Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-07-15; Planning Commission; Resolution 4330r. a s ’. 1 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4330 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CAIUSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO ALLOW THE MAY SUBDIVISION PROJECT LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF PARK DRIVE AND MONROE STREET IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASE NAME: MAY SUBDIVISION CASE NO.: ZC 97-08/LCPA 97-12ICT 97-24/SDP 98- 05/ CDP 97-58 WHEREAS, James & Patricia May, “Developer”, have filed a application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by James & Patric: “Owner”, described as A portion of Lot “I” of Rancho Agua Hedionda in the County of Sal State of California, according to the map thereof No. 823, filed in the 1 the County Recorder of San Diego County November 16,1896 (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 1st day of July, 1998 the 15th day of July, 1998 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to c said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all te and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by SI considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the F Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. I B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the E Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Mitigated I’ -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 0 e Declaration according to Exhibit "ND" dated May 22, 1998, and "PII" da 11, 1998, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and the M Monitoring and Reporting Program, based on the following findings: Pindings: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, ady, considered Mitigated Negative Declaration and the environmental impacts identified for this project and said comments thereon, and the Mitigation Monito Reporting Program, on file in the Planning Department, prior to RECOMME APPROVAL of the project. Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments ther Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence the project wi significant effect on the environment and hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVA: Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative De( and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared in acc with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guide1 the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad. 3. The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration ref independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad. Conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with all conditions stipulated in the a Environmental Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... I ~ .... .... 1 PC RES0 NO. 4330 -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 e 0 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the 1 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of July, 1998 following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners Compas, Heineman, Monroy, Nielsen, and Welshons NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Savary ABSTAIN: ING COMMISSION ATTEST: v MICHAEL J. MZMIUER Planning Director I 1 PC RES0 NO. 4330 -3 - . .. 0 0 - Citg - - e .-e, - MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Address/Location: Southwest corner of Park Drive and Monroe Avenue in 1 northwest quadrant. Project Description: Zone change and Local Coastal Program Amendment to rezone an infill parcel from a split R- 1-7500 a R-I -1 5000 zoning to R-1-10000 and tentative map, coastal development permit, and minor s development plan to subdivide and grade the 4.67 acre parcel into 14 standard (10,000 square fc minimum) single family lots with detached 603 square foot second dwelling units on two lots to satir inclusionary housing requirements. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described projt pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act a the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review Mitigated Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file the Planning Department. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in tl Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from t public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within : days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Plannil Department at (760) 438-1 161, extension 4477. DATED: MAY 22,1998 CASE NO: CT 97-24LCPA 97- 12/ZC 97-08/CDP 97-58 CASE NAME: MAY SUBDIVISION PUBLISH DATE: MAY 22,1998 MICHAEL J. mZMIuER Planning Director 2075 La Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-1 161 - FAX (760) 438-08 . .. 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CT97-24/LCPA 97- 12/ZC 97-08/CDP 97-5 DATE: May 1 I. 199 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME Mav Subdivision 2. APPLICANT: James and Patricia Mav 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 3926 Park Drive, Carlsbad. CA 92008 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: December 23, 1997 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Zone change and Local Coastal Program Amendment to rezone a infill parcel from a split R-1-7500 and R-1-15000 zoning to R-l- 10000 and tentative mal coastal development permit, and minor site development plan to subdivide the 4.67 acre parcl into 14 standard (10,000 square foot minimum) single family lots with detached 603 sQuare foc second dwelling units on two lots to satisfy inclusionarv housing requirements. 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 Impac Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Ix] Land Use and Planning Transportation/Circulation Public Services 0 Population and Housing 0- Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems 0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources c] Aesthetics 0 Water ix] Hazards 0 Cultural Resources a Air Quality [I3 Noise 0 Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 03/28/96 - ., e 0 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on tl environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 1XI I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on tk environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigatia measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIV DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and a ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effectts) on the environment, but 2 least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlic document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigatio measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An is requirec 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 thl environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentiall; significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier pursuant to applicabll standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier, includinj revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. /”- .?/..4R / Date 5/18 iq 0 Date 2 Rev. 03/28/96 .L 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 0 STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the Cit conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significal effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the followin pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical. biological and huma factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information tl use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negativ Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. e 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 eac question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced informatio 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, o it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. 0 “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that th potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adoptei general standards and policies. 0 “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporati01 of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to i “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and thc City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce thc effect to a less than significant level. 0 “Potentially Significant Impact“ is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that ar effect is significant. e Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significani effect on the environment, but &l potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzec adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicabk standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigatec Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upor the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to 01 supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the priol 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. e A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. 3 Rev. 03/28/96 .. e 0 0 If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing a EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant. an those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In thi 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 includin: but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect ha not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, an the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less tha significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact ha not been made pursuant 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 no possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, o determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significan effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of tb form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attentiol should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determinec significant. 4 Rev. 03/28/96 - .I e 0 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 (Source #(s): (Source #I 0 policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (Source vicinity? (Source #I) 0 c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impac Mitigation Incorporated Unless Impact 0 IXI 0 0 El 0 0 w d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from cl 0 0 IXI incompatible land uses? (Source #1) established community (including a low-income or 0 0 0 Ix1 minority community)? (Source #1)) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (Source #1) 0 0 b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an 0 0 undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (Source #I) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (Source # 1 ) 0 0 111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (Sources #I. 4) b) Seismic ground shaking? (Source #4) . c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? . (Source #4) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (Source #3) e) Landslides or mudflows? (Source #3) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (Source #4) g) Subsidence of the land? (Source #4) h) Expansive soils? (Source #4) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (Source # 4) cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ix1 0 Ix1 0 w 0 ixI 0 IXI 0 ix1 0 IXI 0 IXI 0.w 0 IXI 0 Ix1 0 IXI IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or b) Exposure of people or property to water related the rate and amount of surface runoff'? (Source #5) 0 0 o w hazards such as flooding? (Source #2,5) '0 0 0' IXI 5 Rev. 03/28/96 .. e Issues (and Supporting Informatlon Sources). Potentially Significant Impact c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (Source #2) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (Source #2) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (Source tf2) 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? (Source #2) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (Source #2) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (Source tf2) 0 0 0' o n i) Substantial reduction in the amount of U groundwater otherwise available for public water 0 supplies? (Source #2) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source #2) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Source #2) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? () d) Create objectionable odors? () VI. TRANSPORTATIONKIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Source #2) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (Source #1) 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, b,icycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (Source #1) 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? (Source #1,2) 6 Kl [XI 0 CI [XI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 CI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than No Significant lmpal Impact 0 IXI O w 17 [XI 0 [XI 0 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 0 17 0 0 [XI 0 [XI cl 0 0 IXI 0 [XI [XI 0 IXI 0 [x1 0 [x1 0 [XI Rev. 03/28/96 .I 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (Source (Source #1,2) forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source #I, 2) pool)? (Source # 1,2) #1 I 2) 0 Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 El 0 0 VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (Source #1,2) 0 o b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (Source #I, 2) 0 0 c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to 0 0 the region and the residents of the State? (Source #I, 2) 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 pian 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? (Source #6) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, ' grass, or trees? () 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [x] 0 X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Source #1,2) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Source 0 0 #I, 2) 0 0 Less Than No Significant Impac lmpact 0 (XI 0 El cl El 0 Ix1 0 IXI 0 IxI 0 [XI o w 0 [x] '0 [XI 0 0 0 [XI 0 [x1 0 w 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? (Source #1) b) Police protection? (Source #2) c) Schools? (Source #I) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? e) Other governmental services? (Source #2) 0 0 0 0 (Source # 1 ) 0 7 0 0 [x] 0 0 Ixl 0 [XI 0 0 [x] 0 o IXI Rev. 03/28/96 .. 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant lmpact XII. UTILITIES 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? (Sources #1,2) b) Communications systems? () c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Source #1,2) e) Storm water drainage? (Source # 1,2) fl Solid waste disposal? (Source #1,2) g) Local or regional water supplies? (Source #1,2) facilities? (Source # 1,2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (Source b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? (Source #2) #1> 0 (Source #2) 0 XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? () b) Disturb archaeological resources? () c) Affect historical resources? (Source #2) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (Source #2) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (Source #2) 0 0 0 0 XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? () parks or other recreational facilities? (Source #I) 0 0 XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce 0 the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 8 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation lncorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than No Significant lmpac lmpact '23 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 w 0 [x) 0 [x) 0 [x) w 0 IXI 0 Ix1 0 Ixl 0 [x1 0 El 0 IXI 0 IXI [x1 0 IXI 0 [x1 Rev. 03128196 .. e 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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? Potentially Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Significant Impact Unless lmpact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0. No Impac [XI w XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQr process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negativ, declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify thl following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are availablc for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklis were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuan. 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 01 refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site- specific conditions for the project. 9 Rev. 03/28/96 ,I e 0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Environmental Analysis The infill parcel, located in LFM Zone 1 in the northwest quadrant, is designated for Residenti; Low Medium density allowing 0 - 4 dwelling units/acre and has a split zoning: R-1 (7500) c the north half and R- 1-1 5,000 on the southern half. The surrounding areas to the north and we are zoned R-1 and developed with single family residences and existing infrastructure. The lo to the east and south are zoned R-1-15,000 and also developed with single family residences ar existing infrastructure. The site consists of 4.67 acres which fall gently in a southwest direction with elevations rangin from 230 feet above mean seal level (amsl) in the northeast comer to 210 feel amsl in tl southwest corner of the site. May Foilage Company, a wholesale plant company, operates on th site under approval of a conditional use permit. The property has been used for agricultur; purposes since sometime prior to 1953, and over the past 40 years, it can be presumed tht chemical fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, and rodenticides have been applied to the soils. Th site is occupied by large green houses used to cultivate indoor plants, the company office, garage, storage buildings, and a pesticide shed with a boiler and chemical tanks for distributio: of fertilizer and pesticide solutions to the green houses via underground piping. The site is alsi occupied by the May single family residence and a garage. Runoff from the site which i increased due to coverage by green houses and paving is directed to Park Drive. All existin, development would be demolished and/or removed to enable grading and the subdivision of thc parcel into single family lots and a public culdesac street providing access from Park Drive.. Ia. Land Use - General PldZoning The project is consistent with the underlying RLM General Plan designation allowing i maximum of 4 dwelling units per acre, however, the project density of 3.4 dwelling units pel acre (including two second dwelling units) exceeds the Growth Management Growth Contro: Point (GCP) of 3.2 dwelling units per acre. The General Plan allows infill subdivisions in LFN Zone 1 to exceed the density range and/or GCP up to 25% above the maximum allocation (5 dwelling units per acre), in those cases where the underlying zone would permit a slightly highel yield, compatibility is ensured, and Growth Management findings can be made. The applicant i: requesting a zone change from a split R-1 and R-1-15,000 to R-1-10,000. The zone change would not enable a maximum density yield higher than existing zoning under the General Plan provision discussed above. Public facilities are adequate in LFM Zone 1 to accommodate the proposed units and there are excess dwelling units in the quadrant to ensure that the maximum number of dwelling units in the northwest quadrant would not be exceeded at buildout. The zone change would ensure compatibility by providing a transition zone between existing R-1 zoning and smaller lots to the north and R-1-15,000 zoning and larger lots to the south. Ib. Land Use - Local Coastal Program The pro-ject is subject to and consistent with the General Plan RLM land use designation allowing 0 - 4 dwelling units per acre, however, the project consists of a zone change to change the zoning from its current split R-1 and R- 1-1 5,000 classification to R- 1 - 10,000. Approval of a Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) is required to ensure consistency between the LCP and the implementing zoning. The project includes a request for a LCPA to satisfy this 10 Rev. 03/28/96 .. a 0 requirement. V. 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 mil traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide. reactjl 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 consider€ cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in tl 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 varie of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisior for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measurc to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Deman Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including ma: transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 2 participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable an appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into th design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project i located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is markel “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, thc preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-0 1, by Cit! Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for ai quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequen projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, nc further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at thc Planning Department. VI. Circulation The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updatec 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 minimizi 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 commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or 11 Rev. 03/28/96 , .* 0 0 State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have eith been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approva 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, therefor the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because tl 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. VII. Biological Resources The project is an infill location surrounded by existing single family development. The site i currently occupied by the May Foilage Company, a wholesale plant company, consisting of larg green houses and a single family dwelling. No sensitive native species exist on this previousl: graded and developed site. IXd. Hazards Based on an “Environmental Audit Report” conducted for the May Foilage Company by M’C Environmental, Inc. dated August 19, 1994, findings that “some indications of potential hazard! or conditions present evidence for further evaluation. These conditions should be furthe: evaluated by performing site sampling and testing to help determine the presence of hazardou! materials in near surface soils. This determination is presented to identify if organo-phosphatc pesticides, ammonium, and/or nitrate fertilizers are present in the soil as a result of the observec and disclosed evidence of chemical storage areas, distribution points, and the number of years the site has been utilized for this type of land use.” The recommended mitigation is a Phase I1 Environmental Site Assessment and additional interviews with people knowledgeable ol ’ previous site activities to determine if any necessary corrective work is required.. SOURCE DOCUMENTS: - Note: All’ source documents are on file in the Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009, Phone (760) 438-1161. 1. Carlsbad General Plan adopted September 6, 1994. 2. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update 3. City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, Mello I1 Segment. 4. “Preliminary Soil & Geotechnical Investigation’’ dated July 20, 1994 performed by Vinje & 5. “Hydraulic Analysis’’ Letter dated April 6, 1998. 6. “Phase I Environmental Audit Report - May Foilage Company” prepared by MV Environmental, Inc. dated August 19, 1994. certified September 6, 1994. Middleton Engineering, Inc. 12 Rev. 03/28/96 * 0- e e LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) 1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the findings of a Phase I1 Environmental S Assessment in accordance with the recommendation of the “Environmental Audit Repc conducted by MV Environmental, Inc. dated August 19, 1994, shall be submitted to Planning Department with a mitigation plan for any necessary corrective work. Evidel from the Department of County Health that the corrective work has been implemented accordance with the mitigation plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior commencement of work. ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) 13 Rev. 03/28/96 .". . e e APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES L THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AN CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. 5 .-\, F3 -1 s Date 14 Rev. 03/28/96 . I .re ENVIRONMENTAL MlTlCllloN MONITORING AND REPORTINL: % ROGRAM: Page 1 of ‘ co b cn 0- 0 Y 2 2 2 4 b cn 0 7 0 L 0 i 9 d b cn t- o (I, .I Crg En rcj 2I.u zz 5< iiz 0 E n 0 z 0 Z 0 !2 2 n rn 3 0 >- r a Wb W za s; ~-a $6 6E [TIL aa $%> .E - E mcQ .e Cn a, €S$ m 2 .o a & .r + FE$ ” : E g €5 *- = ‘5 20 ‘UE .E .o, a, -c, .e E LE2 e c ‘5 %$$ > OL Lorn Q- .E Q+ L &x K uo + O3Q cmm - Q.= UJ u a .E 2 m2 E sum ‘i; u “A rn a, .= s r0 0 .E a, 0 ms - mE om5 -E$+ UEZ S€ m 0 u- 0‘ Us - .- 000 .- 2?* .- a, u ga 6 2 $2 2 a,= S.E 3.c 7 n m.9mcq Em =$.sgz %5 ssr EZZs .- 0 €G -moa, m2 m 00 - !=a, ‘EEa,U 0Q)O -mQo ZQm, s.E m a, w-c 2 Eze3 Fa,m s32 ‘SEma, c c alY a, 2 E.2 0.5 s E 3 mu& ou mo a :z 03 E .- cQ a,”unl ~2 n.o .- .- S K.0 3 - - 2s Ez 1 (DE a,.v,= l-?5E E - c 0 .u) !=s g v) FZ E .- st. m .- L E (u .c m .E .gri UI C .- 8g E+ .- -x 5 - - x C isL m .E c 0 szga, mckv)gz=z~ c .e g,- (u n.5 z 3 0 5 3 a,m.S?a E- C aWm.=n c 7 E a, g;; ; .=-pa.= 0 m- a, vz 2 Bz“m 0 mE~Za,Z~5 .cI 0 a, gJlJ E-=& “8 .- g E$’5mww$S0 .- a SmC- 1c a, O= Qa, €2 zs-vlCEa, m eogc55 G=Fg 2 2m g E a, a,s5g -v) oCCg,=:g:g .- m sw E ?E gg.2 E 2; s$~g~~:~ a, e2 z aIa.tiz5f “$Eg 0 0% (II a, 3 a, Q - g €>.E :-”E-: c ~~EE~€~~&~. a00 E .- 0 cEco?ZmJcu- .- er mmCunikmL ” a, 0 a,z;jE..> cnz.= cg kc.- ~~a,~~pre~ a, on C .e aJa,r=> oCEWSm (u ’r C x3 a, 0 gg 8.5 E>n $ 5 0 t QW go v) KO ma u L W K E .- e - W K 8 53 v) .K m 3 v) rn 9 E t 0 D m .- - ._ - .- E K W 2 c 0 5 m a, .- c I - E - 2 W W ?E 5 L $* .- - m 3. - iri v. 5 .E ~ 5 ;i; 2 01 p[ g ‘K I c :/ - a,.; f II ; u1k x 2: