HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 97-14; Mariano; Tentative Map (CT) (10)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CT 96-Q5/SDP 95-11/HDP 95-12
DATE: February 9. 1997
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Mariano
2. APPLICANT: PacWest Group Inc. (Henthorn and Associates)
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 703 Palomar Airport Road. Suite 300,
Carlsbad. California 92009: (760) 438-3182
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: May 6. 1996
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 159 lot tentative map and small lot planned unit development for
153 single family residential lots ranging in size from 5,190 to 23.360 square feet in area, two
open space lots, one multi-family lot, and a site development plan for the placement and
architecture of 153 single family structures and 27 onsite inclusionary apartment units to satisfy
the project's inclusionary housing requirement. Onsite and offsite project improvements include
local public and private streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and drainage facilities to serve the lots,
the construction of Aviara Parkway between the northern boundary of the Sambi project and
Cobblestone Road, and alignment of a trail segment through the project's SDG&E easement and
open space corridor.
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 ^ Transportation/Circulation | | Public Services
| | Population and Housing ^ Biological Resources | | Utilities & Service Systems
| | Geological Problems [~~| Energy & Mineral Resources [x] Aesthetics
| | Water | | Hazards | | Cultural Resources
|^| Air Quality ^ 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.
|~| 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 EIR 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 avoided 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.
Planner Signature U f Date
Planning Director's 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 #1 and 8)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? ((Source #1 and 8)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
((Source #1 and 2)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? ((Source #2)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? ((Source #2)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significan Impact
Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
D
D
D
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? ((Source #1)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (Source #2)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (Source #2)
D
D
D
D
D
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (Source #2 and 3)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (Source #2 and 3)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (Source
#3)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (Source #3)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (Source #3)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (Source
#3)
g) Subsidence of the land? (Source #3)
h) Expansive soils? (Source #3)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (Source #3)
D
D
D
aaa
aaa
a
a
a
aa
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (Source #2 and 4)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (Source #2 and 4)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (Source #2 and 4)
D
D
D
D
D
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (Source #2 and 4)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (Source #1)
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? (Source # 4)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(Source # 4)
Impacts to groundwater quality? (Source # 4)
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (Source
#1)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
D
D
D
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
No
Impact
D
D
D
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (Source #1)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Source #1)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (Source #1)
d) Create objectionable odors? (Source # 1 and 2)
D D
D D
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Source #
1)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (Source # 2)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(Source # 2)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(Source # 2)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(Source # 1 and 2)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(Source # 1 and 2)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (Source # 1 and
2)
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
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? (Source # 2 and 7)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(Source # 2 and 7)D n
D D
n E
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source # 2 and 7)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(Source # 2 and 7)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (Source # 2
and 7)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
n
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
n
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
No
Impact
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(Source # 1)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (Source #1)
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? (Source # 1)
n n n
n
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous I—I
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (Source #1)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan I—I
or emergency evacuation plan? (Source # 1)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health I I
hazards? (Source #1)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential I I
health hazards? (Source # 1)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, i i
grass, or trees? (Source # 2)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Source # 2 and 5) I—I
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Source # 2 i i
and 5) *—'
D
n
n
n
n
n
nn
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? (Source # 1 and 2)
b) Police protection? (Source #1)
c) Schools? (Source # 1 and 2)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
(Source # 1)
e) Other governmental services? (Source # 1 and 2)
D
n
n
n
n
n
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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? (Source #1)
b) Communications systems? (Source # 1)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (Source # 1 and 2)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Source # 1 and 2)
e) Storm water drainage? (Source # 1 and 2)
f) Solid waste disposal? (Source #1)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (Source # 1 and 2)
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (Source #
2)
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (Source
#2)
c) Create light or glare? (Source # 1)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (Source # 2)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (Source # 2)
c) Affect historical resources? (Source # 2)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (Source #
2)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (Source # 2)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
nn
nnnn
n
n
nnnn
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
No
Impact
n
n
n
n
n
nn
n
n n
n
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (Source # 1 and 2)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (Source # 2)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?
n n
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
No
Impact
D
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
Project Background and Environmental Setting:
The project is located south of Palomar Airport Road, east of future Hidden Valley Road, north
of Sambi Seaside Heights, south of the Sudan Interior Mission and Cobblestone Road, and west
of the Cobblestone project in the City of Carlsbad. The property slopes moderately down to the
east and west from a gently sloping ridge in the central portion of the site. Two canyons draining
to the north exist in the eastern portion of the site. Approximate elevations across the site range
from a high of 285 feet above mean sea level (MSL) to a low of 90 feet MSL. The previously
cultivated site is currently undeveloped and high tension power transmission lines extend north-
south through the eastern canyon. Earth materials encountered on the 53.7 acre site include the
Eocene-age Del Mar/Friars Formation, the Eocene-age Scripps Formation and Pleistocence-age
terrace deposits overlain by topsoil and alluvium (the Holocene-age allluvium exists in the
eastern canyon area and the western drainage ravine). In addition, artificial fill soil exists in the
eastern canyon area. In general, the upper portions of the site are underlain by topsoil and
massive sandstone and siltstone materials, while the lower portions of the site are underlain by
the fill and alluvial soils.. The majority of the site consists of hillside topography with 25% or
less gradient. Steeper slopes exist along the parcel's northern and southern boundaries, and
within two small east-west finger canyons. Although the majority of the property is disturbed by
past agricultural activities, the property supports two native habitat types: Diegan coastal sage
scrub and wetland vegetation. There is a drainage channel near the southern property boundary
which supports some upland plant species. Three sensitive bird species (turkey vulture, northern
harrier, and California gnatcatcher) were observed onsite during field surveys.
Vehicular access to the site would be provided by Aviara Parkway, a major circulation arterial
roadway and a local street leading from Hidden Valley Road, a non-loaded collector street,
which extends from Camino de las Ondas to Palomar Airport Road. Although the project would
be conditioned to improve Aviara Parkway through the parcel, the alignment and design of this
roadway from Palomar Airport Road to its existing terminus has already been approved and the
off-site segments have been environmentally reviewed and approved by previous projects.
The project site is located within the boundaries of the Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP-203). which
covers the 640 acre Zone 20 Planning Area. The certified Final Program EIR 90-03 (PEIR) for
SP 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 projects (i.e., tentative maps, site
development plans, grading permits, etc.) within the specific plan area. The applicable and
recommended mitigation measures of Final EIR 90-03 will be included as conditions of approval
for this project. This subsequent expanded Initial Study is intended to supplement the Final EIR
and provide more focused and detailed project level analysis of site specific environmental
impacts, and, if applicable, provide more refined project level mitigation measures as required by
Final EIR 90-03. Through the aid of the required additional project specific biological,
soils/geological, noise, slope, and viewshed analyses performed for this project, no additional
significant environmental impacts beyond those identified by the Final EIR 90-03 have been
identified. Mitigation measures that are applicable to the project and already included in Final
10 Rev. 03/28/96
EIR 90-03 will therefore be added to the tentative map resolution.
In addition to the Final EIR for Specific Plan 203, the City has certified a Final Master
Environmental Impact Report (MEIR) for an update of the 1994 General Plan. The certified
MEIR is on file in the Planning Department. The MEIR serves as the basis of environmental
review and impact mitigation for projects that are subsequent to and consistent with the General
Plan, including projects within the Zone 20 Specific Plan area.
I. LAND USE
A. Zoning
The property contains both the RM and RLM General Plan designations with RDM-Q zoning.
The project is consistent with these designations except that a density transfer from the RM area
to the RLM area, permitted by the Zone 20 Specific Plan for the purpose of providing onsite
affordable housing, is required since the location of the 26 unit inclusionary apartment project is
within the RLM designated area. The project density within the RM area (density range = 4-8
du/acre) is 4.16 du/acre and within the RLM area (density range 0-4 du/acre) is 4.18 du/acre and
with a density transfer of 25.41 dwelling units from the RM designated area to the RLM
designated area, the project is consistent with the densities allowed by the General Plan in each
land use designations. Therefore, no significant adverse environmental impacts will result from
the development of the single family project.
B. Mello II LCP
The project is also subject to the Mello II LCP segment of Carlsbad's Local Coastal Program.
Mello II Policy 4-3 requires the preservation of slopes exceeding 25% grade which possess
coastal sage scrub habitat (dual criterion slopes). Disturbance of these areas for circulation
arterial roadways is permitted; therefore the project will disturb 25% slopes containing habitat
for Aviara Parkway, a major north-south circulation arterial through the City. The project will
disturb other 25% slopes which require corrective grading to ensure stability and the following
required Mello II Policy 4-3 findings can be made to allow disturbance to these slopes:
1. the findings of the Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. soils investigation determine that the
slope areas to be disturbed would be stable provided that their recommendations are
implemented and any corrective grading necessary for the project is completed;
2. grading is essential to the development design and intent;
3. slope disturbance will not result in substantial damage or alteration to major wildlife
habitat or native vegetation areas;
4. no more than one third of the area (>10 acres) shall be subject to major grade changes;
5. north facing slopes shall be preserved.
Hydrology standards of the Mello II segment of Carlsbad's LCP require that post development
surface run-off from a 10-year/6 hour storm even must carry any increased velocity at the
property line. Drainage from the project will be provided through the routing of onsite storm
drains with a major drainage facility constructed in Aviara Parkway. Significant offsite flows
from the southern undeveloped areas will be carried through the eastern canyon (SDG&E
easement) through a grass lined or improved channel to a desiltation basin at the Cobblestone
11 Rev. 03/28/96
Road crossing.
D. Agriculture
The site is located in the Coastal Agricultural Overlay Zone (Site II) of the Mello II segment of
Carlsbad's 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 PEIR
concluded that the cumulative loss of agricultural land could be offset with the mitigation
measures established and required by the Mello II segment of the LCP; therefore, the tentative
map will be conditioned to require the payment of an agricultural mitigation fee prior to approval
of a final map.
As detailed by the PEIR, Zone 20 is comprised of agricultural uses which are typically
incompatible with residential uses due to physical and operational characteristics such as tilling
and pesticide/herbicide spraying. The Mariano tentative map will be conditioned to include the
applicable mitigation measures required by the PEIR to reduce impacts to agricultural resources.
Since the project is surrounded by development along the northern, western, southern, and
eastern boundaries, the required 25' wide open space easement between open field agricultural
operations and onsite developable areas would not be required. PEIR mitigation requiring the
notification of to all future residential land owners that this area is subject to dust, pesticide, and
odors associated with adjacent agricultural operation and the provision of temporary road
connections to maintain continued access to adjacent agricultural properties will be conditions of
map approval.
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING
B. Growth Inducing
As specified by the Zone 20 PEIR, the development of projects including transportation routes,
public services, and land uses within the Zone 20 Planning Area is not growth inducing since the
area has been previously planned and designed for residential development by the City's General
Plan, Growth Management Program, and Zone 20 LFMP. Although the project will be
conditioned to construct Aviara Parkway, it is a planned north-south major arterial already
approved to provide access to projects located to the south and north within Zone 20.
Development already exists or has been approved to the south, north, west and east; therefore,
urbanization of the area is inevitable.
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS
Consistent with the Zone 20 PEIR, the recommendations of the preliminary geotechnical
investigation performed for the project by Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. will be incorporated as
project conditions in accordance with the PEIR.
IV. WATER QUALITY
As anticipated by the water quality discussion in Section 5.2 of the Master EIR (MEIR) 93-01
and the Zone 20 Program EIR (PEIR), sedimentation impacts to Encinas Creek due to the
creation of impervious surfaces onsite, the reduction of absorption rates, and an increase in
surface runoff and runoff velocities would result without mitigation. As required by the PEIR,
12 Rev. 03/28/96
previously approved projects were required to install energy dissipation facilities (i.e. rip-rap)
along the drainage course in addition to a permanent regional basin located within the drainage
course approximately 250' south of Encinas Creek. The remaining appropriate PEIR and MEIR
mitigation measures which include requirements for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit and consistency with the City's Master Drainage and Storm Water
Quality Management Plan will be added to the project as conditions of approval.
V. 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.
VI. CIRCULATION
The project would increase local traffic in the area, however, a Traffic Study prepared for the
project by Urban Systems Associates, Inc. dated September 12, 1995, and a Traffic Impact
Analysis conducted as part of the Zone 20 Specific Plan indicates that compliance with the
circulation mitigation of the Zone 20 Specific Plan PEIR and the Local Facilities Management
Plan for Zone 20 would mitigate any significant local traffic impacts (Section 3.5, Page 111-58,
Final EIR 90-03). The project will therefore be conditioned to construct and/or improve all
roadways necessary for or impacted by this development. These include Aviara Parkway through
the property and all internal streets to City standards.
13 Rev. 03/28/96
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 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.
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.
VII. BIOLOGY
The Biology Section (3.4) of the Zone 20 Specific Plan PEIR 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 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 the PEIR and provide more detailed and current
resource surveys plotted at the tentative map scale for each property. The range of future
mitigation options specified by the PEIR may include preservation of sensitive habitat onsite in
conjunction with enhancement/revegetation plans, payment of fees into a regional conservation
plan, or the purchase and protection of similar habitat offsite.
To satisfy these PEIR mitigation requirements, a biological field survey was prepared for the
project by Anita Hay worth, Biological Consultant (Report dated January 10, 1995). This
subsequent biological study provides more focused , current, and detailed project level analysis
of site specific biological impacts and provides more refined project level mitigation measures as
14 Rev. 03/28/96
required by the Zone 20 PEIR. The property was surveyed and no sensitive plant or wildlife
species were observed, however approximately 4 acres of disturbed coastal sage scrub (CSS)
exist within the central and southeastern areas of the property. .6 acres of this area located within
the southeastern portion of the site has been previously deed restricted and is proposed to be
dedicated in open space. The remaining area has also been previously deed restricted, however,
grading for Aviara Parkway, a major circulation arterial roadway and the required 60' fire
suppression buffer located adjacent to the roadway will result in disturbance to the remaining 3.4
acres of CSS. In accordance with the PEIR biological mitigation requirements, the tentative map
will be conditioned to require mitigation of 3.4 acres of CSS through the purchase of equal
quality habitat at a 2:1 replacement ratio to be preserved in an offsite habitat mitigation bank.
The eastern portion of the property contains a narrow north-south tributary canyon to Canyon de
las Encinas. The canyon supports a narrow, deeply incised channel in the south, and a broader,
sandy floodplain area in the north. The drainage potentially ms under the jurisdiction of the US
Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act,
and/or the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) pursuant to Section 1601-1603 of
the CDFG code. A wetland determination was conducted on July 1, 1996 by Dudek &
Associates biologist and the area was inspected and described in three segments: (1) a deep,
incised drainage channel along the eastern edge of the property; (2) a narrow sandy channel to
the west; and (3) the confluence of the two channels. The eastern drainage which consists of a
deep, narrow, incised mostly unvegetated channel (offsite to the south the drainage supports a
moderately broad band of southern willow scrub dominated by arroyo willow). The western
channel is a narrow sandy wash extending primarily through a shallow channel surrounded by
coyotebrush scrub. The wash is unvegetated for the most part with occasional individuals of
coyotebrush. The confluence of channels or northern portion of the channel opens into a broad
floodplain. Here the channel is poorly defined and the general vegetation is coyotebrush scrub
with small clumps of mule fat and one small arroyo willow. The spatial coverage of mule fat and
the single willow comprise less than .01 acre.
No ACOE wetland habitat is present onsite, however, the incised channels represent "other
waters of the US" and total ACOE jurisdiction is approximately .21 acres of unvegetated
channels. Because impacts to ACOE jurisdiction are less than one acre, above headwaters, and
affect no federal listed species, notification of the ACOE is not required, however, it is
recommended.
CDFG jurisdiction includes only the approximately .01 acre of mule fat that occurs adjacent to
the drainage. Because of the extremely limited impacts, it is unlikely that a CDFG 1603
agreement (streambed alteration) is required, however, the project will be conditioned to require
consultation for concurrence on this issue prior to the issuance of a grading permit or final map,
whichever occurs first.
Based on the biologist's determination that no significant impact to wetlands will occur (no
permits required from the resource agencies), no mitigation is recommended for this project.
NCCP/HMP, 4D RULE
The project is not located within any of the Preserve Planning Areas defined by the City's draft
Habitat Management Plan (HMP) dated July, 1994, Although disturbance to 3.4 acres of coastal
sage scrub will result from implementation of the project, it will not preclude connectivity
15 Rev. 03/28/96
between PPA's nor preclude the preservation of CSS habitat. Moreover, this project provides
mitigation in the form of offsite preservation because it will result in the purchase for
preservation 6.8 acres of habitat in an offsite habitat mitigation bank.
Since completion of a subregional NCCP/HMP, has not occurred, prior to the issuance of a
grading permit, the City may have to authorize this project to draw from the City's 5% CSS take
allowance (4d rule) to ensure that the project does not preclude the City's draft HMP. The take
of 3.4 acres of CSS habitat will not exceed the 5% allowance, nor jeopardize the HMP since it is
located outside the HMP preserve planning areas (PPA) and/or linkage planning areas (LPA),
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 PPA's. Since mitigation for the
habitat loss will result in the preservation of equal or better habitat in an offsite location, the
project will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the Gnatcatcher.
The habitat loss is incidental to otherwise lawful activities. The development of the Mariano
property is a legal development which is consistent with the City's General Plan and all required
permits will be obtained.
X. NOISE
Section 3.8 of the Zone 20 PEIR evaluated potential noise impacts for future projects located in
the Specific Plan area 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 airport
and Aviara Parkway noise contours, therefore, noise from existing Palomar Airport Road and
the airport would create a potential impact on the homes in this project. In the Comprehensive
Airport Land Use Plan, residential development is considered conditionally compatible within
the 60 to 65 CNEL contour area. A Noise Study was prepared for the project by Ogden
Environmental and Energy Services Co., Inc. Noise levels on the project site are projected to be
significant since they exceed the City's 60 CNEL noise standard due to future noise generated by
traffic on Aviara Parkway. Therefore, in accordance with the Zone 20 PEIR mitigation
requirements, the tentative map will be conditioned to comply with the noise study
recommendations requiring the construction of masonry noise barrier wall at the top of slopes on
designated lots to attenuate the exterior noise level to 60 dBA CNEL or less, the provision of
interior noise mitigation, if necessary, legal notification to future homeowners of potential airport
noise impacts, and recordation of avigation easements on lots within the 60—65 CNEL noise
contour.
i
XI and XII. PUBLIC FACILITIES
The project is located within the Zone 20 Local Facilities Management (LFM) Zone. Public
facilities and financing have been accounted for in the Zone 20 LFM Plan to accommodate the
residential development. The residential land use would be consistent with the General Plan,
therefore, the project would not significantly impact the provision of public facilities. 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 III-112, Zone 20 PEIR).
16 Rev. 03/28/96
XIII. VISUAL AESTHETICS
Section 3.13 of the Zone 20 PEIR analyzed potential visual impacts created by development
within the Specific Plan area. It was determined that visual impacts to the Palomar Airport
Road Viewshed (Vantage Points 8 and 9) could be potentially significant. To reduce these
potential impacts to below a level of significance, the PEIR mitigation measures include
additional visual analysis, landform-contdur grading and landscaping, and compliance with
visual design guidelines.
The Mariano project includes a hillside development permit application (HDP 96-05) which
requires compliance with hillside architectural and grading standards. The project is in
compliance with these standards which are consistent with the PEIR mitigation requiring
landform grading and contouring. Additional visual analysis performed by the applicant has
identified that units will be visible from the Palomar Airport Road viewshed and future structures
will therefore require compliance with the PEIR visual design guidelines including combination
of one and two story homes, a variety of roof heights and roof massing, a variety of earth tone
roof and wall materials and colors, and enhanced fenestration.
SOURCES
1. MEIR -1994 General Plan Update of the Carlsbad General Plan.
2. Final EIR 90-03 - Zone 20 Specific Plan.
3. "Report of Updated Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation" prepared by Geotechnical
Exploration, Inc. dated December 21, 1995 and "Letter Report - Update to Preliminary
Geotechnical Investigation dated September 26, 1996 for the PacWest Group, Inc. and
MAAC Project.
4. "Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulic Study - Mariano" dated April 29, 1996 prepared
by Hunsaker & Associates San Diego, Inc.
5. "Acoustical Technical Report - Mariano Site Development, Carlsbad California" dated
September 25, 1995 prepared by Ogden Environmental and Energy Services Co., Inc. and
"Mariano Acoustical Report - Letter Update" dated April 11, 1997.
6. "Transportation Analysis for F.M.Z. 20/Mariano" dated September 12, 1995 prepared for
PacWest by Urban Systems Associates, Inc.
7. "Biological Resources Survey Report for the Carlsbad Heights Property, Carlsbad,
California" dated January 10, 1995 prepared by Anita M. Hay worth, Biological
Consultant.
8. "Wetland Determination Report for the Mariano Project," prepared by Dudek and
Associates, dated July 24, 1996.
17 Rev. 03/28/96