Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 98-02; Colina Roble; Tentative Map (CT) (2)PETE WILSON GOVERNOR PAUL F MINER DIRECTOR of California GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1400 TENTH STREET SACRAMENTO 95814 May 27, 1998 JEFF GIBSON CITY OF CARLSBAD 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92009 Subjeat; CQLJNA ROBLEI, CT 98-02/SttJ? SS-Ql/JtDP 98-01 0CH ih 98041135 Dear JEFF GIBSON: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental document to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and none of the state agencies have comments. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please call at (916) 445-0613 i£ you have any questions regarding ehd anviratimsantsl tfevis&w 3ps?e»ea«a. Whati acmt&otiftg th© Clearinghouse in this matter, please use the eight-digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly.. Sincerely, ANTERO A. RIVASPLATA Chief, State Clearinghouse NOTICE OF COMPLETION Project Title:_ MOO Tenth Street. Room 121. Sacramento. CA 95814 - (916) 445-11613 m.K-CT98-02/SUP98-01/HDP 98-01 Lead Agency: CITY O~ AR1.SBAD Contact Person: JEFF GIBSON Street Address: 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE Phone: (760) 438-1161. e.\1.4455 City: CARLSBAD Zip: 92009 County: SAN DIEGO COUNTY ^ Sec NOTE Below: PROJECT LOCATION: County: SAN DIEGO City/Nearest Community: CARLSBAD 35Cross Streets: OLIVENHA1N ROAD Total Acres:. Assessor's Parcel No. 255-040-55 Section: N/A Twp. N/A Range: N/A Base: N/A Within 2 Miles: State Hvvy #: N/A Waterways: N/A Airports: McCLELLAN/PALOMAR Railways: NCTD Schools: N/A DOCUMENT TYPE: CEQA: Q NOP Q Early Cons ^ Mil Ncg Dec Q Draft EIR LOCAL ACTION TYPE: Q General Plan Update Q General Plan Amendment Q General Plan Element PI Community Plan DEVELOPMENT TYPE: j^ Residential: Univs 28 rj Office: Sq. Ft. p| Commercial: Sq. Ft. pi Educational: Q Recreational: p| Supplement/Subsequent Q EIR (Prior SCH No.) D O'her: p] Specific Plan pj Master Plan pj Planned Unit Development Q Site Plan Acres 35 Acres Employees Acres Employees Acres Employees NEPA: Q NOI OTHER: Q Joint Document , ! \ Q EA Q Draft EIS Q FONSl Q Rezone Q Prezonc Q Use Permit |5<] Land Division (Subdivision. Parcel Map. Trad Map. cic.) Q Water Facilities: Q Transportation: Q Mining: D ^o\\cr: Q Waste Treatment: Q I i:\7i\rdons Water: PI Other: Q Final Document Q Oilier: Q Annexation p| Redevelopment PI Coastal Permit Q Oilier; Tvne MOD Type Mineral Tvne Watts Type TV PC PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN DOCUMENT: Q Aesthetic/Visual Q Agricultural Land [x] Air Quality ^ Arcliaeologiciil/Historical Q Coastal Zone P) Drainage/Absorption pi Economic/Jobs Q Fiscal £Q Flood Plain/Flooding Q Forest Land/Fire Hazard rn Geological/Seismic p] Minerals ^ Noise Q Population/Use. Balance £] Public Services/Facilities p] Recreation/Parks p| Schools/Universities Q Septic Systems Q Sewer Capacity rg] Writer Quality Q M.OSiipply/GrmitK) ll.O gj Wei land/Riparian pi Soil Erusion/Conipuction/C trading Q Wildlife rj Solid Waste Q Toxic/Hazardous gj '1 ra flic/Circulation ra Vegetation p| Growth Inducing [g] Lund Use Q Cuniulniivc t-ITect Q Other: Present L:nid Usc/Zoning/Gcneral Plan Use Viicai)t/K-1-10 Zone/ RLM/OS Cieneral I'lai Project Description: A proposed 30 lot/28 unit residential subdivision with minimum tot sizes of 10,000 sq.ft. on a 35 acre parcel located south of the southwest corner of Uancho S;mln Fe Road and Olivcnliain Road. The project includes 14.H acre and S.8 acre open spaee lots to protect the silc's wetland, oak woodland, and chaparral habitat. The project also includes grading to accommodate a public trail, a public cul-de-sae street, limited frontage improvements along Rancho Santa Fe Road, and utility and •Jrninage improvements to support the residential development. State Clearinghouse Contact: Mr. Chris Belsky (916)445-0613 State'Review Began: A- - ^1 - _ *\& Dept. Review to Agency ^ - \Q Agency Rev to SCH SCH COMPLIANCE Please note SCH Number on all Comments 98041135 Please forward late comments directly to the Lend Agency AQMD/APCD 2-"h(Resources: "$ I ~i-' ) Project Sent to the following State Agencies X Resources Boating Coastal Comm Coastal Consv Colorado Rvr Bd ^ Conservation _JC_ Fish & Game # Delta Protection __^ Forestry ^C Parks & Re^6HP) Reclamation BCDC DWR OES Bus Transp Hous Aeronautics 7<, CHP _X_Caltrans # II Trans Planning Housing & Devel Health & Welfare Drinking H20 Medical Waste State/Consumer Svcs General Services "Cal/EPA _ARB _ CA Waste Mgmt Bd SWRCB: Grants "SWRCB: Delta SWRCB: Wtr Quality SWRCB: Wtr Rights _X_ Reg. WQCB # _tf DTSC/CTC ' Yth/Adlt Corrections Corrections Independent Comm Energy Comm X_NAHC PUC Santa Mn Mtns X_ State Lands Comm Tahoe Rgl Plan Other: STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON. Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME Natural Community Conservation Planning 4949 Viewridge Avenue San Diego, CA92123 (619)467-4251 FAX 467-4235 May 26, 1998 Mr. Jeff Gibson Planning Department City of Carlsbad 2075 La Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for Colina Roble Project (CT 98-02/SUP 98-01/HDP 98-01) Dear Mr. Gibson: The California Department of Fish and Game's (Department) Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) staff has completed its review of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Colina Roble project. The project area is located south of the southwest corner of Rancho Santa Fe Road and Olivenhain Road. The project proposes to develop 28 residential units on 35 acres. The project proposes to impact 0.04 acres of southern mixed chaparral, 0.74 acres of wetlands, and one coast live oak. Impacts to southern mixed chaparral will be mitigated through the conservation of a 8.40 acre open space lot. Impacts to wetlands are proposed to be mitigated through the onsite restoration of wetlands at a 2:1 ratio (0.08 acres). Please note that a Streambed Alteration Agreement (Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code) is required for impacts to wetlands, and the Department of Fish and Game's regional office should be contacted for consultation and to finalize the mitigation requirements. To obtain a Streambed Alteration Packet please contact the Department's Region 5 Environmental Services office by phone at 562/590-5137 or by mail at 330 Golden Shore, Suite 50, Long Beach, California 90802. Mitigation for the impacted single coast live oak is through the onsite replacement at a 3:1 ratio. Through the review of the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study the Department concurs that the proposed mitigation is consistent with the City of Carlsbad's developing Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP) plan. However, the Department recommends that the project's two open space lots be placed into conservation easements and dedicated to the City of Carlsbad to ensure the protection of the upland and wetland areas. With acceptance of the above concern, the Department concurs that the issuance of the Mitigated Negative Declaration is Mr. Jeff Gibson May 26, 1998 Page 2 appropriate. Please contact this office at the above address or phone number if you need to respond to this comment letter. Sincerely, William E. Tippets NCCP Field Supervisor cc: Department of Fish and Game Gail Presley Sacramento Terri Dickerson Long Beach David Lawhead Rob Thomas San Diego U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Nancy Gilbert Carlsbad File: Chronfile: NCCP/CLNARBLE.NEG City of Carlsbad Planning Department MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Address/Location: APN: 255-040-55, East side of Rancho Santa Fe Road south of Olivenhain Road, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California Project Description: A proposed 30 lot/28 unit residential subdivision with minimum lot sizes of 10,000 sq.ft. on a 35 acre parcel located south of the southwest corner of Rancho Santa Fe Road and Olivenhain Road. The project includes 14.8 acre and 8.8 acre open space lots to protect the site's wetland, oak woodland, and chaparral habitat. The project also includes grading to accommodate a public trail, a public cul-de-sac street, limited frontage improvements along Rancho Santa Fe Road, and utility and drainage improvements to support the residential development. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Jeff Gibson in the Planning Department at (760) 438-1161, extension 4455. DATED: CASE NO: APRIL 27, 1998 CT 98-02/SUP 98-01/HDP 98-01 CASE NAME: COLINA ROBLE PUBLISH DATE: APRIL 27, 1998 MICHAEL J. HOLZMffiLER Planning Director 2075 La Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (760) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 438-0894 CITY OF OCEANSIDE HIGHWAY VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE CITY OF ENCINITAS PACIFIC OCEAN COIINA nOIH€ CITVOF CITY OF SAN MARCOS loduiig Design Group, Inc. 703 Palomar fiirport Road #300 Carlsbad. California 92009 (760)438-3182 FflX (760) 438-0173 \\\ | 1 J'II f i* * 13 ii i ii W '!i iihi'Uii imm ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CT 98-02/SUP 98-01/HDP 98-01 DATE: MARCH 18. 1998 BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 4. CASE NAME: Colina Roble APPLICANT: Colina Roble. LLC ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 3573 East Sunrise Drive #221, Tucson AZ. 85718 (520)229-2179 DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: January 21. 1998 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A proposed 30 lot/28 unit residential subdivision with minimum lot sizes of 10,000 sq.ft. on a 35 acre parcel located south of the southwest corner of Rancho Santa Fe Road and Olivenhain Road. The project includes 14.8 acre and 8.8 acre open space lots to protect the site's wetland, oak woodland, and chaparral habitat. The project also includes grading to accommodate a public trail, a public cul-de-sac street, limited frontage improvements along Rancho Santa Fe Road, and utility and drainage improvements to support the residential development. 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 Fl Water Air Quality | | Transportation/Circulation | | Public Services [X] Biological Resources | | Utilities & Service Systems | | Energy & Mineral Resources | | Aesthetics I I Hazards fYl Cultural Resources 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. |X1 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 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 Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. Planner Signature— 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). LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?(Ref. 3) 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)? Potentially Significant Impact D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D D D II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (Ref.l,P4-5) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (Ref. 1) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? D n n n III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (Ref.2, P. 5-22) b) Seismic ground shaking? (Ref.2, P. 5-22) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (Ref.2, P. 5-22) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (Ref.2, P. 5- 22) e) Landslides or mudflows? (Ref.2, P. 5-22) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (Ref.2, P. 5-22) g) Subsidence of the land? (Ref.2, P. 5-22) Expansive soils? (Ref.2, P. 5-22)h) i)Unique geologic or physical features? (Ref.2, P. 5- 22) nn n n n n n 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? (Ref.6)n n n Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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) 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?(Ref.3) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?(Ref.3) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies?(Ref.3) Potentially Significant Impact D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D a aa Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D D 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? (Ref. 3) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? D D D D D VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? I I i i b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp i i i—i curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby I I i i uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? I ] I I e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? I I i I f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting I I I I alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? I I I I 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? (Ref. 4,5)) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?) D n n n n IEI Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Ref. 4,5) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (Ref. 4,5) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (Ref. 4,5) Potentially Significant Impact D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D D 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? D D D D D D 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? n n n n n X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Ref. 7)D D D D D XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? e) Other governmental services? Dn nn n n n 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? D D nn 7 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D D D D Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D D D D XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources? (Ref. 8) Affect historical resources?c) d) e) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? D D D D 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 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?(Ref. 4,5) 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)?(Ref. 3) D D Rev. 03/28/96 Potentially Significant Impact G Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D Less Than Significant Impact G No Impact [X] Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 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. MEIR for the 1994 General Plan Update, 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. Overriding Findings of Consideration were adopted for air quality and cumulative circulation impacts as part of the MEIR for the 1994 General Plan Update. The project is consistent with the General Plan. 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. N/A Rev. 03/28/96 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site is approximately 35 acres in size and is located directly West of Rancho Santa Fe Road. The Encinitas Creek flows through the central portion of the property and the along the southern portion of the site there are hillsides. The site's topography ranges in elevation from approximately 102 feet above sea level in the lowland portion of the property to 224 feet above sea level in the upland area to the south. The parcel also contains riparian, coast live oak woodland, and chaparral habitat. The site's geology consists of dense clayey-silty fine sand topsoil, medium dense-silty fine sand colluvium/slopewash, fine to medium sand to sandy clay alluvium, Tertiary-aged Torrey Sandstone, and Tertiary-aged Delmar Formation. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. LAND USE AND PLANNING The project site is designated Residential Low Medium (RLM) in the Carlsbad General Plan (0-4 d.u. per acre acre) and zoned R-l-10,000. The proposed 28 unit single-family residential subdivision yields a project density of 1.54 d.u. per acre and would be consistent with these designations. The surrounding development consists of single-family homes to the west and south, open space and Encinitas Creek (wetland habitat) to the north, and Rancho Santa Fe Road to the east. The proposed 10,000 sq. ft., single-family lots would be compatible with the surrounding single-family development. The site is not being used for agricultural purposes and the closest agricultural operation (cattle grazing) in the area is located directly east of Rancho Santa Fe Road. The project implements the General Plan and does not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of the existing community. II POPULATION AND HOUSING b) The project site is an undeveloped remnant of land surrounded by existing development. All offsite infrastructure is in place. This "infill" proposal would, therefore, not induce growth into the area. c) The site is vacant. Development would not displace any existing housing. IV. WATER a-e) The project site is located adjacent to Encinitas Creek. The development of the single- family land use, including the cul-de-sac street, driveways, patios and roof area would all result in somewhat more impervious surfaces and increased runoff from the site. Chapter 15.12 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code requires that development utilize best management practices to prevent pollutants from entering storm water conveyance systems by complying with all applicable provisions of local ordinances and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Storm Water Discharges. There is no development proposed in the Encinitas Creek floodway, however, the proposed development is located in the floodplain adjoining the floodway. The project's floodplain impact analysis prepared by Dr. Howard H. Chang, dated February 27 1998, indicates that the proposed grading and filling in the Encinitas Creek floodplain would not significantly impact the floodway, the storage capacity of the existing detention Basin 10 Rev. 03/28/96 "D", and would not result in additional exposure to risk of on-site or off-site flooding from a 100 year flood. The proposed elevation of the residential building pads and street would be above the 100 year flood level. In addition, the project would not significantly change the direction of surface water movement or ground water flow, and, therefore, would not affect adjoining properties. All the project's drainage would still flow towards Encinitas Creek. Groundwater is present on the site. The quantity of groundwater underlying the site is limited and the aquifer is not utilized for potable drinking water, therefore, any potential project impacts are not considered significant. 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. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION b-e) Access to the project site is constrained by existing development to the west, wetlands and Encinitas Creek to the north, and steep topography and existing development to the south, therefore, the developer is requesting a Engineering standards variance for the 11 Rev. 03/28/96 length of the public street. The cul-de-sac street would be constructed to full public street standards including drainage and sewer facilities, curb, gutter and sidewalks. Access to the site is from Rancho Santa Fe Road. Due to the close spacing of existing and proposed intersections along this portion of Rancho Santa Fe Road the developer is also requesting a Engineering standards variance for intersection spacing. For safety, adequate line of sight at the egress point (cul-de-sac street & Rancho Santa Fe Road) would be maintained to assure the ability of drivers to see pedestrians, bicyclists, and other vehicles clearly. f-g) While the project's small size doesn't lend itself to opportunities to implement major transportation improvements, the developer will be responsible for the widening and frontage improvements along the west side of Rancho Santa Fe Road. At this time the developer is requesting that the improvements be deferred in the form of a future improvement agreement. 'The project would not conflict with adopted policies for alternative transportation strategies or for adopted plans for rail, waterborne, or air traffic transportation. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. The project site was field surveyed for sensitive and endangered biological species and natural habitat communities. The resources were mapped by Mooney & Associates as part of the project's Wetland Delineation Report, dated May 1997 and a letter report dated December 1997. The project would result in the following impacts to onsite biological resources: a) 0.04 acre impact to southern mixed chaparral; b) 0.74 acre impact to wetlands; c) Elimination of one (1) coastal live oak. Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and coastal live oak are considered significant impacts, and both require mitigation to reduce the impacts to less than significant. Significant impacts to the southern mixed chaparral would be offset by the preservation of the remaining chaparral habitat in the 8.4 acre open space lot (Lot # 29). Mitigation for the loss of any wetland is recommended at a 2:1 ratio and the wetland should be restored through onsite replanting and enhancement, based on the recommendations contained in the Mooney & Associates biological letter report dated December 1997, and a final mitigation plan approved by the resources agencies as part of the Federal and State permits. Mitigation for the loss of the coastal live oak is recommended through a replacement (34 inch box specimen) planting program at a 3:1 ratio. The oak woodland mitigation should take place in the existing oak woodland area located in the southern upland portion of the site. VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES a) Consistent with Title 24 regulations of the State Building Code, the future homes will be designed to incorporate energy conservation measures where feasible. Otherwise the project doesn't conflict with any adopted energy conservation plans. 12 Rev. 03/28/96 b) No non-renewable resources have been identified with the site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the wasteful use of a non- renewable resource. c) The subject site does not have any known resources (natural gas, oil, coal, sand or gravel) that would be of significant value to the region and the residents of the State. IX. HAZARDS a-d) Aside from short-term air quality impacts and potential hazards associated with dust, vehicle emissions, and certain materials (paint, fuels, lubricants, solvents) during grading and construction activities, the proposed project would not result in a significant risk or hazard to residents of the neighborhood. No reportable quantities of listed hazardous materials will be maintained onsite following completion of construction. There are no existing hazards (example - aviation flight activities, manufacturing processes) associated with the site or the neighborhood. e) There will be no increase in fire hazards. The manufactured slope along the southern portion of the lots, and the wetland buffer area along the north will serve as the required fire suppression zones and be kept clear of high fuel native habitat. The oak woodland, riparian habitat, and southern mixed chaparral could, in dry weather conditions, present wildland fire hazard in the area. However, the project will not exacerbate the existing potential for fire hazard, and may even reduce it as there would be some amount of landscaping irrigation to keep the slopes green during dry weather conditions. X. NOISE a-b) Temporary construction activities will be required to comply with the City's Construction Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.48 of the Municipal Code). Otherwise, the project will generate only the normal amount of noise associated with residences (i.e. barking dogs, screaming children, garden power equipment, etc.). Based on the findings of the project's Environmental Noise Assessment Report prepared by Pacific Noise Control, dated January 7, 1998, the project will be subject to significant adverse noise conditions from off site. Vehicular traffic along Rancho Santa Fe Road will generate exterior noise that exceeds 60 dBa CNEL along the street side yard and rear yard of six lots in the project. Interior noise levels would also potentially exceed the City's 45 dBa CNEL standard on those same lots. To mitigate the significant exterior noise impact at the homes on Lots 1 through 6 there would be a requirement for noise barriers ranging from five to seven-feet in height (Lots 1 and 2 - seven-foot high barrier, Lots 3 and 4- six- foot high barrier, Lots 5 and 6 - five-foot high barrier). If two-story homes are proposed on Lots 1 through 6 an acoustical analysis will be required for the homes on these lots prior to issuance of building permits to ensure that the interior CNEL would not exceed 45 dBa. To mitigate the interior noise impact, the homes on these lots would most likely require air-conditioning and/or mechanical ventilation, and could require sound-rated windows. 13 Rev. 03/28/96 XI. PUBLIC SERVICES/XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS The proposed project is subject to all the conditions of the Zone 11 Local Facilities Management Plan as well as the Citywide Facilities Management Plan for 11 classes of public facilities and services. These plans projected facilities and service needs at buildout assuming that all dwelling units allowed under the City's Growth Management Plan were constructed. These facilities include those for: fire, police, school, roads, government offices, parks, sewer, storm drain, and water. The Growth Management Plan requires a financing plan to be part of the Local Facilities Management Plan to assure the provision of the listed facilities and services concurrent with their need. The Olivenhain Municipal Water District has provided a letter indicating its ability to provide the development with water service. In particular, and consistent with the City's Growth Management Plan and applicable State law, the project applicant will be required to submit evidence to the City that the project impacts to school facilities have been adequately mitigated prior to issuance of building permits. " XIII. AESTHETICS a-b) The construction of the project will not adversely affect an existing public view or scenic amenity. In order to provide the lighting necessary for the safe movement of vehicles and pedestrians and to provide security for persons and property, the project will include exterior lighting in the form of fixtures on the future buildings and street lights along the cul-de-sac street. This lighting will be directed so as to fall onto the site with a minimum of spill-over to adjacent properties. The project will not create adverse lighting or glare impacts to on or offsite residents. XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES a-e) A cultural resource evaluation program was conducted for the property by Mooney & Associates, dated November 1997. The resource survey identified two archaeological sites (CA-SDI-2734 and CA-SDI-2735) within the project's boundary. The resources were evaluated through fieldwork and testing and based on the findings presented in this report, the resources present on the site do not possess qualities of important or significant value necessary to qualify for any further treatment or consideration. To ensure that potential paleontological resources are not impacted, prior to any grading of the project site, a paleontologist shall be retained by the Developer to perform a walkover survey of the site and to review the grading plans to determine if the proposed grading will impact fossil resources. XV. RECREATIONAL a-b) The project will generate a small incremental demand for community parks and recreation facilities. The demand is offset by the City's Growth Management Plan, which has planned population-based park and recreation facilities throughout the City and 14 Rev. 03/28/96 requires all new development to pay park fees to assure the construction of these facilities commensurate with population growth. XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANT - CUMULATIVE EFFECTS, 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. 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. SOURCE DOCUMENTS (Note: All source documents are on file in the Planning Department, located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad CA 92009: Phone (760) 438-1161) 1. Carlsbad General Plan, City of Carlsbad, 1994. 2. "Preliminary GeotechnicalInvestigation WiegandProperty, Carlsbad, CA", Leighton and Associates, November 21, 1997. 3. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update, City of Carlsbad Planning Department, March 1994. 4. Wetland Delineation Report for the Wiegand Property, Mooney & Associates, May 1997. 15 Rev. 03/28/96 5. Supplement Vegetation Analysis Letter Report for the Wiegand Property, Mooney & Associates, December 1, 1997. 6. "Floodway andFloodplain Analysis Letter", Dr. Howard Chang, February 27, 1998. 7. "Colina Roble Environmental Noise Assessment", Pacific Noise Control, January 7, 1998. 8. "Report of Archaeological Survey and Test Evaluation for the Wiegand Property ", Mooney & Associates, November 7, 1997. 9. "Live Oak Tree at Colina Roble", ADL Planning Associates, April 2, 1998. LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) 1. Prior to recordation of the first final tract map or grading permit, whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare a detailed biological mitigation and monitoring plan to mitigate project impacts to biological resources including impacts to .74 acres of riparian habitat and one coastal live oak. Mitigation for the loss of any wetland is recommended at a 2:1 ratio and the wetland shall be restored through onsite replanting and enhancement, based on the recommendations contained in the Mooney & Associates biological letter report dated December 1997. Mitigation for the loss of the coastal live oak shall include a replacement (36 inch box specimen) planting program at a 3:1 ratio. The oak woodland mitigation shall take place in the existing oak woodland area located in the southern upland portion of the site. 2. Prior to the recordation of the first final tract map or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property may be subject to noise impacts from the proposed or existing Transportation Corridor, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney (see Noise Form #1 on file in the Planning Department). 3. Prior to occupancy of individual units on Lots 1-6, the Developer shall construct sound attenuation walls, berms, or a combination of both along the top of the slope and street side yard for these lots, in accordance with the recommendations of the project's noise study prepared by Pacific Noise Control, dated January 7, 1998 (Lots 1 and 2 - seven- foot high barrier, Lots 3 and 4- six-foot high barrier, and Lots 5 and 6 - five-foot high barrier). 4. If two-story homes are proposed on Lots 1 through 6 an acoustical analysis and subsequent mitigation shall be required for the homes on these lots prior to issuance of building permits to ensure that the interior CNEL does not exceed 45 dBa. The project's building plans shall included a note on the plan stating the required interior noise mitigation for Lots 1-6, if two-story homes are proposed, per the recommendations of the subsequent noise study. 5. Paleontology: 16 Rev. 03/28/96 a. Prior to any grading of the project site, a paleontologist shall be retained to perform a walkover survey of the site and to review the grading plans to determine if the proposed grading will impact fossil resources. A copy of the paleontologist's report shall be provided to the Planning Director prior to issuance of a grading permit; b. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of the site and to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the fossils present in the geologic strata, it may be necessary to collect matrix samples for laboratory processing through fine screens. The paleontologist shall make periodic reports to the Planning Director during the grading process; c. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an exposed fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage artifacts; d. All fossils collected shall be donated to a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum; e. Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading activities of the project shall be resolved by the Planning Director and City Engineer. ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) 17 Rev. 03/28/96 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 Sifiature 18 Rev. 03/28/96 ENVIRONMENTA5MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 1 of 4 -22 ro —ro _c -Q 0) *" E ^^o oCD Q.aX^_ o CO (7) a. _J</> o1 COC7) h-o ~ CO <D E^|o o < •^••oo 0 • — T3 m ^>*— S- CD0 =5 a.,- CO CO.E ro co^ CD >- ° E £ •^-» f— *> S 0 S Q- '•*— * coro "P.« ,g> o5 !_ E CD ^~* o ~~ "TO m CD> CD S: 2 "~ D) Q. i*_ C Q- *-• ^r "^ ~ .±i "o "o §• • • • m <—tt) ,N (/> _r: E(V* *— ' C f ^1 1 1 rS W CQ ^5 0) — ^ CD C 05^i 1 3-sj LU _l CD ^ in d < £S|PROJECT NAME: COLINA ROBLEO •§ CD -5 t - £ 1 Q "O Q- (C O ^5 o -D"t O (1)O APPROVAL DATE:0 ^ ~a. < c The following environmental mitigation measures were incoiidentified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance,this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemeBill 3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6).wT£co 0)cr c.o T3 CO (2; c: ^> CD"o.E co c c5 co O Q_£Zw O) CC CD 11c coo 9-•5 0) P O) 5 CD0 Q.._ >, °^ iCOrecu O re _D5 i 0zi^c CL O LU Oo: CL 1 . Prior to recordation of the first final tract map orgrading permit, whichever occurs first, the Developershall prepare a detailed biological mitigation andmonitoring plan to mitigate project impacts to biologicalresources including impacts to .74 acres of riparianhabitat and one coastal live oak. Mitigation for the lossof any wetland is recommended at a 2:1 ratio and thewetland shall be restored through onsite replanting andenhancement, based on the recommendationscontained in the Mooney & Associates biological letterreport dated December 1997. Mitigation for the loss ofthe coastal live oak shall include a replacement (36inch box specimen) planting program at a 3:1 ratio. Theoak woodland mitigation shall take place in the existingoak woodland area located in the southern uplandportion of the site0) 0)a. o a o CD 3 ro0) rog> 1 D) ro "D "oO) 73 to i ™i Jii •.5 •= ~o <u ro (2 O'•creQ. ro CD o T3c0) CL.x I QK. I ro<n c eadings:X o co•4=rocro Q XHI _>o COc'o Q "o<o'o1 CL II tt)Q.>» CD •craQ.0 II Q.<DQ c Q 'E0^measure.c Q roCO 1 c:.0tsE ac *-•E cOJJZ II (ft ro CL co 1 OT •ci StoT3 •oCro "S S'E ENVIRONMENTACTVIITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 2 of 4 ro .ECDCL cg TD ,JS 'd r-CD t >> CD "5. E o coc c5 CD°6I CO *-. g CD 0 .§ 'E ro •§ <us Q CO ,~c 'C CDQ Q- O *~ •^ 2! re0) cO ToO) i CD Z z 5_3 Q. 1—OLLJ Oo: Q_ Q. CO E "o •4—* "roc it— -1— »CO CD.c •5 coV-*ro "S 0o CD -»— 1 o-H-* 1—o"l— CL CN 1 or the issuance of building permits, whichever occursfirst, the Developer shall prepare and record a Noticethat this property may be subject to noise impacts fromthe proposed or existing Transportation Corridor, in aform meeting the approval of the Planning Director andCity Attorney (see Noise Form #1 on file in theI Planning Department).CDz z ^p_J CL I—0LLJ OtY CL I 3. Prior to occupancy of individual units on Lots 1-|| 6, the Developer shall construct sound attenuationI walls, berms, or a combination of both along the top ofthe slope and street side yard for these lots, inaccordance with the recommendations of the project's•a i_- 0) Q) ro t "O CO. .a "o x: J= .0) 8 o CD'S .52 CO CD O <0 >, ro T5 CO £ 0ro ;-j,Q. CD CO 0.0) to ^ Q) § .52 c O COc: —) CD T3cro in "o cro CD CO D) -I—* 0 X'co 4 ~ocCO CO CO-*— •o .CD ro .D) "o CD o .0 c<D <U in '^ro ro c'o ro -D O .D) -o tn S = ±S 'E ^ g £ roE § a) ^11.9i ro^E E0) 0)> ce Q. ro O) oE oCLW0) £?73C 0).g? ^ oII a>Q.CL Qa: 5c E Q. C Oc o tnac T3ro I *oco 75cro aXm o £ en roc a. 0 0)cnQ o -6<D 2Q. II (UCL 1— II 'S.(DQ CDC JD 'Eo ^ 0) ^enro<u co 'roen E co 'ro )c E ^(UiM cro Q. co 1 CO 'ro73 T3Cro initialed A™ENVIRONMENTACTMITIGATION MONITORING CHECflLIST: Page 3 of 4 ' L-.roE(D(T .0 ! 1 > ^Q.E c ° toc: c.5 ro |E -i—*en cC (D || 1 «^ Q 0)c'c: 0 0 Q. C l^0 l~~ •^ h. 10re0) 0 "re_g> : i o z Q. h-OLU Oo: D.1 4. Paleontology: |05 CD"-*— » 'co -GQ) '2Q. CD jC M— O CO_g T3 03 D) >.C. 05 O-i— • i~ .0'l_ Q_ 03 paleontologist shall be retained to perform a walkoversurvey of the site and to review the grading plans todetermine if the proposed grading will impact fossilresources. A copy of the paleontologist's report shallbe provided to the Planning Director prior to issuanceof a grading permit;b. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained toperform periodic inspections of the site and to salvageexposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some ofthe fossils present in the geologic strata, it may benecessary to collect matrix samples for laboratoryprocessing through fine screens. The paleontologistshall make periodic reports to the Planning Directorduring the grading process;c. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or1_CD •£o c 'co CO £ "O CDCO0Q. XCD c 05 4—O 03 £ 03 0) -i— » _C D)C T32 D) ts £ T5 to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvageartifacts;o" Q. 05 JO -a CD-1— •03c 0T3 CDJD "ro T3 1_CD "oO JO 'co -ri [ non-profit institution with a research interest in the2 if "03 "05z 0 0) CDb C 05 O) -i— • 05 0 JO "os E 0) 4-4 M—O CD 2 CD_c-^J 0)c ^030) 9^ ^2o 5= C 0o 5^ l< ^ CD »paleontologist and the grading activities of the projectshall be resolved by the Planning Director and Cityo~ 5 CL 1_JQ)0)g LLJ a> JD O. </> O ffi"3!/>ro<u co ro0) = « g.2 ro °Oj "D O O) ~o (/)S C 3E ra 3f~ ^? tn Jl| O ~° fl>•£3 •= "D -8< g E <o ||P Q. •D £ ^ .g ro <D (U > C£particmosponsiblelative.or AgeQa: <uJ3 mn witn!c meangoing, cumu= Departmento t>0)'o CL II 0>Q. £ II sa>Q O)c ^'Eo measure.co roD) E d pg informaS> E C0) ^ II (/>cro D- co 1 CO •ci0)t5-a T3COl T3<D ro 'c A™ENVIRONMENTAPMITIGATION MONITORING CHECffiJST: Page 4 of 4 -mp ,«<!>.*: Q£i cg Uil^ ii</, „ JCD,|B@s.JM| tGWf, k£Bij<fl>:;j O Mis-. Q: ;;cn2E•E SCD^Ip~a:i o • LU~~iOcd.a. U) 0 w c a w+t -^ -^ cm ro s= oUJ .(_- • — flj 3(0n (C0) w=o^03. 2 Q. i .2 s•(-c1-^-3m £ E Q-.bJD -w o c(D 0 S s*O)Co£ ra ..•ro -a o Ol "O (/) Si C 3 E ro ra ill llfi I|S^l< ^ ra (U g'•eroQ. ra o Q. x T3C 0Q.Q. Qcc _ro Q. o U)rao>imulative.?o "c0 igoing, cuDepartml^_o 13"0)'o~ CL II Q.>, I- II "S.0 Q 0).c 2 'co 5 measure.co rag> E cots £c t c 0 15.0) E 0 M(/>cra CL c0 cg 0 w T3 S15•D T3Cra T30ra 'E ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT) CASE NO: CT DATE RECEIVED: l- BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Colina Roble (To be completed by staff) 2 APPLICANT' Colina Roble, LLC C/0 David M. Bentley 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 3573 East Sunrise Dr.. #221, Tucson, AZ 85718 1-520-299-2179 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: <w Ini- - ?8 nm't- - R-1-10.000 sq. ft. minimum subdivision, lying south of Olivenhain Road and west of Rancho Santa Fe Road in LFMZ 11 in the City of Carlsbad, California. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: Please check any of the environmental factors listed below that would be potentially affected by this project. This would be any environmental factor that has at least one impact checked "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" in the checklist on the following pages. ["£] Land Use and Planning |~~| Population and Housing [x] Geological Problems [X] Water Air Quality [%"[ Transportation/Circulation [ | Public Services [x~| Biological Resources | | Utilities & Service Systems |~~| Energy & Mineral Resources | | Aesthetics (~~j Hazards |~x) Cultural Resources |x1 Noise | | Recreation [~~| Mandatory Findings of Significance Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): ( 1 ) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( l ) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( 1 ) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? ( i ) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (1 ) Potentially Significant Impact n n D D Potentially Less Than Significant Significan Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated No Impact D D D D D n 0 D n II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (2 ) • b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( 2 ) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (2 ) D n n n n n III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (3 ) b) Seismic ground shaking? (3 ) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( 3 ) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? < 3 )e) Landslides or mudflows? (3 ) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( 3 ) g) Subsidence of the land? ( 3 ) h) Expansive soils? (3 ) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( 3 ) D D n nDn n n n nn a nn aD IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (A ) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( / )n n n n Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (4 ) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body?( 4 ) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (4 ) 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? (4 ) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( 4 ) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (4 ) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? Potentially Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Significan Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated No Impact a a a a aa D D D D D D D AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( 5 ) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( 5 ) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (5 ) d) Create objectionable odors? (5 ) D D D D D D D D D D a a a a VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( 6 )b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (5 ) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? < 6 >d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( 6 >e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( 6 )f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? < 6 )g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? D D D D D D D D D D D Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) 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? (7 ) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? ( 7 ) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (7 ) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? ( 7 >e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( 7 ) Potentially Significant Impact D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D Less Than Significan t Impact No Impact D D D VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( 8 ) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (8 ) 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? ( 8 ) D D D D D D D LXJ fxl 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)? (9 ) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (9 ) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? ( 9 ) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( 9 ) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? ( 9 ) D D D D D D D D D H D X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( IQ b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( 10 ) D D n 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? (11 ) b) Police protection? ( 11 ) c) Schools? (11 D D D D D D B D D LH Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( 11 ) e) Other governmental services? ( 11 ) 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? (10 ) b) Communications systems? (12 ) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( 12 ) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( 12 ) e) Storm water drainage? ( 12 . ) f) Solid waste disposal? ( 12 ) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( 12 ) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? ( 13 ) b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? ( 13 ) c) Create light or glare? ( 13 ) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( 14 ) b) Disturb archaeological resources? (14 ) c) Affect historical resources? ( 14 ) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (14 )e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ^ ) XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( 15 ) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( 15 ) Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D D D D D D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significan Impact t Impact D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D n n [XJ [xl LXJ D Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) 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? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Potentially Significant Impact D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D Less Than No Significan Impact t Impact D D D H 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 Loduiig Design Group, Inc. ATTACHMENT TO E. I. A. FOR COLINA ROBLE The following are responses to all questions and references to supporting resource information. 1. Land Use - No changes are proposed to the existing General Plan and zoning for the property. The property is not a viable agricultural resource (small and isolated) and no established community will be affected. 2. Population and Housing - The proposed project will be developed at 50% of the allowable density based on growth management. 3. Geologic Problems - All items are addressed in Leighton and Associates's Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for the property dated November 21, 1997 and submitted with this application. The report states "the proposed development is considered feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendation summarized in this report are implemented during grading and construction". 4. Water - Only 28% of the site is being developed and there is no encroachment into the floodway of Encinitas Creek. Also see final Environmental Impact Report for Olivenhain Road Widening/Realignment and Flood Control Project - (SCH No. 91011035) dated January 1992. This final EIR addresses the impacts for Detention Basin "D" recently constructed on the property. 5. Air Quality - The project is being developed at 50% of what the City Growth Management Plan would allow. 6. Transportation/Circulation - ADT generation is half of what is allowed and no conflicts are being created. 7. Biological Resources - See attached biological reports by Mooney & Associates. 8. Energy and Mineral Resources - No conflict with any energy conservation plan will occur and no known resources exist onsite. 9. Hazards - No known hazards exist. Also, setbacks from native brush areas are being maintained for fire protection. 703 Palomcir Rirport Road + Suite 300 4 Carlsbad, California 92009 (760) 438-3182 FflX (760) 438-0173 2 of 2 10. Noise - See attached noise analysis by Pacific Noise Control. 11. Public Services - The development as proposed is one half of what is allowed based on the current General Plan, zoning, and growth management requirements. 12. Utilities and Service Systems - New services will need to be extended into the site, but at one half of what was planned for. 13. Aesthetics - There is no scenic vista or highway that will be affected by the proposal and street lighting systems will be below and away from existing residences in the adjacent City of Encinitas. 14. Cultural Resources - See attached report of archeological survey and test evaluation by Mooney & Associates dated November 7, 1997, that conclude that further treatment or consideration in the environmental review process is not required. 15. Recreation - Demand for recreational facilities will be one half of what was anticipated. 16. Mandatory Findings of Significance - Minor direct wetland impacts (0.28 Acres) will be mitigated onsite. The project does set aside a major habitat corridor as identified in the City Draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP). Significant upland habitat will also be preserved. L-1039.041 12/5/97