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