public Services X Biological Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Hazards X Noise. Utilities and Service Systems X Aesthetics X Cultural Resources X Mandatory Findings of Significance Recreation 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. An 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 EER / 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 Planner Slgtikture Date Planning Director Signature-' Date 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 hi 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? 0 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 No Impact X X X X X 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 X No Impact X X X X JL 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? () Vn. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: No Impact X JL X JL x JL JL JL 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? () b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? () c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? () d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? 0 _ e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? () 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 Less Than Significant Impact X No Impact X X X X Rev. 3/28/95 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? () X X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? () X b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? () X 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? () X b) Police protection? () X c) Schools? () JL d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 0 _x_ e) Other governmental services? () X 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? () X b) Communications systems? () X c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? () X d) Sewer or septic tanks? () X e) Storm water drainage? () X f) Solid waste disposal? () X g) Local or regional water supplies? () X 9 Rev. 3/28/95 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Xffl. 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 Less Than Significant Impact X No Impact X jc. x x 10 Rev. 3/28/95 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wild life species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 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? X XVH. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EER 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. MEIR - 1994 update of the Carlsbad General Plan/Final EIR 90-03 for Specific Plan 203, on file in the Planning Department at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad CA. 92009. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. See following discussion. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. See following discussion. 11 Rev. 3/28/95 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 western 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 eastern 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 east and north. Topographic elevations on the site range from approximately 80 feet in the canyon floor to 180 feet above mean sea level on the gently sloping mesa. The site is underlain by the Eocene age bedrock Santiago Formation (also known as Delmar and Friars Formation), which is capped by Quaternary terrace deposits. These bedrock formations are mantled by alluvium, topsoil, and artificial 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, through the Mar Vista project (CT 94-11) 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 Mar Vista project site at elevation 142 feet (Lot 19) and the high point on Emerald Ridge - West at elevation 180 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 de 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. Subsequent to the submittal of this project to the City on May 26, 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 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 12 Rev. 3/28/95 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 129,205 cubic yards of grading to accommodate building pads, lots, utilities, drainage structures, onsite local public roadways, and Hidden Valley Road. 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 GeoSoils, Inc., dated September 6, 1994 states that; "Based on our field exploration, laboratory testing, engineering and geologic analyses, it is our opinion that the project site is suited for development from a geotechnical engineering and geologic standpoint". 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 13 Rev. 3/28/95 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 hi 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 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 ni-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 projects covered by the Master EIR, including residential projects in Specific Plan 203, therefore, no further environmental review of ah" quality impacts is required. Cultural & Paleontological Resources: Section 3.60 of Final EIR 90-03 identified an archaeological site within the project boundaries (CA-SDI-9607). The project would 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 is identified as not important under CEQA and the City of Carlsbad Guidelines, and no further study or mitigation is required. 14 Rev. 3/28/95 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 ni-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 resource field survey was prepared by RECON, dated January 1995 and updated June 20, 1995 (sewer and stormdrain impacts), and a Biological Survey Report, prepared by Brian Mooney Associated, dated August 1995, which evaluated impacts created by the project. 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 no sensitive plant species were identified onsite, and three (3) sensitive wildlife species (turkey vulture, northern harrier, and California gnatcatcher) were observed onsite. The "threatened" coastal California gnatcatcher was observed in the Diegan coastal sage scrub along the east and north side of the site. 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 15 Rev. 3/28/95 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 public review period for the Mar Vista project's (located directly west) 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. During the writing of this Initial Study the Carlsbad Water District has decided to actively pursue approval for Alternative "A", from the California Coastal Commission and the State Fish and Game Department, in order to provide sewer for the City's Poinsettia Community Park as well as other properties that must gravity sewer in this direction within the area. Phase I of the park is estimated to be completed by the end of the summer of 1996, therefore, the Water District anticipates having all environmental clearances and applicable resource agency permits for the sewer line prior to the summer so that the sewer line construction can be coordinated with the completion of the park. The Mooney & Associates Biological Report, dated August 1995, indicates that the project's main access road leading from future Hidden Valley Road to the project site would impact approximately 0.05 acres of disturbed coastal sage scrub habitat (CSS), and grading for the residential building pads would impact 0.07 acres of CSS. The impacted CSS habitat area is small in size, linear in shape, partially disturbed and located along the edge of larger habitat areas, thus the significance of the impact is reduced. To offset the loss of 0.12 acres of CSS the project shall be conditioned to mitigate the 0.12 acre CSS impact by acquiring, for preservation, comparable quality habitat. The developer is proposing to mitigate this impact by purchasing, for preservation, .19 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 CSS habitat. The .07 acre impact within the 60 foot buffer area is small and linear in size and shape and will not adversely effect the larger habitat area to be preserved in permanent open space (Lot 62). 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 0.12 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 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 project (0.12 acres) would result in a cumulative habitat loss of 4.08 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 0.12 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 16 Rev. 3/28/95 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 0.12 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 small in size, located along the edge, and 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 Emerald Ridge West 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 east and north of the property per the biological 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. In addition, possible construction noise impacts to breeding gnatcatchers should be avoided, therefore, the project shall be conditioned to prohibit heavy construction adjacent to CSS and chaparral habitat areas during the breeding season (March 1 to July 31). 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 conditions of the applicable permits. 17 Rev. 3/28/95 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 ffl-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 3.01 dwelling units per net acre. Hazardous Substances: The site has been farmed and cultivated for a number of years and there may be a potential for 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 July 1994. The survey report indicates that very low level/minute concentrations of four pesticides (3); 4,4'-DDE, 4,4'-DDT, Aroclor-1254 (PCB's), Dioxin (HpCDD, HxCDD, and OCDD) 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, therefore, the potential hazard is considered less than significant, and no further analysis is required. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project, per Final EIR 90-03 Section 3.9.3 , the pesticide survey report shall be reviewed and approved by the County Health Department. Section 3.9.2.3 of Final EIR 90-03 analyzed land use incompatibilities caused by the ongoing use of 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 HI-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 east and north, a future public park with several lighted sports fields to the south, and similar residentially zoned property to the west, 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 November 23, 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 IH-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 potential impact on the homes in this project. In the Comprehensive McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Plan, residential development is considered conditionally compatible within the 60 to 65 CNEL contour area. A Noise Technical Report was prepared for the project by Pacific Noise Control, dated May 1995. Noise levels on the project site will not exceed the Noise Element's exterior traffic noise standard of 60 CNEL. Prior to approval of the Site Development Plan for siting of single- family homes on the lots, additional ulterior noise analysis will be required for the project. If interior noise levels in the homes exceed the ulterior noise standard of 45 CNEL, 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, including but not limited to interior noise mitigation, if applicable, and legal notification of potential airport noise impacts to future land owners. 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 HI-49, Final EIR 90-03). The proposed project is a residential lot subdivision, and at this point in tune, no residential structures are being planned. Due to the visual sensitivity of the site from Palomar Airport Road and it's location adjacent to a future public park, the property's zoning contains the Qualified Development Overlay Zone. The Q-Overlay Zone requirement for a Site Development Plan will ensure that future development is consistent with the overlay zone. 19 Rev. 3/28/95 This future SDP will evaluate visual impacts created by the building height, building facades, roof lines, and colors of homes along the northern and eastern edge of the mesa. The SDP will also evaluate the placement of homes on the individual lots in relationship to setbacks, and the visual street scene from internal public streets. As part of the development of future homes on the site, the project will be conditioned to require additional visual analysis. This analysis shall consist, at a minimum, of computer-enhanced photo modifications showing development conditions proposed by the project. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: As discussed in the Biological Section of this EIA, the implementation of sewer alignment "B" will impact riparian resources and the construction of a local public access road and grading of the site will impact .12 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat. However, mitigation measures included as part of this 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 20 Rev. 3/28/95 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). 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, Kelly Property, July 25, 1994; 5. GeoSoils, Inc., Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment, Kelly Property, September 6, 1994; 6. MEIR - 1994 Update Date of the Carlsbad General Plan; 7. Pacific Noise Control, Noise Assessment, dated May 24, 1995; 8. RECON Biological Surveys and Coastal California Gnatcatcher Surveys for the McReynolds Property, January 13, 1995; 9. RECON Updated Biological Surveys and Coastal California Gnatcatcher Surveys for the McReynolds Property, June 20, 1995; 10. WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc., Traffic Study for the Kelly Property, November 23, 1994. LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) 1. Sewer/Stormdrain Alternative "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 21 Rev. 3/28/95 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. .12 acres of coastal sage scrub (CSS) habitat will be directly impacted by this project. The impacted CSS habitat is regarded as disturbed habitat (0.05 acres) and medium to high quality habitat (0.07). Pursuant to the Interim Take provisions of the 4d Rule for the California gnatcatcher, the project shall be required to mitigate this loss of .12 acres of CSS by acquiring, for preservation, comparable quality habitat at a 1:1 ratio for the disturbed CSS and 2:1 for the higher quah'ty CSS. The developer proposes to mitigate this impact by purchasing, for preservation, .19 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 .12 acres of CSS. 3. 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. 4. Heavy construction adjacent to coastal sage scrub and chaparral habitat areas along the east and north side of the site during the California gnatcatcher breeding season (March 1 to July 31) shall be prohibited. ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) See Attached Sheet 22 Rev. 3/28/95 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. Date ^Signature0 23 Rev. 3/28/95 PROJECT NAME: APPROVAL DATE: EMERALD RIDGE WEST FILE NUMBERS: CT 95-03/SDP 95-06/HDP 95-06 N/A CONDITIONAL NEC. DEC.: The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). Mitigation Measure Sewer and storm drain alignment "B" - riparian mitigation plan and agency permits Sewer and storm drain alignment "A" - applicable agency permits Restriction of lights shining into habitat areas per CC&Rs Prohibition on construction during March 1 - July 31 Purchase of .19 acres of mitigation credit in Highlands bank Monitoring Type Project Project Project Project Project Monitoring Department Planning Planning Planning Planning Planning Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks Prior to issuance of final map or grading permit Prior to issuance of final map or grading permit Prior to approval of final map Prior to issuance of grading permit Prior to ussuance of grading permit mz 55o m 1 Q § O O Z DO ZO o mO Explanation of Headings Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information. RD-AppendxP <a (D