Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 98-17; Hadley Property; Tentative Map (CT) (53)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: ZC 98-10/LCPA 98-07/CT 98-17/HDP 98-19/CDP 98-74 DATE: March 24. 1999 BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. CASE NAME: Hadlev Property APPLICANT: Spectrum Communities. L.L.C. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 15375 Barranca Parkway. Suite B-211. Irvine CA 92618 T949) 753-8400 DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: October 16. 1998 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment and Zone Change to change the land use designation from Limited Control (L-C) to One-Family Residential. 7.500 square foot lot size minimum (R-l-7,500). with a Qualified Overlay Zone(-Q). on a 14.7 acre parcel of land. Also proposed is a Tentative tract map to create 37 residential lots and one open space lot, a Hillside Development Permit, and a Coastal Development Permit. The project site is located adjacent and east of Black Rail Road and 1200 feet south of future Poinsettia Lane and is identified by Assessors Parcel Number 215-080-19-00. 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 I I Population and Housing J Geological Problems Water XI Air Quality IX Transportation/Circulation X Biological Resources Public Services Utilities & Service Systems Energy & Mineral Resources | | Aesthetics Hazards [XJ Cultural Resources Noise Recreation X Mandatory Findings of Significance Rev. 03/28/96 c o DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) I I 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. 1X3 I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An Mitigated Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I I 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 Master Environmental Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-01), 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 o 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. Rev. 03/28/96 o • 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. • 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 c Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18; #2: Pgs 111-74 - III -87) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18; #2: Pgs 111-74 - III -87) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18; #2: Pgs III -74 - III -87) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (#1: Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18; #2: Pgs 111-74 - III - 87) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18; #2: III - 74 - III -87) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact n IEI EI II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6; #2: IV-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)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6; #2: IV-1) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) El El D III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2: Pgs III-112 - III-118; #4) b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2: PgsIII-112-III-118;#4) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ((#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1.15; #2: Pgs III-112 - III-118; #4) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15;#2: PgsIII-112 - III-118; #4) e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2: PgsIII-112-III-118;#4) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2: Pgs III-112 - III -118; #4) g) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2: Pgs III-112-III-118; #4) h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15; #2: Pgs III-l 12 -III-118; #4) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2:Pgs III -112 -III -118; #4) D D D D n n Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2- 11; #6) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5. 2-11; #6) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5. 2-11; #6) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5. 2-11; #6) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11; #6) 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? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11; #6) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ((#l:Pgs5.2-l-5. 2-11; #6) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5. 2- 11; #6) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1-5.2-11) 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? (#l:Pgs 5.3- 1-5.3-12; #2: Pgs 28-36) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 -5.3-12; #2: Pgs 28-36) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12; #2: Pgs 28-36) d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12; #2: Pgs 28-36) n is VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #2: Pgs 111-58 -111-69) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #2: Pgsm-58 - m-69) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #2: Pgs 111-58 -111-69) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #2: Pgs 111-58 -111-69) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (#I:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #2: Pgs 111-58 -111-69) D D D D n Rev. 03/28/96 c Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #2: Pgs 111-58 -111-69) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #2: Pgs 111-58 -111-69) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporatedn Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24; #2: Pgs 111-37 -111-57; #3) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24; #2: Pgs 111-37 -111-57; #3) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24; #2: Pgs 111-37 -111-57; #3) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24; #2: Pgs 111-37 -111-58; #3) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#1 :Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24; #2: Pgs 111-37 -111-57; #3) D n D n VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13- 1-5.13-9) 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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1-5.13-9) n n 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)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1-5.10.1-5) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5; #2: Pgs 111-97 - III- 105; #5) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5; #2: Pgs III-97-III-105;#5) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5. 10.1-1 -5. 10.1-5) n n n n n X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9- 15;#2:Pgsffl-88-III-96) Rev. 03/28/96 c Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9- 1 - 5.9-15; #2: Pgs IH-88 - 111-96) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6) b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4) c) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (#1, pgs 5.12.1-1-5.12.8-7) e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) D D ElEl 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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1-5.13-9) b) Communications systems? (# 1; pgs 5.12.1 -1 - 5.12.8-7) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7) e) Storm water drainage? (#1 :Pg 5.2-8) f) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3) g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) D D D n * jn XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1-5.11-5; #2: Pgs 111-119-111-151) b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5; #2: PgsIII-119 - III-151) c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5; #2: Pgs III-119-III-151) n n n n n n XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8- 10; #2: Pgs 111-106-111-107) b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8- 10; #2: Pgs 111-70 -111-73, #7, #8) c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10; #2: Pgs 111-70 -111-73) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10; #2: Pgs 111-70 -111-73) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10; #2: Pgs 111-70 -111-73) D D n IEI IE! Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1-5.12.8-7) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact n is XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? D D Rev. 03/28/96 XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis of this proposed single family residential project has been completed through the General Plan Update (GPA 94-01) and related Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR 93-01). The MEIR is cited as source #1 in the preceding checklist. This proposal is consistent with the applicable portions of the General Plan and is considered a project that was described in MEIR 93-01 as within its scope. All feasible mitigation measures identified in MEIR 93-01 which are appropriate to the project have been incorporated into this project. The project site is located in an area which is subject to the requirements of the Zone 20 Specific Plan approved by the City Council in 1994. A program EIR was certified for the Zone 20 Specific Plan. The Zone 20 Program EIR identified, analyzed, and recommended mitigation to reduce potentially significant impacts to insignificant levels. The Zone 20 Program EIR (PEIR) analyzed potential impacts to agriculture, air quality, biology, circulation, land use, noise, pesticide residue, paleontology, public facilities financing, soils/geology, and visual aesthetics that could result from the development of the Specific Plan area. The Program EIR is intended to be used in the review of subsequent projects within Zone 20. The project incorporates the required Zone 20 Program EIR mitigation measures, and through the analysis of the required additional biological, geotechnical, hydrology, and noise analysis a determination has been made that no additional significant impacts beyond those identified and mitigated by the Program EIR will result from this project. The following environmental evaluation briefly explains the basis for this determination along with identifying the source documents which support the environmental determination. The Zone 20 Program EIR and additional technical studies are cited as source documents for this environmental evaluation. 10 Rev. 03/28/96 —K DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site is 14.7 acres in size and is located on the east side of Black Rail Road and 1,200 feet south of future Poinsettia Lane. The project consist of 37 single-family lots with a minimum lot area of 7,500 square feet and a 5.45 acre open space lot. The site contains southern mixed chaparral, southern coast live oak riparian forest, and disturbed or agricultural habitats. The topography onsite consists of flat terrain in the western portion that slopes relatively steeply into a canyon in the eastern portion of the property. Elevations range from a low in the canyon in the eastern portion of approximately 290 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) to the highest point in the western portion of approximately 375 feet AMSL. The entire 14.7 site is designated as Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM 0-4 DU/AC) on the General Plan Land Use Map. The project site is zoned Limited Control (L-C). A zone change and local coastal program amendment are proposed to designate the site as One-Family Residential, 7,500 square foot minimum lot size, Qualified Development Overlay Zone (R-l-Q) to correspond to the existing general plan land use designations. An irrevocable offer of dedication will be required over the open space lot. In addition to approval of the tentative map application, a hillside development permit and coastal development permit are being requested. II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS A. Environmental Impact Discussion V. a) Air Quality The implementation of 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 11 Rev. 03/28/96 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 projects within the scope of 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. a) Transportation/Circulation The implementation of projects that fall within the scope of and are 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. The project will generate 370 average daily trips. Conditions of project approval will include constructing a portion of Black Rail Road along the project frontage. 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 projects that fall within the scope of the General Plan's Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. The City has received its annual Growth Management Traffic Monitoring Report. The Report has recorded an unanticipated intersection "level of service" (LOS) failure at Palomar Airport Road (PAR) and El Camino Real (ECR) during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. This potentially creates a changed circumstance negating reliance on previous environmental documentation. Pursuant to §15162 of the CEQA Guidelines a lead agency must prepare a "Subsequent" environmental documentation if substantial evidence (i.e., the recorded intersection failure) determines that a changed circumstance exists. However, case law has interpreted this section of the CEQA Guidelines to not require the preparation of a "Subsequent EIR" if mitigation measures are adopted which reduce the identified impacts to a level of insignificance. A mitigation measure has been identified which, if implemented, will bring the peak hours LOS into the acceptable range. The mitigation measure involves construction of two dual right turn lanes-northbound to eastbound and westbound to northbound. This project has been conditioned to pay its fair share of 12 Rev. 03/28/96 c the intersection "short-term improvements" thereby, guaranteeing mitigation to a level of insignificance. VII. a, c. & d)Biological Resources The Zone 20 Program EIR identified the mitigation requirement that future site specific biological survey studies that focus on the impacts created by individual subsequent development projects be prepared. The additional biological studies are required to consider the baseline data and biological open space recommendations of the Zone 20 Program EIR and provide more detailed and current resource surveys. The site specific biological survey is required to identify mitigation for any project specific impacts. A report titled, "Biological Resources Report and Impact Analysis for the Hadley Property, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," dated September 21, 1998 by Dudek & Associates has been prepared for the project. The biology report for the Hadley property determined that implementation of the project would result in the direct loss of 10.12 acres, including impacts to the following habitat types: • 0.0 acre of coastal sage scrub - less than significant • 0.32 acre of southern maritime chaparral - significant • 9.8 acres of agricultural land - less than significant Below is a table that sumi Plant Community Southern Maritime Chaparral Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest Disturbed or Agricultural Habitat Totals narizes the impacts to the various plant communities onsite. Existing Acreage Direct Impacts Open Space 4 0.2 10.5 14.7 .32 0 9.8 10.12 3.68 .02 0.7 4.58 Indirect impacts may result in the reduction of the carrying capacity of the native habitats, however, the patch of habitat onsite is connected to additional habitat offsite. These indirect impacts are considered less than significant. The following onsite impacts associated with implementation of the proposed development plan are considered significant: a)Loss of 0.32 acre of southern maritime chaparral. Although the project results in the loss of 0.32 acre of southern maritime chaparral, the project contributes to the preservation of resources and the ultimate development of the subregional preserve system by contributing open space, a total of 4.58 acres of predominately native habitats. The Hadley property is located within Core Area 6 of the Carlsbad Draft HMP which has been designated for 50 to 60 percent preservation by the MHCP and is subject to the project level conservation requirements outlined within the Carlsbad HMP. On a overall project-level basis, the property is 13 Rev. 03/28/96 w proposed to provide 31 percent preservation, with the native habitats onsite proposed to provide approximately 92 percent preservation which far exceeds the goals set by the MHCP. The proposed project meets the project-level conservation requirements outlined by the Draft Carlsbad HMP: the project does not preclude the functioning of preserve linkages due to the preserve design; over 50 percent of the southern maritime chaparral is preserved; there is no net loss of the coast live oak riparian forest habitat or coastal sage scrub; the project has been designed to avoid and minimize impacts to sensitive habitats and species. Thus, the proposed project is consistent with the Draft Carlsbad HMP. Mitigation Measures The project design mitigates direct impacts to southern maritime chaparral and the sensitive plant species that occur within this habitat. Included in the project design is the granting of an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City of Carlsbad or an acceptable entity for an open space/conservation easement over Lot Number 38 of the tentative map. This covers over 92 percent (3.68 acres) of the southern maritime chaparral on the Hadley property. This is greater than the 2:1 mitigation ratio that is typically required by the resource agencies for the impact of southern maritime chaparral. The open space easement also includes the preservation of 100 percent of the wart-stemmed ceanothus, and Nuttall's scrub oak occurring onsite. In addition, the following mitigation measures will be implemented: 1. To mitigate potential disturbances to the California gnatcatcher, the grading operations within 100 feet of the proposed open space area shall be restricted during the gnatcatcher breeding season, or from February 15 to August 30 each year, unless it can be shown through field reconnaissance by a certified biologist that no gnatcatchers are present on the property for two months prior to the start of grading. 2. The Developer shall establish a homeowner's association and corresponding covenants, conditions and restrictions. Said CC&Rs shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to final map approval. Prior to issuance of a building permit the Developer shall provide the Planning Department with a recorded copy of the official CC&Rs that have been approved by the Department of Real Estate and the Planning Director. At a minimum, the CC&Rs shall contain the following provision: A. The CC&Rs shall include provisions specifying maintenance responsibility for Open Space Lot 38. The CC&Rs shall stipulate that within the boundaries of the HOA open space easement, structures or any other thing not shown on the approved tentative map or landscape plans shall be prohibited. 3. The Developer shall dedicate to the Homeowner's Association on the final map, an open space maintenance easement over Lot 38 identified on the tentative map to enable maintenance activities within the easement area including but not limited to, landscaping and irrigation in accordance with the approved tentative map and landscape plans, removal of debris and trash, and erosion prevention and remediation. A note to this effect shall be placed on the non- mapping data sheet of the final map. 4. Removal of native vegetation and development of Open Space Lot 38, including but not limited to fences, walls, decks, storage buildings, pools, spas, stairways and landscaping, other than that approved as part of the grading plan, improvement plans, landscape plan, etc. as shown on the project exhibits, is specifically prohibited, except upon written order of the Carlsbad Fire Department for fire prevention purposes, or upon written approval of the Planning Director, based upon a request from the Homeowners Association accompanied by a report from a qualified arborist/botanist indicating the need to remove specified trees and/or plants because of 14 Rev. 03/28/96 disease or impending danger to adjacent habitable dwelling units. For areas containing native vegetation the report required to accompany the request shall be prepared by a qualified biologist. IX. c) and d) Hazards Agricultural chemicals have previously been used on the site according to the Zone 20 Program EIR. Because of this prior use there is the potential for soil contamination resulting from the varying degrees of degradation, prevalence in the environment, and toxicity of the agricultural chemicals which may have been used. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was conducted on the site and determined that the overall potential for significant agricultural hazardous material or contamination onsite was low, however the uncertainty of potential environmental concerns cannot be eliminated. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented to lessen this potential impact to a level of less than significant as recommended by the Site Assessment and as required by the Zone 20 Program EIR: 1) Prior to approval of the final map or grading plan a detailed soils testing and analysis report shall be prepared by a registered soils engineer, and submitted to the City Planning and Engineering Departments as well as the County Department of Environmental Health for review and approval. This report shall evaluate the potential for soil contamination on-site due to historic use, handling, or storage of restricted agricultural chemicals. The report shall also identify a range of possible mitigation measures to remediate any potentially significant public health impacts if hazardous chemicals are detected at high concentrations in the soil. Such mitigation measures shall include, at a minimum: A. Remove any contaminated soils and haul to a State-certified landfill. B. Cap the area of soil contamination with materials appropriate for the containment of the specific type of chemical, taking into account its rate of absorption and toxicity level. C. Place the area of soil contamination in an open space easement, with restrictions on future construction of permanent buildings and human uses. Fencing and warning signs shall also be installed, where appropriate, prohibiting potential use of the site. 2) The applicant shall notify, in a manner satisfactory to the City Attorney, all tenants/users of new development that these areas are subject to dust, pesticides, and odors associated with adjacent agricultural operations, and that the tenants/users occupy these areas at their own risk. X. b) Noise All projects located within 500 feet of existing/future Poinsettia Lane or within the McClellan- Palomar Airport Influence Area are required to analyze the projected noise impacts. Because the property is approximately 1200 feet south of future Poinsettia Lane and located south of the McClellan-Palomar Airport Influence Area, a noise study was not prepared for the project. The property is within a three-mile radius of the airport. The following noise mitigation measures are required for the project: 1) 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 is subject to 15 Rev. 03/28/96 c overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating from McClellan-Palomar Airport, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and the City Attorney (see Noise Form #2 on file in the Planning Department). XIV. a) Cultural Resources - Paleontology According to the Zone 20 Program EIR the geologic formations present within the Zone 20 Specific Plan Area have the potential to contain significant fossils. There is a high potential for the discovery of fossils during future grading and construction activities. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented during future grading of the site to reduce potentially significant impacts on the region's paleontological resources to an acceptable level: 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. b) Cultural Resources - Archaeology The Zone 20 EIR identifies a portion of a level 3 (potentially significant) cultural resource site on the property which warrants a preliminary significance evaluation to be conducted by a qualified archeologist. The test excavations conducted on March 19, 1999 found that the site contains a limited range of artifacts/ecofacts and is in an area of shallow soils that have been extensively disturbed by agricultural activities. The site tested has been determined to be not important (as defined by CEQA). There is a potential for the discovery of artifacts during future grading activities and the archaeological report recommends the monitoring of the site during grading activities. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented prior to future grading of the site to reduce potentially significant impacts on the archaeological resources to an acceptable level: A. A qualified archaeologist shall be retained to perform inspections of the site during the clearing and initial stages of grading to review any exposed deposits and to determine there significance. The archaeologist shall make periodic reports to the Planning Director during the grading process. 16 Rev. 03/28/96 "**% III. EARLIER ANALYSES USED The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92009, (760) 438-1161, extension 4447. 1. "Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update" (MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department. 2. "Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Zone 20 Specific Plan" (EIR 90-03), dated June 1992, Brian F. Mooney Associates. 3. "Biological Resources Report and Impact Analysis for the Hadley Property, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California", dated September 21, 1998, Dudek & Associates, Inc. 4. "Geotechnical Reconnaissance, Hadley Property, City of Carlsbad, California" (W. O. 2541-A- SC), dated September 10, 1998, GeoSoils, Inc. 5. "Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Hadley Property, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California" (W. O. E2541-SC), dated October 6, 1998, GeoSoils, Inc. 6. "Hydrology Study for Hadley Property in the City of Carlsbad" (W.O. 2239-01), September 16, 1998, Hunsaker & Associates, Inc. 7. "Cultural Resources and Elevation of the Hadley and Carnation Properties in the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California", December 1998, RMW Paleo Associates. 8. "Letter Report of Archaeological Test Excavations on CA-SDI-6819", Carlsbad San Diego County, California, March 23, 1999, RMW Paleo Associates. LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) 1. The Developer shall provide on the final map an irrevocable offer of dedication to the city of Carlsbad or an acceptable entity for an open space/conservation easement over Lots No. 38 of the tentative map. 2. To mitigate potential disturbances to the California gnatcatcher, the grading operations within 100 feet of the proposed open space area will be restricted during the gnatcatcher breeding season, or from February 15 to August 30 each year, unless it can be shown through field reconnaissance by a certified biologist that no gnatcatchers are present on the property for two months prior to the start of grading. 3. Concurrent with the recordation of the final map the Developer shall provide and record a deed restriction over Lot No. 38 in its entirety to prohibit any encroachment or development, including but not limited to fences, walls, decks, storage buildings, pools, spas, stairways and landscaping other than that approved as part of the tentative map, biological revegetation program, and landscape plan as shown on the project exhibits of the tentative map. 17 Rev. 03/28/96 4. Concurrent with the recordation of the final map the Developer shall dedicate, in fee title, Lot 38 to the Homeowners Association and dedicate an open space easement to the Homeowners Association or other entity acceptable to the City over the Lot No. 38 as shown on the project exhibits of the tentative map. 5. Lot 38 shall be maintained by the Homeowners Association or other entity acceptable to the City. 6. Prior to approval of the final map or grading plan a detailed soils testing and analysis report shall be prepared by a registered soils engineer, and submitted to the City Planning and Engineering Departments as well as the County Department of Environmental Health for review and approval. This report shall evaluate the potential for soil contamination on-site due to historic use, handling, or storage of restricted agricultural chemicals. The report shall also identify a range of possible mitigation measures to remediate any potentially significant public health impacts if hazardous chemicals are detected at high concentrations in the soil. Such mitigation measures shall include, at a minimum: A. Remove any contaminated soils and haul to a State-certified landfill. B. Cap the area of soil contamination with materials appropriate for the containment of the specific type of chemical, taking into account its rate of absorption and toxicity level. C. Place the area of soil contamination in an open space easement, with restrictions on future construction of permanent buildings and human uses. Fencing and warning signs shall also be installed, where appropriate, prohibiting potential use of the site. 7. The applicant shall notify, in a manner satisfactory to the City Attorney, all tenants/users of new development that these areas are subject to dust, pesticides, and odors associated with adjacent agricultural operations, and that the tenants/users occupy these areas at their own risk. 8. 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 is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating from McClellan-Palomar Airport, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and the City Attorney (see Noise Form #2 on file in the Planning Department). 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; 18 Rev. 03/28/96 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. 10. A qualified archaeologist shall be retained to perform inspections of the site during the clearing and initial stages of grading to review any exposed deposits and to determine there significance. The archaeologist shall make periodic reports to the Planning Director during the grading process. 11. The Developer shall pay his fair share for the "short-term improvements" to the El Camino Real/ Palomar Airport Road intersection prior to approval of the final map or the issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first. The amount shall be determined by the methodology ultimately selected by Council, including but not limited to, an increase in the city-wide traffic impact fee; an increased or new Zone 20 LFMP fee; the creation of a fee or assessment district; or incorporation into a Mello-Roos taxing district. ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) See attached 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 Signature 19 Rev. 03/28/96