HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-07-01; Planning Commission; Resolution 4273I e e
-I
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. 4273
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO CREATE AND DEVELOP A
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER
OF THE INTERSECTION OF JEFFERSON STREET AND
CHINQUAPIN AVENUE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGE-
MENT ZONE 1
CASE NAME: JEFFERSON/CHINQUAPIN PROJECT
CASE NO.: CT 96-08/SDP 97-22/CDP 97-04
WHEREAS, Jan Alexander Kalicki and Rosalind Jones Kalicki, husl
wife as joint tenants, “Developer”, has filed a verified application with the City of
regarding property owned by Jan Kalicki, “Owner”, described as:
15-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION ON PROPERTY
A portion of Tract 232 of Thum Lands, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, according to Map 1681, filed
in the Office of the County Recorder of said County 12/9/15.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 1st day of July 199
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all t
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by :
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered a
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the
Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according tc
“ND” dated April 3, 1998, and “PII” dated March 19, 1998, attached ht
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
0 0
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analy
considered the Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts therein identifie1
project and any comments thereon prior to APPROVING the project. Based or
Part I1 and comments thereon, the Planning Commission finds that the:
substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environr
thereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration.
2. The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration reflects the ind
judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of July 199I
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners Compas, Heineman, pl
Nielsen, Savary, and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
,k> *,
,,ti? _7.
’- %. ;-<. y r ,if p p
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
/.<-&~ d’’ x ,f*P d>.,/% k ..p&?g k‘ $7 J .ci ?-Jy& **J
.’,‘ , - -4
BAILEY NOgE, ChairperWn”.””
ATTEST:
v MICHAEL J. HOLZM~LER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 4273 1 -2-
-. 0 e
-\ - Cit\ - - - I 0 D-0,
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddresdLocation: Northwest corner of the intersection of Jefferson Street an
Chinquapin Avenue.
Project Description: A 15-lot single family subdivision.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described projec
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act an
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review,
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on tk
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in tk
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Plannir
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public a
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of da
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Elaine Blackburn in the Planning Departme
at (760) 43 8- 1 16 1, extension 447 1.
DATED: APRIL 3,1998
CASE NO: CT 96-08/CDP 97-04/SDP 97-22
CASE NAME: JEFFERSON/CHINQUAPIN PROJECT
PUBLISH DATE: APRIL 3, 1998 \lb$f-lo~
MICHAEL J. H~ZMILLER
Planning Director
2075 La Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 - (760) 438-1 161 - FAX (760) 438-Of
-. c e
” ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CT 96-08/CDP 97-04/SDP 97-2
DATE: March 19, 195
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Jefferson Chinquapin Project
2. APPLICANT: Jan Kalicki
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: w
92069, (760) 9464
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: December 3 1, 1996
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 15-lot single family subdivision
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this projec
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impa
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
[7 Land Use and Planning TransportatiodCirculation c] Public Services
Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources Utilities & Service Systems
Geological Problems u Energy & Mineral Resources [7 Aesthetics
[7 Water [7 Hazards Cultural Resources
Air Quality 17 Noise 17 Recreation
[7 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03128196
-. 0 0
DETERMINATION.
-* (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
W I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on tl
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on tl
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigatic
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIV
DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and :
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earli
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigatic
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An is require
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
c] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on tl
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potential
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Master Environmenl
Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards +nd (b) have been void(
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-01
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed projec
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
3" 31-4z
Date
3/31/60
Planning Direct03 Signdidre Date
2 Rev. 03128196
-. 0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
-*
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the Cir
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significa
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the followir
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and hum2
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information 1
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), NegatiT
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 a
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following ea(
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced informatic
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved.
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, (
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
0 “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that tl
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopt<
general standards and policies.
0 “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporatic
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and tl
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce tl
effect to a less than significant level.
0 “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that ;
effect is significant.
0 Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significa
effect on the environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzc
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicab
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigatc
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed up‘
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the pri
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additior
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
0 When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily requir
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier E:
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
0 A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence tl
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
-. e e
-I 0 If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing z
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, ar
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In th
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporatec
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and includir
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect h
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, x
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less th
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact h;
not been made pursua:nt to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduc
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is n
possible to determin’e the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, 1
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significa
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of tl
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attentic
should be given to discussilng mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determinc
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
-. e e
-1 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impac
Impact Unless Impact Mitigation
Incorporated
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
landuses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
(#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
0
0
0
0
0
CI 0 w
cl w
cl 0 IXI
0 0 [XI
o w
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 -
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
0 0 0 [XI
0 0 0 [XI
5.5-6)
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) 0 0 0 [XI
HI. 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? (# 1 :Pgs 5.1 - 1 - 5.1 - 15)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (# 1 :Pgs
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#1 :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? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1.15)
5.1-15)
5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
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? (#1 :Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15)
0 0 0
0
0 0
0 CI 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0
0 0
0 0 0
w w w
[XI w w
[XI IXI
[XI
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runofl? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
0 0 [XI
0 0 0 w 11)
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
5 Rev. 03J28J96
... @
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
_I
Potentially
Significant
Impact
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
body? (#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
(#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
11)
5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
0
0
0
0
c3
0
0
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l: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)
0
1 - 5.3-12)
- 5.3-12) 0
0
0
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?
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#1 :Pgs 5.7-1 -
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)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
5.7.22)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
6
0
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impac
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless Impact
0 o w
0 [XI
0 0
0 0 IXI
0 w
0 o w
0 H
0 0 IXI
0 0 El
0 0 IXI
0' 0 El
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 [XI
0 [XI o w
0 [XI
0 El
Rev. 03/28/96
-. 0 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). _.
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (# 1 :Pgs 5.4- 1 - 5.4-24)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1
(#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
(#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
- 5.4-24)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5
proposal?
(#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 0 0
0
0
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 orradiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
5.10.1-5)
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
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) 0 o
0 0 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 o 0 0 C) Schools? (#l:PgS 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5) 0 0
7
Less Than No
Significant Impac Impact
0 [XI
0 w w o w
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
o w
El [XI
0 [XI
0 w
0 [XI o [XI
0 [XI o w
0 w 0 [XI o w
Rev. 03/28/96
e e
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
_I
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impac Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( )
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 0 0 0 [XI
5.12.8-7) 0 0 0 [XI
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( )
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 0 0 0 [XI
5.12.8-7) 0 0 0 [XI
XILUTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
b) Communications systems? ( )
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
e) Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
f) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
5.12.3-7)
17 0
0 17 0 0
17 0 [XI
0 0 IXI 0 0 w
0 0 [XI 0 0 [XI 0 0 [XI 0 0 w
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5)
5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5) 0 0 0 [XI
0 0 0 [XI
17 0 0 [XI
5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
10)
10)
5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
0
0
0 o
17
17 0 [XI
17 17 [XI
0 0 IXI 0 0 w
17 0 [XI
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 -
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#1 :Pgs
0 0 0 w
17 0 [XI
5.12.8-7)
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
8 Rev. 03128196
e 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the 0
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)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
0
0
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impac
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless Impact
0 IXI
0 0 IXI
0 w
9 Rev. 03/28/96
8 e
-1 XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQ
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negatil
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify tl
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are availab
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklj
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursua
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed 1
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigatic
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address sit
specific conditions for the project.
10 Rev. 03128196
" e e
. _" DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCFUPTIONiENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The proposed project is for the subdivision of a 3.4-acre parcel of land into 15 single family
residential lots. (No development of the lots is being proposed. The subdivider anticipates
selling the lots to individuals for future development.) The lot sizes range from 8 135 square fec
to 8558 square feet. The site is a generally flat infill site surrounded by residential developmen
11. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
A. Non-Relevant Items
1. Land Use and Planning
The proposed subdivision will not conflict with the General Plan or zoning or any 0th
applicable environmental plans or policies for the subject property. The site is designated f
RLM (Residential - Low to Medium Density) uses and is zoned R-1-7500 (single fami
residential). The project would subdivide the parcel into single family residential lots consiste
with the zoning designation. The project is consistent with the General Plan in the sense that it
low to medium density residential development. However, at a proposed density of 4.41 ddac,
exceeds the density range (0-4 ddac) allowed by the General Plan by .41 units. The City
General Plan does allow this to occur in some situations. This project appears to be a situatic
where this additional density could be allowed. There are no environmental plans which apply I
the subject property. The site is within the Coastal Zone. However, it contains no sensitiJ
resources to be protected, and the Coastal Zone land use designation for the site is the City's R-
zoning. The development of the site will not disrupt any established community. The site
currently undeveloped and is surrounded by existing older single family (generally) residenti,
development. The project will not affect agricultural resources or operations. It is an infill si
not recently used for agricultural purposes and is not a Coastal-designated agricultural overlz
site. The site has been used in the past for several greenhouses. Those greenhouses, including
30,000 gallon fuel oil tank, have been removed. A report prepared for the closure of the tank si
indicates that there has been no contamination of the soil on the site.
2. Population and Housing
The development of this infill site with single family residential housing was anticipated by tl
City's General Plan. Therefore, it will not result in exceeding anticipated population projectior
nor will it induce substantial growth. It will not displace existing housing.
3. Geologic Problems
The subject site is a rather flat infill site. It is not located in a flood hazard area. A Geotechnic'
report was prepared for the project by Barry and Associates. This report indicates that the site
suitable for the proposed development and will not result in geologic problems when developc
as recommended. The site contains no unique geologic or physical features. Therefore, whc
developed in accordance with the applicable City regulations, the project will not result :
11 Rev. 03128196
” 0 0
exposure to potential geologic problems including seiche, tsunami, volcanic hazard, erosion,
h -. fault rupture).
4. Water
There are no water bodies on or near the subject site, and the City is not located in a groundwat
basin. Therefore, the project will not affect surface water or currents and will not affe
groundwater quality or quantity. The site is not within a flood hazard area and will not result
exposure to water related hazards. Eventual development of the site with residential uses will
required to comply with all applicable City regulations regarding drainage and runoff (includil
compliance with any applicable NPDES regulationsh-equirements).
7. Biological Resources
The site will not result in impacts to biological resources. It is an infill site containing I
identified sensitive resources. It contains no designated natural communities or wetland habit
and does not serve as a migration corridor.
8. Energy and Mineral Resources
The site contains no identified natural resources and will not conflict with any enerj
conservation plans. There are no laown mineral resources on the site.
9. Hazards
Eventual development of the site with single family residences is not likely to result in the risk t
accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances or other potential health hazard. The:
will be no interference with emergency response or evacuation plans as the site will be developc
in accordance with all applicable City regulations, including placement of the structures on tl
site and public improvement requirements (streets, drainage facilities, etc.). A report prepare
for the site indicates no contamination of the soil on the site. (See Item 1 above.) Therefore, tl
proposed development of the site will not result in creation of any hazards.
10. Noise
The future development of the site with single family residences is not anticipated to result
increasing noise levels or exposure of people to severe noise levels. When construction
proposed, there will be temporary increases in noise as building occurs. However, the,
activities will be regulated by the City’s construction activity regulations and will be tempom
in nature and not severe.
1 1. Public Services
The eventual development of the subject site will not result in a need for new or altere
government services beyond what was already anticipated by the City’s General Plan. TI
project will be conditioned to comply with all applicable requirements of the Local Facilitic
Management Plan for Zone 1 to ensure that all necessary facilities are provided prior to 4
concurrent with development.
12 Rev. 03/28/96
.a e 0
12. Utilities and Services Systems
The eventual development of the subject site will not result in a need for new systems or suppli
or substantial alterations. The site is an infill site readily serviced by existing systems. T
project will be conditioned to comply with all applicable requirements of the Local Faciliti
Management Plan for Zone 1 to ensure that all necessary facilities/systems are provided prior
or concurrent with development.
13. Aesthetics
The will not result in any aesthetic impacts. Future development of single family residences 1
the site will be required to comply with all applicable City regulations for such developmer
including yard setbacks, height limitations, and separation between structures. Lighting for su(
structures would be minimal. The site is an infill site not adjacent to nor containing any scen
highway or vista.
14. Cultural Resources
No cultural resources (paleontological, archaeological, or historical) have been identified on tl
project site. The site also does not serve as a site for religious or sacred uses. Therefore, the
will be no impact to cultural resources.
1 5. Recreational
The project will not affect existing recreational opportunities as it does not currently serve as
recreation. site. The single family homes to be developed in the future will provide yards fi
recreational uses and will be conditioned to comply with the requirements of the Local Facilitic
Management Plan for Zone 1 for park and recreation facilities.
B. Environmental Impact Discussion
5. Air Quality
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updatc
1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle mill
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactil
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are tl
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since tl
San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considert
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in tk
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 variel
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisiol
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measurc
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demas
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including ma
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable ar
**
13 Rev. 03/28/96
\r. e e
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into t
“V design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is mark
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, t
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by C1
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for E
quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subseque
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, I
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at tl
Planning Department.
6. TransportatiodCirculation
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updatl
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequa
to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severe
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. The!
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbs
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersectiol
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, numerol
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measur
to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develo
alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestria
linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies whc
adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highwz
onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. Ti
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either bec
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 tk
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefort
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project i
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because th
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, include
a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement C
Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulatio
impacts is required.
14 Rev. 03/28/96
'.. ' e e
111. EARLIER ANALYSES USED
I 'e
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 920C
(760) 43 8- 1 16 1, extension 447 1.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Upd;
(MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
15 Rev. 03/28/96