Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 96-07; Kelly Ranch Village E; Tentative Map (CT) (3)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CT 96-07/CDP 97-07/HDP 96-13/PUD 97-04/CDP 96-13 DATE: April 22. 1997 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Kelly Ranch Village "E" 2. APPLICANT: Kelly Land Company, Inc. 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: Suite 206 2011 Palomar Airport Road Carlsbad California 92009 4. 5. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: April 21.1997 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 142 lot single family subdivision on 28 acres located south of Cannon Road and west of El Carnino Real in Local Facilities Management Zone 8. 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 | | Population and Housing | | Geological Problems Q Water ra Air Quality |^<] Transportation/Circulation | | Public Services 1^) Biological Resources | | Utilities & Service Systems | | Energy & Mineral Resources | | Aesthetics | | Hazards | | Cultural Resources | j Noise | [ Recreation | | Mandatory Findings of Significance Rev. 03/28/96 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) [""] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. £<] 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. Q I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. | | 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 Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. | | 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 pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. anner Signature Date Planning Directors/Signature Date Rev. 03/28/96 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 II", 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. 03/28/96 • 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 II 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. 03/28/96 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)? II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking? Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? Landslides or mudflows? c) d) e) 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? Potentially Significant Impact D D D nD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D D D D D Dnn D D D G D D D D D D D Less Than No Significant Impact Impact D IEI D IEI D IEI D IEI D IEI D K D IEI D IEI D IEI D IEI D IEI D IEI D IEI D Kl D IEI D IEI D IEI D E D E D IEI D IEI D IEI Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). f) Changes 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? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? Potentially Significant Impact D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D n Less Than Significant Impact D nn D No Impact 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? b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.' Would the proposal result in impacts to: 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)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? nn a a aa aa a na a a n nnnn n n nnn D G n nnnn n a a a n B VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 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? nn n n n n Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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 hazards? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? Potentially Significant Impact D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated n n Less Than Significant Impact n n n n No Impact 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? Schools?c) e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? Other governmental services? XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? b) Communications systems? c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage? f) Solid waste disposal? g) Local or regional water supplies? XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? nD Dn n n n nn n nnnnnn nn n nnn nnnnnn n XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources? Dn n Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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? Potentially Significant Impact D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D D XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? D D D 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 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? 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 the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? D D D XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the 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. Rev. 03/28/96 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AIR QUALITY: The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in 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 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. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of 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 Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. CIRCULATION: The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in 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 1) 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. 9 Rev. 03/28/96 Regional related circulation impacts are 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 "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required 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 Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. LAND USE AND PLANNING: The project is the development of a 142 single family lot subdivision. Development will include the construction of a portion of Cannon Road. The General Plan, Zoning, Local Coastal Program and a Master Plan identify this site as a residential area for single family development. Cannon Road has been included on the General Plan Land Use Map and in the General Plan text as a Major Arterial. Development of the site will not be inconsistent with existing land use designations. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: The majority of the site has been disturbed and major portions of the road have been graded. Some isolated vegetation exists interior to the site and a limited amount of significant plant community exists within the Cannon Road right-of-way. The interior vegetation is largely mixed chaparral. The pockets of chaparral are separated by graded areas resulting in isolation from vegetated hillsides to the west and southwest. These interior pockets are therefore not considered to have any significant biological value. The plant communities found within the Cannon Road right-of-way have been identified in previous studies as having significant biological value. Disturbance of these communities will require mitigation if impacts are to be considered less than significant. Impacts to plant communities within the Cannon Road right-of-way were identified in a report prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc. in January 1996. Direct impacts were identified as 0.16 acres of southern willow scrub; 0.14 acres of open water; 0.13 acres of disturbed riparian scrub; 1.41 acres of coastal sage scrub; 0.51 acres of disturbed coastal sage scrub; 0.14 acres of baccharis scrub; and 9.66 acres of disturbed area. Specific mitigation measures for this disturbance have been identified and are included within the Mitigation Measures section of this Environmental Impacts Assessment. POPULATION AND HOUSING: The City's Growth Management Plan and the General Plan make projections on housing and population. The development of this area will only implement those plans which have determined the maximum capacity for housing and population within the surrounding area. The development itself will not be a contributor to increases in housing or population above what has already been accounted for within the General Plan. 10 Rev. 03/28/96 GEOLOGIC: There are no active faults identified within the limits of the City. Soils preparation for the development will be per standard procedure which will reduce the potential for impacts to the road once completed. WATER: The residential development of the site will not impact existing bodies of water other than the bridging at the eastern edge of the project area for Cannon Road at El Camino Real. Standard measures to implement the National Pollution Discharge Standards will capture harmful runoff from the development prior to its discharge into Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Disturbance of open water, at the bridge crossing, will require the issuance of an Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES: No impacts have been identified. HAZARDS: No impacts have been identified. NOISE: Noise associated with the project will be created by vehicles traveling Cannon Road. A noise study was prepared for the project. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project which will reduce traffic related noise impacts on future residents to a level of less than significant. Construction noise impacts can be reduced to levels of insignificance by scheduling work outside of the breeding season. PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: The project is within the Zone 8 Local Facilities Management Plan. All services demanded by the development of the project will be provided prior to or concurrently with development. No significant impact has been identified. AESTHETICS: Development of the site has been proposed consistent with the regulations of the City's Hillside Development Ordinance. The project occurs in an area that has been disturbed. Views of the site are from the east. Because of the height of the hills east of the site, there will be no ridge line disturbance. The road is designated to pass Agua Hedionda Lagoon on the south side. The road can be designed to take advantage of the available views to the greatest extent possible. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Resources were identified onsite for the Kelly Ranch when an EIR was prepared in 1983. Those resources were recovered through a data recovery program. No further known resources are onsite. There will not be any significant impact to cultural resources. 11 Rev. 03/28/96 RECREATION: Individual recreation lots are proposed within the subdivision. The development of the site will not preclude community recreational resources. No impact has been identified. ALTERNATIVES: Project alternatives are required when there is evidence that the project will have a significant adverse impact of 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. Mitigation measures required as conditions of project approval will reduce the identified potentially significant impacts to insignificant levels; therefore, no discussion of alternatives is necessary. SOURCE DOCUMENTS: (NOTE: All source documents are on file in the Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009, Phone: (619) 438-1161.) 1. "Final Master EIR for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update," prepared by the City of Carlsbad Planning Department and certified September 6, 1994. 2. "Kelly Ranch Master Plan," MP 174, approved September 18, 1994. 3. "1995 Growth Management Plan Traffic Monitoring Program," prepared by JHK and Associates. 4. "City of Carlsbad Draft Habitat Management Plan," dated July 1995. 5. "Biotechnical Report for Cannon Road Reach II," prepared by Tetra Tech dated January 1996. 6. City of Carlsbad General Plan 7. "Kelly Ranch EIR," dated 1983. 8. Local Facilities Management Plan: Zone 8. 12 Rev. 03/28/96 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES CIF APPLICABLE) Direct Impacts from Cannon Road 1. Impacts to coastal sage scrub habitat shall be mitigated either through the City's HMP 4D process, or through a separate Section 7 consultation with the USFWS. Mitigation may include revegetation of a particular suitable area or the purchase of habitat in a mitigation bank within the City of Carlsbad. 2. Impacts to regenerating disturbed coastal sage scrub may be considered significant and will be mitigated by the same method and at the same rate as coastal sage scrub habitat. 3. The intersection of Cannon Road and El Camino Real necessitates a bridge across Agua Hedionda Creek. This will impact southern willow riparian scrub, open water, and disturbed riparian scrub. Southern willow scrub is a no net loss habitat and mitigation will be required at a ratio of at least 2:1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a 404 permit will be required from the USAGE and a Streambed Alteration Agreement pursuant to 1601 will be required from the CDFG. Indirect Impacts from Cannon Road 4. The right-of-way for Canon Road should be clearly flagged, staked and fenced prior to initiation of clearing, grubbing, or grading. The right-of-way should be fenced with a visual barrier such as a drift fence. The purpose of the barrier is to protect the adjacent habitat during construction. This includes protection of coastal sage scrub habitat as well as the riparian habitats associated with the Agua Hedionda Creek. The right-of-way does not need to be flagged or fenced on the south side except where it is adjacent to native habitat. The placement of the fencing should be based on survey stakes at the site and not on the biological resource maps. 5. Initiation of construction should occur outside of the least Bell's vireo breeding and nesting season (May 15 through July 15). If this is not possible, a qualified biologist should survey the areas that occur in or near the southern willow scrub habitat, prior to construction. If the least Bell's vireo is not observed within the habitat, then construction can be initiated. 6. Storm water runoff should be directed into an oil separator and/or desiltation basin. This will ensure protection of off-site resources in the Agua Hedionda Creek and the lagoon downstream. 7. Indirect impacts to nesting birds can be avoided by initiating construction in late summer, fall, or winter. If this is not possible, then a nesting bird survey may need to be conducted prior to brushing, clearing, or grading. Geology/Soils 8. Detailed geotechnical and soils studies will be prepared and engineering solutions approved by the City prior to development. Erosion control measures will be required during project construction. 9. Further slope stability investigations will be conducted. Any unfavorable conditions will be removed or stabilized by buttressing or reorientation of slope direction. 13 Rev. 03/28/96 Hydrology 10. 11. Noise 12. A runoff control plan will be prepared which demonstrates that there will be no significant increase in peak runoff rate from the development site over the greatest discharge expected from the existing undeveloped site as from a 6-hour, 10-year frequency storm. Vr Development approvals shall include detailed provisions for emplacement, repair and maintenance of approved drainage and erosion facilities. Permanent runoff and erosion control devices shall be installed prior to or concurrent with onsite grading activities. Noise barriers shall be provided along Cannon Road and El Camino Real frontages as described in TABLE S-l of "Exterior Noise Analysis for Kelly Ranch Area E" prepared by Mestre Greve Associates; Report # 96-173 Dated November 19, 1996. 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 / / 14 Rev. 03/28/96 PROJECT NAME: Kelly Ranch Village "E" APPROVAL DATE: FILE NUMBERS: CT 96-07/CDP 96-13/HDP 96-13/PUD 97-04 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). k Mitigation Measure:t ' ,.' ' '«> ••*>• . mpacts to coastal sage scrub habitat shall be mitigated I either through the City's HMP 4D process, or through a separate Section 7 consultation with the USFWS. Mitigation may include revegetation of a particular suitable area or the purchase of habitat in a mitigation bank within the City of Carlsbad. Impacts to regenerating disturbed coastal sage scrub may be considered significant and will be mitigated by the same method and at the same rate as coastal sage scrub habitat. Monitoring -.•'Type.v.,.i; Project Project Monitoring Qepartment Planning / U.S. Fish and WilHIifp Service Planning / U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Shown on 1 ;, .Plans;, 4. Verified Implementation: •*«&: ; • ':*:•• H ' ••••Kyf '.- i; Remarks- 'M- .'v>ife..,:.K': . >(• m 8 m I 0> o o o70 O OImo c/ Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept = Department, or Agendcy, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure, information. 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 RD - Appendix P. TO0) (Q (D O^» 4*. , « Mitigation Measure The intersection of Cannon Road and El Camino Real necessitates a bridge across Agua Hedionda Creek. This will impact southern willow riparian scrub, open water, and disturbed riparian scrub. Southern willow scrub is a no net loss habitat and mitigation will be required at a ratio of at least 2:1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a 404 permit will be required from the USAGE and a Streambed Alteration Agreement pursuant to 1601 will be required from the CDFG. The right-of-way for Canon Road should be clearly flagged, staked and fenced prior to initiation of clearing, grubbing, or grading. The right-of-way should be fenced with a visual barrier such as a drift fence. The purpose of the barrier is to protect the adjacent habitat during construction. This includes protection of coastal sage scrub habitat as well as the riparian habitats associated with the Agua Hedionda Creek. The right-of-way does not need to be flagged or fenced on the south side except where it is adjacent to native habitat. The placement of the fencing should be based on survey stakes at the site and not on the biological resource maps. Monitoring ' . "."' Type-" Project Project Monitoring Department Planning / U.S. Army Corps of Engineers / California Department of Fish and Game Engineering Inspections Shown on Plans Verifiecl ;. Implementation Remarks mz 55o m I 3 H > 6 zoo Imo7s Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept = Department, or Agendcy, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure, information. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. TJat(QCD o -*4* 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 RD - Appendix P. ' Mitigation Measure Initiation of construction should occur outside of the least Bell's vireo breeding and nesting season (May 15 through July 15). If this is not possible, a qualified biologist should survey the areas that occur in or near the southern willow scrub habitat, prior to construction. If the least Bell's vireo is not observed within the habitat, then construction can be initiated. •storm water runoff should be directed into an oil separator ! and/or desiltation basin. This will ensure protection of off- site resources in the Agua Hedionda Creek and the lagoon downstream. Indirect impacts to nesting birds can be avoided by initiating construction in late summer, fall, or winter. If this is not possible, then a nesting bird survey may need to be conducted prior to brushing, clearing, or grading. Detailed geotechnical and soils studies will be prepared and engineering solutions approved by the City prior to Development. Erosion control measures will be required during project construction. Further slope stability investigations will be conducted. Any unfavorable conditions will be removed or stabilized by buttressing or reorientation of slope direction. Monitoring Type Project Project Project Project Project Monitoring Department Planning Department / Engineering Plancheck Planning Department / Engineering Plancheck Planning Department Engineering Plancheck Engineering Plancheck Shown on Plans Verified Implementation - Remarks Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept = Department, or Agendcy, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure, information. 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 RD - Appendix P. Mitigation Measure A runoff control plan will be prepared which demonstrates that there will be no significant increase in peak runoff rate from the development site over the greatest discharge expected from the existing undeveloped site as from a 6-hour, 10-year frequency storm. Development approvals shall include detailed provisions wor emplacement, repair and maintenance of approved Wrainage and erosion facilities. Permanent runoff and erosion control devices shall be installed prior to or concurrent with onsite grading activities. Noise barriers shall be provided along Cannon Road and El Camino Real frontages as described in TABLE S-1 of "Exterior Noise Analysis for Kelly Ranch Area E" prepared by Mestre Greve Associates; Report # 96-173 Dated November 19, 1996. Monitoring Type Project Project Project Monitoring Department Engineering Plancheck Engineering Plancheck Planning Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks mzi m > o oz O o Imo Tl0) (Q <D •ft O Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept = Department, or Agendcy, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure, information. 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 RD -Appendix P.