HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 97-59; Levy Residence; Coastal Development Permit (CDP) (29). - I NOTICE OF COMPLETION
Mail to: State Clearinghouse, 1400 Tenth Street. Room 121, Sacramento. CA 95814 - (916) 445-0613
Project Title: CDP 97-59/SDU 98-03 - Lew Residence and 2"d Dwelling Unit
Lead Agency: CITY OF CARLSBAD Contact Person: Chris DeCerbo
See NOTE Below: 7
Street Address: 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE
City: CARLSBAD Zip: 92009 County: SAN DIEGO COUNTY
PROJECT LOCATION;
County: San Diego Citymearest Community: Carlsbad
Cross Streets: Mountain View Drive Total Acres: 1.9
Assessor's Parcel No. 155-101-65 and 155-190-13 Section: Twp. Range: Base:
Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #: 3 Waterways:
Airports: McCLELLAN/PALOMAR Railways: NCTD Schools:
Phone: L760) 438-1 161, ext.4445
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Buena Vista Lagoon
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ DOCUMENT TYPE:
CEQA: 0 NOP Supplement/Subsequent NEPA: 0 NO1 OTHER: 0 Joint Document
c] Final Document 0 Other: 0 Early Cons c] EIR (Prior SCH No.) 0 EA [XI Neg Dec 0 Other: 0 DraftEIS 0 DraftEIR 0 FONSI
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ LOCAL ACTION TYPE: 0 General Plan Update 0 SpecificPlan 0 Rezone 0 Annexation 0 General Plan Amendment 0 Master Plan 0 Prezone 0 Redevelopment 0 General Plan Element 0 Planned Unit Development 0 Use Permit Ix] Coastal Permit 0 Community Plan 0 Site Plan 0 Land Division (Subdivision, 0 Other:
Parcel Map, Tract Map, etc.)
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ DEVELOPMENT TYPE:
0 Office: Sq. Ft. __ Acres ~ Employees __ 0 Transportation: Type 0 Commercial: Sq. Ft. - Acres - Employees __ 0 Mining: Mineral 0 Industrial: Sq. Ft. __ Acres - Employees - 0 Power: Type Watts 0 Educational: 0 Waste Treatment: Type
Recreational: 0 Hazardous Water: Type
Residential: Units 2 Acres 1.9 0 Water Facilities: Type MGD
0 Other:
...................................................................................................................................... PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN DOCUMENT: 0 Aesthetic/Visual Ix] Flood PlaidFlooding
c] Agricultural Land Forest Landmire Hazard 0 Air Quality 0 Geological/Seismic
0 Archaeological/Historical 0 Minerals
CoastalZone 0 Noise
0 Drainage/Absorption 0 PopulatiodHsg. Balance 0 Economic/Jobs 0 Public ServicedFacilities
Fiscal Recreatioflarks
...........
0
0. 0 0 0 0 El IXI
Schools/Universities
Septic Systems
Sewer Capacity
Soil ErosiodCompactiordGrading
Solid Waste
ToxickIazardous
Traffic/Circulation
Vegetation
IXI 0
Ix]
Ix] 0 0 0 0
Water Quality
H,O Supply/Ground H,O
WetlandRiparian
Wildlife
Growth Inducing
Land Use
Cumulative Effect
Other:
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Use
The subject property is vacant./R-l-3O/RL (lDU/AC)
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Project Description:
The development of a single family dwelling and detached garage with a 2nd dwelling unit on a level 1.9 acre lot that is located on the south shore
of Buena Vista Lagoon.
NOTE: Clearinghouse will assign identification numbers for all new projects. If a SCH number already exists for a pro-ject (ie., from a Notice of
Preparation or previous draft document) please fill it in. Revised October 1989
- City of Carlsbad
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddresslLocation: The south shore of Buena Vista Lagoon, west of the AT&SF
Railroad and north of Mountain View Drive.
Project Description: A Coastal Development Permit and a 2"d Dwelling Unit Permit for
the development of a 2,713 square foot single family dwelling and
detached garage with a 2"d dwelling unit on a level 1.90 acre lot.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on
the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in
the Planning Department.
A copy of the 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 30
days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Chris DeCerbo in the Planning
Department at (760) 438-1 161, extension 4445.
DATED: APRIL 6,1998
CASE NO: CDP 97-59ISDU 98-03
CASE NAME: LEVY RESIDENCE
PUBLISH DATE: APRIL 6,1998 &a MICHAEL J. HOEMILkfZR
Planning Director
2075 La Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 (760) 438-1 161 FAX (760) 438-0894 @
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CDP 97-59\SDU 98-03
DATE: 3/16/98
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: LEVY RESIDENCE AND SECOND DWELLING UNIT
2. APPLICANT: John Levy, Jr.
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1825 Aston Ave. Carlsbad,CA 92008
(760) 93 1-9009
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: February 6,1998
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The develoument of a 2713 square foot single family dwelling and
detached garage with second dwelling unit on a level 1.90 acre lot which is located on the south
shore of Buena Vista Lagoon. west of the AT&SF Railroad and north of Mountain View Drive..
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.
0 Land Use and Planning Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing Biological Resources Utilities & Service Systems
Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
Air Quality Noise 0 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0 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.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
0 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. A Negative Declartion 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 93-0 1) pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review
(MEIR 93-0 l), including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
3-20-99
Planner Signature Date
Planning Director’s Signature/ Date
2 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 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 Impact7’ 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.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
0 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.
0 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 I1 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.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless Impact
I. 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)
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?
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)? (# 1 :Pgs 5.6- 1 - 5.6- 18)
(#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
0 [XI
0 [XI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 0 0 [XI
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#1 :Pgs 5.5- 1 - 5.5-6)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (eg. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 -
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
0 o
0
5.5-6)
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
0
0
0 El
0 El
0 0 El
111. 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)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#1 :Pgs
g) Subsidence ofthe land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
((#l:PgS 5.1-1 - 5.1.15)
5.1 - 15)
5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
5.1 - 15)
0 0 0 o
0 0
0 0 0
0
0 0
0 [XI 0 [XI 0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI 0 [XI
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 [XI 0 [XI 0 [XI
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
0
o
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, #5)
0 [XI
.a [XI
Rev. 03/28/96
0
5
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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, #4 Pg 2)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any. water
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
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)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
Impacts to groundwater quality? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-
11) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? ((# 1 :Pgs
body? ((#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
((#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#I :Pgs 5.3-
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#I :Pgs 5.3-1
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? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
1 - 5.3-12)
- 5.3-12)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
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?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22, See required mitigation.)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -
5.7.22)
5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
g)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than
significant
Impact
[XI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IXI
0
0
NO
lrnpact
0
IXI
[XI
IXI
Ix1
[XI
[XI
[XI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
[XI
IXI
0
IXI
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
6 Rev. 03/28/96
h
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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 8-
15) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24, #2:
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#1 :Pgs 5.4-1
PgS 8-15)
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24, #2: Pgs 10-15)
- 5.4-24)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
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
0
0
0
(#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
1 - 5.13-9)
& 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
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? (# 1 :Pgs 5.10.1- 1 -
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, ortrees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
5.10.1-5)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9-
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-
15)
1 - 5.9-15)
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)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant
Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
IXI 0
0 0
0 0
IXI 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0
No
Impact
0
Ixl
[XI
0
[XI
[XI
[x1.
El
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 IXI
Rev. 03/28/96 7
I
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
0 0
0
C) Schools? (#l:PgS 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1,
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
5.12.8-7)
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
Communications systems? (#l; pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
Storm water drainage? (#1 :Pg 5.2-8)
Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
5.12.3-7)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#1 :Pgs
Create light or glare? (#2 Pg 15, #4 Pg 3)
5.11-1 -5.11-5)
5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#1 :Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
10, #3: Pg 1 )
Disturb archaeological resources? (#1 :Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10, #3:
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (# 1 :Pgs
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10, #3: Pg 1)
10, #3: Pg 1)
pg 1)
5.8-1 - 5.8-10, #3: Pg 1)
0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0
17
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless Impact
0 0 [XI 0 0 [XI
0 0 [XI
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
0 0
o 0
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (# 1 :Pgs 5.12.8-1 -
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#1 :Pgs
5.12.8-7)
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
0 IXI
0 [XI 0 [XI
0 IXI 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 0
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 !xl
0 El
0 [XI
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
8 Rev. 03/28/96
fl
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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)?
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
c)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant lrnpact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless Impact
0 [XI
0
0 0 [XI
9 Rev. 03/28/96
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES
With the exception of biological resources and water quality, earlier analysis of this proposed single family
residential dwelling unit and second dwelling unit 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 #I in the
preceding checklist. This proposal is consistent with the applicable portions of the General Plan and is considered
a Subsequent Project that was described in MEIR 93-01 as within its scope. There are biological impacts due to
this development that were not analyzed in the MEIR and accordingly, additional mitigation measures are required.
All feasible mitigation measures identified in MEIR 93-0 1 which are appropriate to this Subsequent Project have
also been incorporated into this project.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONlENVlRONMENTAL SETTING
This project includes the development of a 2713 square foot single family residence with a detached garage and
second dwelling unit upon a 1.9 acre lot which is located along the south shore of Buena Vista Lagoon, west of the
AT&SF Railroad and north of Mountain View Drive. The project’s grading would be balanced on-site and would
consist of 75 cubic yards of cut and fill. The property is relatively flat (12 MSL) and consists of an historical fill
which was created when the Buena Vista Lagoon was altered from a tidal regime to a non-tidal deep-water re,’ aime.
The project site is covered by a disturbed shrub habitat which has colonized the site since the fill was placed in
1972. Fresh water marsh occurs on the northwest and eastern boundaries of the site below the rip-rap line. The site
is designated RL (ldu/ac Growth Control Point) and zoned R-1-30 which would allow for the development of a
single family residence and a second dwelling unit. The property is currently vacant and an existing proscriptive
lagoon trail is located along its’ western edge. The AT&SF Railroad right-of-way lies to the east of the site, and
multi-family housing is located to the south of the project site.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
11. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
B. Environmental Impact Discussion
Air Quality
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan
will result in increased gas and electric power consumption’and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in
increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended
particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air
Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will
have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation
measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection
improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the
implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative
modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site
design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project
or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a “non-
attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially significant Impact”. This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of
Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding
Considerations’’ for air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations’’ applies to all subsequent
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental
review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department.
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 lnterstate 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 93-0 1, 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.
12 Rev. 03/28/96
Biological Resources
The project site is covered with a disturbed shrub habitat (Pacific Southwest Biological Services. October 15, 1996).
Fresh water marsh (wetlands) occurs on the northwest and eastern boundaries of the site, below the rip-rap line. The
eastern area of fresh water marsh has been historically used by the endangered light-footed clapper rail. The
proposed project has been designed and conditioned to avoid impacts to all of the off-site wetland habitats and light-
footed clapper rail. This has been accomplished through the inclusion of a minimum 100 foot buffer between the
mean high water level (wetlands) and all structures, installation of a 6’ tall chain link fence along the wetland buffer
area and adjacent wetlands to prevent encroachment by domestic pets, and the construction of a sedimentlde-
pollutant basin to prevent eroded soils and urban runoff containing pollutants from entering the wetlands and
lagoon. Additionally, the project will be conditioned with the following mitigation measures:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit or grading permit (whichever occurs first) the applicant shall
record a deed restriction over the entire wetland buffer setback area to restrict the property for open
spacelwildlife uses only, except for a lateral public access trail as shown on the site plan for CDP 97-59.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit or grading permit (whichever occurs first), the property owner
shall shall submit evidence satisfactory to the Planning director that an irrevocable offer of dedication of
the wetland buffer area has been made to the California Department of Fish and Game.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, an exterior lighting plan shall be submitted to the Planning
Director for review. All exterior lighting shall include a combination of low-level lights and shields to
minimize the amount of light entering the adjacent wetlands and wetland buffer area.
Due to the potential presence of the light-footed clapper rail within the wetlands adjacent to the project site,
project construction shall be prohibited during it’s breeding season unless a focused survey for the clapper
rail is conducted immediately prior to project construction and determines that no clapper rails were
observed during the survey.
The project access drive and fence do encroach into the 100 foot wetland buffer area. This encroachment has been
preliminarily reviewed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and Game and the
California Coastal Commission . The project shall be conditioned to mitigate this encroachment as follows:
1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, non-native plant species shall be removed from the wetland
buffer area and the wetland buffer area shall be re-vegetated with a hydro-mulched coastal scrub grass seed
mix.
Water
b). The flood plain in proximity to the project site is at an elevation of between 8.4’ and 9.8’ MSL
(Army Corps., 1973; Nolte & Assoc., 1985). The project site which is at an elevation of around
12’ MSL, is not located within the flood plain.
c). A sedimenvde-pollutant basin has been incorporated into the project design to mitigate the erosion
of soils and runoff of urban pollutants into the lagoon.
TransportatiodCirculation
e). To the south of the subject property, there currently exists an easement for public access to a trail
which is located along the south shore of Buena Vista Lagoon. The subject lagoon trail extends
onto the subject property. In order to ensure the preservation of this lagoon trail and legal public
access upon it, the following mitigation measure shall be required:
1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit or grading permit (whichever occurs first) the applicant shall
irrevocably offer to dedicate in perpetuity to the City of Carlsbad a minimum 25 foot wide public access
trail easement over the public access trail which is shown on the site plan for CDP 98-03.
13 Rev. 03/28/96
111. 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- 1 16 1, extension 447 1.
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. Biological Reuort of Environmental Conditions at a Site adiacent to Buena Vista Lagoon dated
October 15, 1996, Pacific Southwest Biological Services.
3. Cultural Resources Located at the Buena Vista Lagoon Condominium Proiect dated April 16,
1980, Regional Environmental Consultants.
4. Letter from the US Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the Conceptual Development Plan for the Subject
Property, (January 27, 19971, dated February 13,1997, US Fish and Wildlife Service.
5. Flood Plain Information Buena Vista Creek, dated July 1973, Army Corps of Engineers.
14 Rev. 03/28/96
-
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
4
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit or grading permit (whichever occurs first) the applicant shall
record a deed restriction over the entire wetland buffer setback area to restrict the property for open
space/wildlife uses only, except for a lateral public access trail as shown on the site plan for CDP 97-59.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit or grading permit (whichever occurs first). the property owner
shall shall submit evidence satisfactory to the Planning director that an irrevocable offer of dedication of
the wetland buffer area has been made to the California Department of Fish and Game.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, an exterior lighting plan shall be submitted to the Planning
Director for review. All exterior lighting shall include a combination of low-level lights and shields to
minimize the amount of light entering the adjacent wetlands and wetland buffer area.
Due to the potential presence of the light-footed clapper rail within the wetlands adjacent to the project site,
project construction shall be prohibited during it’s breeding season unless a focused survey for the clapper
rail is conducted immediately prior to project construction and determines that no clapper rails were
observed during the survey.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, non-native plant species shall be removed from the wetland
buffer area and the wetland buffer area shall be re-vegetated with a hydro-mulched coastal scrub grass seed
mix.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit or grading permit (whichever occurs first) the applicant shall
irrevocably offer to dedicate in perpetuity to the City of Carlsbad a minimum 25 foot wide public access
trail easement over the public access trail which is shown on the site plan for CDP 98-03.
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
15 Rev. 03/28/96
PROJECT NAME: Levy Residence and 2"d Dwelling Unit FILE NUMBERS: CDP 97-591SDU 98-03
APPROVAL DATE: CONDITIONAL NEG. DEC.:
Mitigation Measure
Record deed restriction over wetland buffer area to restrict as open
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).
Shown on Verified Remarks Monitoring Monitoring
Prior to Planning
TY Pe Department Plans Implementation
space and exclusively allow a lagoon public access trail.
Applicant submit evidence that an irrevocable offer of dedication of wetland buffer area has been made to CDF&G.
Applicant submit exterior lighting plan to minimize lagoon impacts.
Applicant remove non-native plants from buffer and revegetate with
hydro-mulched coastal scrub grass seed mix.
Applicant dedicate in perpetuity a 25 foot wide public access trail
building or
grading permit.
Prior to Planning building or
grading permit
Prior to Planning
building permit
Prior to Planning building permit
Prior to Planning
I grading permit I I
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept = Department, or Agendcy, responsible for monitoring a particular
mitigation measure.
information.
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,
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other
RD -Appendix P
this column will be initialed and dated.
I
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
16 Rev. 03/28/96