Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-09-17; Planning Commission; Resolution 4174‘i II 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4174 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A 17-UNIT, SMALL-LOT SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION (TENTATIVE MAP FOR 22 LOTS), LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF UNICORN10 STREET WEST OF EL FUERTE STREET, IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6. CASE NAME: MARVISTA AT LA COSTA CASE NO.: CT 97-08IPUD 97-05 WHEREAS, TRC Development Corp. (d.b.a. “Avalon Homes”), “Develc has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Estate Collateral Management Company, “Owner”, described as Lots 518 through 521, inclusive, of La Costa Meadows Unit No. 3, Map 7076, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of September : hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testil and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff. considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all fa relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Plar Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Plar Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according to Ex “ND” dated August 11, 1997, and “PII” dated August 1, 1997, attached h and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ' 28 e 0 Findinm: 1. The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may h significant impact on the environment. 2. a. The Planning Commission finds that, based on the EIA Part 11, this projec described in the MEIR 93-01 as within its scope; AND there will be no addi, significant effect, not analyzed therein; AND that pursuant to Section 21083 of the Public Resources Code, the environmental effects peculiar to the pro or to the project have been adequately addressed in the Negative Declar issued by the Planning Director AND neither additional environmental docur nor Public Resources Code Section 2 108 1 findings are required. b. The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures or PI alternatives identified in the MEIR 93-01 which are appropriate to Subsequent Project have been incorporated into this Subsequent Project. 3. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed considered the Negative Declaration dated August 11, 1997, the environmental im therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to APPROVIN( project. Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, the Planning Commi! finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect o environment and thereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration. 4. The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration dated August 11, reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsl ... ..- ... .. . ... ... ... I ~ ... ... PC RES0 NO. 4174 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0 a PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Ph Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th day of September 199 the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Nielsen, Commissioners Heineman, Monroy, N Savary and Welshons NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Compas ABSTAIN: None ,;..- -,&e t-::s<.. .."' i c- .i ,.,+-' c*.+' ,I ,.> ' . ~. , ...I)' d'. .-'."::.- / -. r ,' ,"4 .L\-, ~,..~",~~..-~~~~~.~~.~~~~~..~.-- --e-. ,_.~. ~~~.:. ~ , "j ' - ., r. , Y ,.L: x. ,'. 7 i RKBERT NIELSEN, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J.MLZMIHER Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 4174 -3- NEGATrVE DECLARATION Project AddressLocation: Three vacant lots, located on the north side of Unicornio Street, approximately 200 feet west of the intersection with El Fuerte Street, in the La Costa community of the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. Project Description: Request for a Tentative Tract Map and Planned Development Permit to subdivide a 2.49 acre (2.10 net usable) site into 22 lots (1 7 single-family residential lots, one open space lot, and three lots for private courtyard driveways), on a vacant, previously-graded infill property, that is planned and zoned for residential development. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of date . of issuance. , If you have any questions, please call Dennis Turner in the Planning Department at (760) 43 8- 1 16 1, extension 4443. DATED: AUGUST 11,1997 CASE NO: CT 97-08/ PUD 97-05 CASE NAME: MARVISTA AT LA COSTA (PHASE 1) PUBLISH DATE: AUGUST 1 1,1997 MICHAEL J. H%LZmLER Planning Director 2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (61 9) 438-1161 - FAX (GI 9) 438-0894 e 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 CASE NO: CT 97-08PUD 97-08 DATE: August 1,1997 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Marvista at La Costa, Phase I 2. APPLICANT: Avalon Homes (contact: Scott Redsun) 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 26440 La Alameda, Suite 370, Mission Vieio, CA 9269 1, (7 14) 582-4 1 1 1 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: May 30,1997 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: Located in the La Costa community of Carlsbad. Proposal is for subdivision and construction of a “small lot”(1ess than 3,500 square feet/lot) residential planned unit development consisting of 17 two-story, single-family homes on individual lots, a recreation area, an open space lot, and an RV storage area, for a total of 21 lots. The units would be clustered around three driveway cul-de-sacs that connect to the existing Unicornio Street, a local street. Two floor plans of 1,832 and 2,035 square feet would be offered. The site consists of two, vacant, rough-graded pads of 2.49 acres (2.10 net usable) which were created in the 1970s as part of the mass grading for an earlier master planned development. These pads comprise three of five remaining lots on the north side of Unicornio Street, just west of El Fuerte Street. Over half of the site consists of fill grading, such that the northern portion is constrained by an approximately 50/60-foot- high manufactured slope of 2:l gradient. The two westerly lots comprise a single pad that is some five feet lower than the pad on the easterly lot. The large rear slope is vegetated with a mix of mature non-native and native shrubs and grasses. Having been periodically “brushed” for weed abatement, no significant vegetation exists on the rough pads themselves. Some minor finish grading (1,200 cu. yd., including 500 cu. yds. of export) would be included in the project. This grading would not affect the existing rear slope except to refinish the daylight line Under separate application and permits, four additional, similar single-family homes are being proposed on a fourth driveway cul-de-sac on the non-contiguous vacant pad located approximately 100 feet to the east of the subject property. The two properties are separated by a vacant pad under separate ownership, thus necessitating two separate 1 Rev. 03/28/96 0 e applications. If approved, the two sites are proposed to be operated as one development, under a single home-owners association. Adjacent land uses: Southerly, across Unicornio Street, are condominiums and a vacant lot. Westerly, are detached condominiums developed in courtyard configurations similar to what is being proposed for the subject project. To the north, at the toe of the slope, are the back yards of several single-family homes. To the east, are the two remaining vacant pads, with El Fuerte Street beyond. 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 0 TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services 0 Population and Housing c] Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems 0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics 0 Water c] Hazards Cultural Resources IXI Air Quality [13 Noise Recreation B Mandatory Findings of Significance 2 Rev. 03/28/96 0 e DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) m I find that the proposed project COULD NOT- have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 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. An EIR is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 0 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 EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. "Lm- 8/57Q 7 Planner Signature Date 0/b/?7- Planning Director'xignadde Date .. 3 Rev. 03/28/96 Q a 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. 0 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. 0 “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. 0 “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. 0 “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. 0 Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but a 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). 0 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. 0 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. 4 Rev. 03/28/96 e e 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. 5 Rev. 03/28/96 e Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? 0 0 0 0 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or population projections? (Ref., 1, P 4-5) o indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area 0 or extension of major infrastructure)? housing? 0 c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable 111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (Ref. 2, p. 7) b) Seismic ground shaking? (Ref.2, p.7-8) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (Ref. d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (reef 2) 2., p 7-8) e) Landslides or mudflows? (ref. 2) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (Ref. 2, p. 7, 10-23) g) Subsidence of the land? (Ref. 2, p. 6-7) h) Expansive soils? (Ref. 2, p. 6-7) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (Ref. 2, p. 3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IV . WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff! b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? 0 0 0 0 6 e Potentialiy Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than No Significan Impact t Impact 0 IXI 0 w 0 IXI 0 IXI cl €4 17 €4 .El w El Ixl 0 IXI 0 w 0 !XI 0 IXI o w 0 €3 0 w 0 w 0 w 0 €3 0 IXI 0 IXI '0 IXI Rev. 03/28/96 e Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (Ref. 2, p. 9) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (Ref. 2, p. 9) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (Ref, 2, P.9) 0 0 0 0 0 V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Ref. 3) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause d) Create objectionable odors? (Ref. 3) existing or projected air quality violation? (Ref. .3) 0 0 0 any change in climate? (Ref. 3) 0 VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Ref. 3; Ref. 4) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? 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? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 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? b) Locally designated species (eg. heritage trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0. 0 0 [XI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significan t Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Impact w w [xi !XI IXI o w w [xi o w IXI [XI [xi IXI IXI IXI IXI !XI w IXI 7 Rev. 03/28/96 e Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use' non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? e) Other governmental services? XII.UTIL1TIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? b) Communications systems? c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage? f) Solid waste disposal? g) Local or regional water supplies? facilities? 8 Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LessThan No Significan Impact t Impact O w 0 €3 0 w 0 D 0 0 Ixf Ix1 €4 w €3 €3 0 0 €3 !x 0 IXI 0 !x O w 0 w 0 0 IXI 0 w 0 w 0 Ix1 o w O w El w Rev. 03/28/96 e 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? o 0 Potentially Less Than No Significant Significan Impact Mitigation Incorporated Unless t Impact 0 0 Ix1 0 0 [XI [XI 0 XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources? c) Affect historical resources? d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the 0 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 [XI 0 0 [XI would affect unique ethnic cultural values? 0 0 0 [XI potential impact area? , 0 0 0 El XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? parks or other recreational facilities? 0 0 [XI 0 0 [XI XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the 0 0 0 [XI 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 importan€ examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? [XI 0 0 I71 (“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, IXI either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative .. declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: 9 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 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. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. LAND USE AND PLANNING The project site is designated Residential Medium High (RMH) in the Carlsbad General Plan (6 - 15 d.u. per acre) and zoned RDM. The proposed 17 units yield a project density is 8.1 d.u. per net acre and would be consistent with these designations. There are no special environmental plans or policies that pertain to this property. The surrounding development is two-story condominium (attached and detached) to the west and south, with single-family homes at the bottom of the slope at the rear of the property. The proposed two-story, small-lot single-family homes would be compatible with this type of development. There are no agricultural resources or operations in the area. The project implements the General Plan and does not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of the existing community. 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING b) The project site is an undeveloped remnant of land surrounded by existing development. All offsite infrastructure is in place. This “infill” proposal would, therefore, not induce growth into the area. c) The site is vacant. Development would not displace any existing housing. IV. WATER a-e) The project site consists of a fill shelf along a hillside that was mass-graded many years ago. The site is not adjacent to any surface water body. Because of hardscape associated with proposed driveway aprons and roofs, the project would result in a small increment of runoff from the site. Finish grading for individual lots and the project-as-a-whole will assure that this runoff will be directed towards the existing Unicornio Street and its existing drainage facilities. 10 Rev. 03/28/96 e e 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 93-0 1 , by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION b-e) The project design conforms to Carlsbad’s standards for driveway widths, turning radii, and access points. Special care was taken in project negotiations to assure that lines of sight at egress points (individual drives, access to Unicornio, RV storage) would assure the ability of drivers to see other vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists clearly. The full 32- foot widths of the access drives assist with this. Emergency egress from the site is achieved via the three un-gated cul-de-sac drive ways, which support a maximum of only 6 units per cul-de-sac. f-g) While the project’s small size doesn’t lend itself to opportunities to implement major transportation improvements, neither does it conflict with adopted policies for alternative transportation strategies or for adopted plans for rail, waterborne, or air traffic transportation. 11 Rev. 03/28/96 e e VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a-e) This small, graded, id111 site on manufactured slopes, does not support any significant biological resources. The rough pads have been repeatedly brushed in the past as part of the City’s ongoing weed abatement and fre control ordinances. The large, manufactured rear slope supports a mixture of mature non-native and native shrubs and grasses, but is not of a size or species composition to be considered significant habitat. No sensitive plant, animal or bird species were observed in a walk-over of the slope by staff. Finish grading of the site pads will be conditioned to minimize impacts to the rear slope. VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES a) Consistent with Title 24 regulations of the state Building Code, the project will be designed to incorporate energy conservation measures where feasible. Otherwise the project doesn’t conflict with any adopted energy conservation plans. b) No non-renewable resource has been identified with the site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the wasteful use of a non-renewable resource. c) The subject site does not have any known mineral resources (natural gas, oil, coal, sand or gravel) that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the state. IX. HAZARDS a-d) Aside from the short-term air quality impacts and potential hazards associated with dust, vehicle emissions, and certain materials (paint, fuels, tools) during construction activities, the proposed project would not result in a significant risk or hazard to residents of neighbors. No reportable quantities of listed hazardous materials will be maintained on- site following the completion of construction. Six-foot high fencing will be provided at the rear of all lots at the top of the 60-foot-high rear slope to protect children and adults from potential fall accidents. There are no existing hazards (ex: flight activities, manufactuiing processes) associated with the site or the neighborhood e) There will be no increase in fire hazards. The slope to the rear of the property supports an existing mix of vegetation that could, in certain extreme dry weather conditions, present a potential wildfire hazard. But the project will not exacerbate this existing potential hazard, and may even reduce it as there may be some amount of landscaping irrigation run-off that would keep portions of the slope green in dry weather. X. NOISE a-b) . Temporary construction activities will be required to comply with the City’s Construction Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.48 of the Municipal Code). Otherwise the project will generate only the normal amount of noise associated with residences. The project will not be subjected to any adverse noise conditions from off site. Unicornio, .the local street on which the project will be accessed, is not known to generate a traffic noise level that is 12 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 incompatible with the General Plan’s 60 dBA CNEL exterior noise standard for single- family dwellings. XI. PUBLIC SERVICESKII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS a-e) The proposed project is subject to all the conditions of the Zone 6 Local Facilities Management Plan as well as the Citywide Facilities Management Plan for 1 1 classes of public facilities and services. These plans projected facilities and service needs at build- out assuming that all dwelling units allowed under the City’s Growth Management Plan were constructed. These facilities include those for: fire, police, school, roads, government offices, parks sewer, storm drain, and water. The City Growth Management Plan requires a financing plan to be part of the Local Facilities Management Plan to assure the provision of the listed facilities and services concurrent with their need. The Leucadia Water district has provided a letter indicating its ability to provide the development with sewer service. In particular, and consistent with the City’s Growth Management Plan and applicable state law, the project applicant will be required to submit evidence to the City that the project impacts to school facilities have been adequately mitigated prior to issuance of grading or building permits. XIII. AESTHETICS a-b) This infill project site’s position atop a 50-foot fill slope would afford ten of the proposed 17 units with an opportunity to enjoy an enhanced viewshed. However, this viewshed is not now realized from public rights-of-way. Therefore, construction of the project will not adversely affect an existing public view or scenic amenity. The architecture and landscaping are both designed to provide a pleasing aesthetic effect to both project residents and neighbors. The project is subject to the City’s small lot architectural guidelines, which require the inclusion of a mixture of off-setting planes on the front and rear elevations of the individual units to assure a pleasant design. In addition, the applicant has included enhanced facades on the fronts and sides of the units that will be visible from each of the three private courtyards and the Unicornio Street public right of way. In order to provide the lighting necessary for the safe movement of vehicles and pedestrians and to provide security for persons and property, the project will include exterior lighting in the form of fixtures on the buildings and at least two pole-mounted street lights in each courtyard driveway. This lighting will be directed so as to fall onto the site with a minimum of spill-over to adjacent properties. No tennis courts or outdoor recreation lighting is included. The project will not create adverse lighting or glare impacts to residents or offsite parties. XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. a-e) The site was mass graded in the 1970s to create the existing pads and up-to-60-foot fill slope on the north edge. Test borings reported in the 1997 geotechnical report (Reference 2, see below) for the project were up to 59 feet in depth and gave no evidence of subsurface archaeological or paleontological resources. None would be expected given the site’s fill nature. The site has no existing structures, historical or otherwise. This 13 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 relatively new suburban neighborhood has no unique ethnic cultural physical presence (such as architecture) that the project would impact. The project would not introduce any restrictions to existing religious or sacred uses within the area. XV. RECREATIONAL a-b) The project will generate a small incremental demand for community parks and recreation facilities. This demand is offset by 1) the inclusion on-site of a common passive open space area and individual usable back yards for each unit, in keeping with the standards of the City’s Planned Development Ordinance, and 2) the City’s Growth Management Plan, which has planned population-based park and recreation facilities throughout the City and requires all new development to pay park fees to assure the construction of these facilities commensurate with population growth. XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE - CUMULATIVE EFFECTS, CIRCULATION The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include 1) measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and cormnuter 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. 14 Rev. 03/28/96 0 (I) SOURCE DOCUMENTS: (Note: All source documents are on file in the Planning Department, located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009: Phone: (760) 438-1 16 1 .) 1. Carlsbad General Plan, City of Carlsbad, 1994. 2. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Lots 518 Through 521 and Lot 523 of La Costa Meadows Unit 3, Carlsbad California, Leighton and Associates, April 1 , 1997. 3. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update, City of Carlsbad Planning Department, March 1994. 4. Sun Diego TraJffic Generators, San Diego Association of Governments and CALTrans, District 11 , January 1990 (Revised 6/95). , I. .. 15 Rev. 03/28/96