Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 99-08; Spyglass II; Tentative Map (CT) (21)City of Carlsbad Planning Department MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Address/Location:Southeast corner of El Camino Real and Carlsbad Village Drive. Parcel is also know as APN: 167-090-69. Project Description:A 21 lot, 19 unit residential subdivision with 10,000 square foot lot size minimums on 10.4 acres. The project includes grading for the development, public street system and street, and utility improve- ments to serve the 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, the initial study (ElA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the project "as revised" may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Mitigated 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 20 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Van Lynch in the Planning Department at (760) 438-1161, extension 4447. DATED: CASE NO: OCTOBER 12, 1999 CT 99-08/SDP 99-04/SUP 99-04/HDP 99-07 CASE NAME: SPYGLASS II PUBLISH DATE: OCTOBER 12, 1999 MICHAEL J.TlO'LZMfrXER Planning Director Rev. 10/98 H:\Admin\TcmplatC3\Mitigatcd NcgDoc.ntp X2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (760) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 438-0894 c ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CT 99-08/SDP 99-04/SUP 99-04/HDP 99-07 DATE: September 27. 1999 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Spyglass II 2. 3. 4. 5. APPLICANT: Landis Industries ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 28211 Driza. Mission Vieio. CA 92692. (949) 454-2203 DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: May 11. 1999 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 21 lot. 19 unit residential subdivision with 10.000 square foot lot size minimums on 10.4 acre parcel located on the southeast corner of El Camino Real and Carlsbad Village Drive. The project includes grading for the development, public street system and street, and utility improvements to serve the 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 X Transportation/Circulation I I Population and Housing I I Geological Problems | | Water DKI Air Quality I Biological Resources Public Services Utilities & Service Systems Energy & Mineral Resources | | Aesthetics Hazards /\ Cultural Resources Noise Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance Rev. 03/28/96 r-% V DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An EIR is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier 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 Directors Signature Date Rev. 03/28/96 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. • A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. • "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. • "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. • "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. • Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). • When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. • A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. Rev. 03/28/96 • If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. • An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. Rev. 03/28/96 c Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 -5.6-18) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) 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) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact n n D D II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) 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) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) n 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) [ | b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2) [ | c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs I I 5.1-1 -5.1.15, #2) — d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2) e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, # 2) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil I I conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1-5.1-15, #2) g) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2) | | h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2) | | i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - I I 5.1-15) '—' X n n 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) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 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) D D Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1-5..2-11) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 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, # 2) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (#l:Pgs5.2-l-5..2-ll,#2) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2- 11,#2) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l-5..2-ll,#2) Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated EIEI EI D EI EI 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) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 -5.3-12) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) d) Create objectionable odors? (#1 :Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) D VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) 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) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1-5.7.22) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1-5.7.22) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1-5.7.22) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1-5.7.22) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) D IEI 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, # 3) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1-5.4-24, #3) El D D El Rev. 03/28/96 c Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24, # 3) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1-5.4-24, #3) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) Potentially Significant Impact D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 hi 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) 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)? (#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) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) KI [3 D n n X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9- 15) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9- 1-5.9-15, #5) 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? (#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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1-5.12.8-7) e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) D Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1-5.13-9) b) Communications systems? (#l: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) Potentially Significant Impact o Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Li D D Less Than Significant Impact No Impact n n XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1-5.11-5) b) Have or demonstrate a negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1-5.11-5) c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5) D Dn XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8- b) e) 10) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8- 10, #4) c) Affect historical resources? (#1 :Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10, # 4) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 -5.8-10, #4) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10, # 4) n n n n 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)D n n 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? Rev. 03/28/96 c Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D D Rev. 03/28/96 XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site- specific conditions for the project. 10 Rev. 03/28/96 c o DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project consists of subdividing a 10.4 acres of undeveloped land located at the southeast corner of Carlsbad Village Drive and El Camino Real into 19 residential lots with a minimum of 10,000 square feet in area. The future extension of Appian Road is proposed to continue from the south side of the property to its northern terminus at the intersection of Carlsbad Village Drive and Avenida De Anita. Additional interior site access will be provided by a cul-de-sac extending from Appian Road towards the east. Much of the project site has been disturbed by prior grading activity and has been mowed or cleared for fire suppression purposes. The site is triangular in shape and generally slopes downward moderately to steeply to the west with two east-to-west trending rounded hills. An existing slope inclined at approximately 1:1 along portions of El Camino Real and an existing slope inclined at approximately 2:1 exists along portions of Carlsbad Village Drive. Previous site grading include the cutting of a relatively flat pad at the intersection of Carlsbad Village Drive and El Camino Real and graded slopes along the eastern portion of the site to accommodate the existing residential development. The maximum cuts and fills are in the order of 25 feet and 50 feet, respectively, are proposed. 11 Rev. 03/28/96 c o II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS A. Environmental Impact Discussion I. Land Use and Planning The project site is designated Residential Low-Medium (RLM), 0-4 units per acre, in the General Plan and is Zoned Residential Agricultural with a 10,000 square foot lot size minimum. The proposed 19 unit subdivision would result in a project density of 3.2 units per acre which would be consistent with the General Plan designation. The adjacent development to the east is a single-family detached residential development. The 10,000 lot size would be compatible with the adjacent development. The site is has not been used for agricultural purposes and the development would not impact agricultural uses as none are adjacent. II. Population and Housing The project's density does not exceed the density allowed for the site by the General Plan. As an in-fill development of vacant land with existing improvements adjacent to the property, the project will not induce growth nor displace existing housing. IV. Water The project site is not located within a floodway as identified on the FEMA maps. 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 12 Rev. 03/28/96 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 The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. 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 the intersection "short-term improvements," thereby guaranteeing mitigation to a level of insignificance. 13 Rev. 03/28/96 o VII. Biological Resources The project site was field surveyed for sensitive and endangered biological species and natural habitat communities. The resources were mapped by Pacific Southwest Biological Services in January of 1999. The project would result in the impact of the following biological resources: a) .16 acres Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub b) .16 acres Chamise Chaparral c) 5.15 acres of Perennial (Native) Grassland d) .65 acres Non-Native Grassland e) 4.28 acres Disturbed Habitat Impacts to the Perennial Grassland is considered a significant impact and requires mitigation to reduce the impact to less than significant. Impact to the Perennial Grassland would be mitigated at a ratio of 2:1 by either of the following: a) Acquisition and preservation of land within the City of Carlsbad containing native grasslands, or b) Restoration and enhancement of a disturbed area within the City of Carlsbad to native grassland. In either case, the mitigation site shall be in or contiguous to Habitat Management Plan preserve areas and shall provide long-term benefits for grassland species. The impact to the Coastal Sage Scrub is not significant since the area is less than one acre in size and is considered a deminimus impact. The project is conditioned to secure the appropriate permits from other responsible agencies prior to final map or grading permit. X. Noise Based on the findings of the project's acoustical report, portions of the project will have significant adverse noise impacts from the adjacent El Camino Real and Carlsbad Village Drive roadways. To mitigate the noise impacts to a level of 60 dB CNEL at the exterior of the units, Lot 1 will require a 5-foot wall at the top of slope, Lot 2 will require a 6-foot wall facing Carlsbad Village Drive, Lot 6 will require a 3-foot side yard wall at the top of slope, and Lots 9, 10, 11, and 12 will require a 3-foot wall at the top of slope. The project will be conditioned to provide an acoustical analysis, prior to building permit issuance, to ensure that the interior CNEL will not exceed 45 dB. Mitigation measures may require air conditioning/mechanical ventilation and/or dual-paned windows. XI. Public Services C) Schools. The project is conditioned to pay the statutory school impact fees which has been determined to adequately mitigate any impacts to school facilities. XIV. Cultural Resources The site has been mapped as having a geologic strata defined as Pleistocene marine, marine terrace deposits, and Tertiary marine which have the potential to contain significant fossils. 14 Rev. 03/28/96 o 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. A cultural resource survey was completed for the project by Brian Smith and Associates, dated October 30, 1989. The survey of the property did not result in the identification of any cultural resources within the property and no further studies or investigations were considered necessary. 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 4471. 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. Update Geotechnical Investigation. Spyglass. Carlsbad for Landis Industries, Inc, Anaheim CA, Geocon Inc., dated April 1999. 3. Report of a biological survey of the Carlsbad Village Drive and El Camino Real Property. Carlsbad. California for Landis Industries Inc., Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc., dated January 28, 1999. 4. An Archaeological survey of the Spyglass Subdivision project. Brian Smith and Associates, dated October 30, 1989. 5. Noise Analysis Update. Spyglass Residential Development. Giroux and Associates, dated May 10, 1999 15 Rev. 03/28/96 c LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) 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 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). 2. Prior to the occupancy of individual units on Lots 1,2, 6, and 9 through 12, the developer shall construct sound attenuation walls, berms, or a combination of both along the top of the slope and street side yard of these lots, in accordance with the recommendations of the project's noise study prepared by Giroux and Associates, dated May 10, 1999. 3. Prior to building permit issuance, an acoustical analysis and subsequent mitigation shall be required for Lots 1-6, Lots 9-12, and Lots 17-19 to ensure that the interior CNEL does not exceed 45 dB. The project's building plans shall include a note on the plan stating the required interior noise mitigation requirements for Lots 1-6, Lots 9-12, and Lots 17-19 per the recommendation of the subsequent noise study. 4. The Developer shall pay his fair share for the "short-term improvements" to the El Camino Real/ Palomar Airport Road intersection prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 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 2 LFMP fee; the creation of a fee or assessment district; or incorporation into a Mello-Roos taxing district. 5. Prior to final map or grading permit, the developer shall acquire 10.3 acres of land containing native grasslands within the City of Carlsbad for preservation or the developer may locate 10.3 acres of land within the City of Carlsbad for the restoration and enhancement of a disturbed area to native grassland. If the restoration option is selected, the developer shall devise a revegetation Concept Plan which will include: 1) the location of the project, 2) developer responsibilities, 3) revegetation contractor responsibilities, 4) ownership status and, 5) present and proposed uses of the mitigation area. The developer shall also devise an Implementation Plan which will include: 1) timing of revegetation effort, 2) revegetation materials, 3) site preparation, and 4) planting plan. A Maintenance Plan shall also be devised by the developer and shall be subject to a five year monitoring period and performance criteria as dictated in the revegetation plan with a provision for a shorter maintenance period for early establishment of the mitigation area. In either case, the mitigation site shall be in or contiguous to the Habitat Management Plan preserve areas and shall be reviewed and approved by local resource agencies including the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 6. Prior to final map or grading permit, developer shall secure a deminimus permit from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for the impact to the Coastal Sage Scrub. 7. Paleontology: 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 16 Rev. 03/28/96 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 OF APPLICABLE) See attached. 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 18 Rev. 03/28/96 PROJECT NAME: SPYGLASS II APPROVAL DATE: FILE NUMBERS: CT 99-08/SDP 99-04/SUP 99-04/HDP 99-07 MITIGATED NEC. DEC.: The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). Mitigation Measure Monitoring Type Monitoring Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks The Developer shall pay his fair share for the "short- term improvements" to the El Camino Real/ Palomar Airport Road intersection prior to the issuance of a building permit. 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 2 LFMP fee; the creation of a fee or assessment district; or incorporation into a Mello-Roos taxing district. Building Permit Planning/ Engineering Prior to the occupancy of individual units on Lots 1, 2, 6, and 9 through 12, the developer shall construct sound attenuation walls, berms, or a combination of both along the top of the slope and street side yard of these lots, in accordance with the recommendations of the project's noise study prepared by Giroux and Associates, dated May 10, 1999. Occupancy Planning •oPrior to building permit issuance, an acoustical analysis and subsequent mitigation shall be required for Lots 1- 6, Lots 9-12, and Lots 17-19 to ensure that the interior CNEL does not exceed 45 dB. The project's building plans shall include a note on the plan stating the required interior noise mitigation requirements for Lots 1-6, Lots 9-12, and Lots 17-19 per the recommendation of the subsequent noise study. Building Permit Planning Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information. RD - Appendix P. Mitigation Measure Monitoring Type Monitoring Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks Prior to final map or grading permit, developer shall secure a deminimus permit from the California Department of Fish and Game for the impact to the Coastal Sage Scrub. Final Map or Grading Permit Planning Paleontology: a. d. 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; 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; 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; All fossils collected shall be donated to a Grading Permit Planning O o Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information. RD - Appendix P. Mitigation Measure Monitoring Type Monitoring Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks e. public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum; 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. Prior to final map or grading permit, the developer shall acquire 10.3 acres of land containing native grasslands within the City of Carlsbad for preservation or the developer may locate 10.3 acres of land within the City of Carlsbad for the restoration and enhancement of a disturbed area to native grassland. If the restoration option is selected, the developer shall devise a revegetation Concept Plan which will include: 1) the location of the project, 2) developer responsibilities, 3) revegetation contractor responsibilities, 4) ownership status and, 5) present and proposed uses of the mitigation area. The developer shall also devise an Implementation Plan which will include: 1) timing of revegetation effort, 2) revegetation materials, 3) site preparation and, 4) planting plan. A Maintenance Plan shall also be devised by the developer and shall be subject to a five year monitoring period and performance criteria as dictated in the revegetation plan with provisions for a shorter maintenance period for early establishment of the mitigation area. In either case, the mitigation site shall be in or contiguous to the Habitat Management Plan preserve areas and shall be reviewed and approved O O Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information. RD - Appendix P. Mitigation Measure by local resource agencies including the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 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). Monitoring Type Final Map or Building Permit Monitoring Department Planning Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks o o Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information. RD - Appendix P.