Laserfiche WebLink
9.0 EIR Subject Areas Requiring No Change in Analysis <br />Avion Project SEIR <br />Page 9-6 <br />as outlined in the 1998 EIR. Additionally, the project would implement temporary construction <br />BMPs to control erosion consistent with the State Water Resources Control Board’s General Permit <br />for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity. Therefore, there would be no new <br />significant or substantially increased adverse impacts beyond those previously identified in the EIR. <br />9.7 Agricultural Resources/Mineral Resources <br />According to the 1998 EIR, Farmland of Local Importance and grazing lands would be lost with <br />development of the perimeter properties. Specifically, 15 acres of grazing land and up to 204 acres <br />of Farmland of Local Importance may be lost with the development of the southeast perimeter <br />properties. Although portions of the subarea are in limited current agricultural use, no prime <br />farmlands would be removed and the loss of agricultural land is not considered a significant direct <br />impact. The cumulative effects of the loss of agricultural land from conversion are considered <br />significant and unmitigated. The project would impact a similar development footprint as identified <br />in the 1998 EIR for southeast perimeter Parcel C. Conclusions regarding the loss of agricultural <br />resources would be consistent with the previous analysis, and the project would not result in any <br />new significant or substantially increased adverse impacts beyond those previously identified in the <br />EIR. <br />The 1998 EIR concluded that implementation of future development as proposed in the Subarea <br />Plan would preclude mining of the mineral resource zone (MRZ)-2 aggregate for the foreseeable <br />future, and the cumulative effects of the incremental loss of potential aggregate deposits are <br />considered significant and unmitigated. The project is consistent with the land use and buildout <br />assumptions for the Subarea Plan; therefore, the conclusions regarding the loss of aggregate <br />resources would remain, and the project would not result in any new significant or substantially <br />increased adverse impacts beyond those previously identified in the 1998 EIR. <br />9.8 Paleontological Resources <br />The 1998 EIR states that the Southeast Perimeter properties are located in Santiago Peak <br />metavolcanics formations, which are areas with low paleontological resource sensitivity. The project <br />would impact a similar development footprint as identified in the 1998 EIR for southeast perimeter <br />Parcel C. Conclusions regarding paleontological resource impacts would be consistent with the <br />previous analysis, and the project would not result in any new significant or substantially increased <br />adverse impacts beyond those previously identified in the EIR. <br />9.9 Noise <br />For the southeastern perimeter parcels, the 1998 EIR identified that the 65 community noise <br />equivalent level (CNEL) contour would be located near the northern property line, around 400 feet <br />from Carmel Valley Road. The 60 CNEL contour would be around 1,000 feet from Carmel Valley <br />Road. The City’s exterior noise level standard would, therefore, not be exceeded on the <br />southeastern perimeter parcels, as all development would be located outside the 60 CNEL contour <br />area. Therefore, interior noise level standards would be met with standard construction techniques <br />in the areas proposed for development. Impacts relative to traffic noise would be less than