HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-10-07; Planning Commission; Resolution 4406d *
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. 4406
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, TO APPROVE A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A COASTAL DEVELOP-
ENT PERMIT AND HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO
CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOCATED ON THE
SOUTH SIDE OF HOOVER STREET, WEST OF ADAMS
STREET AND EAST OF HIGHLAND DRIVE IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1
CASE NAME: BARBOUR RESIDENCE
CASE NO.: CDP 98-30/HDP98-06
WHEREAS, John Barbour, “Developer”, has filed a verified application
City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by John R. Barbour and Candy R. E
“Owner”, described as
That portion of Lots two (2) and three (3) in Block “C” of Bella
Vista, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California according to Map thereof No. 2152, filed in the
office of the County Recorder of San Diego County
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of October, 19
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all tt
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by st
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the I
Commission as follows:
1 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the I
Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative according to Exhibit “NI
June 22, 1998, and “PII” dated June 15, 1998, attached hereto and mad
hereof, based on the following findings:
* e
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
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analq
considered the Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts therein identifie
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 envirom
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 7th day of October 1991
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners Compas, Monroy,
and Savary
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioners Heineman and Welshons
ABSTAIN:
BAILEY NoE$k,,chairp-er~~n. -
”.
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLZ&LER
Planning Director
~ I
~ PC RES0 NO. 4406 -2-
e e
- City of Carlsbac
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddressLocation: 1 155 Hoover Street, located on the east side of the street betwel
Highland Drive and Adams Street. APN: 206- 180-07
Project Description: Construction of a 2363 square foot single family home on a 3
acre residentially zoned lot.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described proje
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act a1
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 tl
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in tl
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 20 days of da
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Van Lynch in the Planning Department
(760) 438- 1 16 1, extension 4447.
DATED: JUNE 22,1998
CASE NO: HDP 98-06
CASE NAME: BARBOUR RESIDENCE
PUBLISH DATE: JUNE 22,1998
1
Q MiCHAEL J. MLZWLLER
Planning Director
2075 La Palmas Dr. * Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-1 161 - FAX (760) 438-08s
e 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 11
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
BACKGROUND
CASE NO: CDP 98-30/HDP 98-0
DATE: 06- 15-9
1. CASE NAME: Barbour residence
2. APPLICANT: John Barbour
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1620 Edilee Drive, Cardiff CA 9200
(760) 436-5477
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: 04-13-98
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The development of a 3,500 square foot single familv residenc
located at 1 155 Hoover Street, Carlsbad CA. APN: 206-180-07-00.
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.
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 0 Aesthetics
0 Water 0 Hazards
w Air Quality Noise
[I1 Cultural Resources
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
0 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.
0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on th
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigatio
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 a
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) 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 EIR j
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 th,
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentia11
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Master Environmenta
Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voidec
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-01)
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed projecl
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
d&&x./ 6-[6 -f?8
Date
\\ b/l4%3 Planning Director's Signgure Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the Cil
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 humsl
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information t
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.
0 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 informatic
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. 1
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, c
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards,
e “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that th
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopte
general standards and policies.
0 “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporatiol
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and th
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce th
effect to a less than significant level.
0 “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that a
effect is significant.
0 Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significan
effect on the environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyze(
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicablc
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigate(
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed up01
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to o
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prioJ
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additiona.
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
e When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily requirec
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIF
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement 0:
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
e A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence thai
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03128196
e 0
e If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing s
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 Incorporate(
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
e 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 h
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 th2
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact hi
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 nc
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, c
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significar
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of th
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attentio
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determine
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-1 8)
(#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
0
0
0
0
0
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) o
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
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) 0
5.5-6)
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
b) Seismic ground shaking? ((#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
((#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? (# 1 :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 0 0
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff! (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 0
0
11)
5
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
0
0
0
0
123
0
0
0
0 0 0
0
0 0
0 0 0
0
0
Less Than No
Significant Impac Impact
0 El
0 El
0 IXI
0 w
o w
0 El
0 1xI
0 IXI
0 [XI 0 El 0 IXI
O w
0 [XI 0 [XI
0 El 0 El 0 El
w 0
0 [XI
Rev. 03/28/96
e Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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? ((#1 :Pgs
body? ((#I :PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
((#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
11)
5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
a Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
No
Impac
IXI
w
[XI w
w
[XI
[XI
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- w 0 0
1 - 5.3-12)
- 5.3-12) 0 0 IXI b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
d) Create objectionable odors? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
any change in climate? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) 0 0 0 [XI
0 0 [XI
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#1 :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)
cj 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? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -
proposal result in:
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)
IXI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
O [XI
o w
0 IXI
IXI
IXI
0 IXI
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
6 Rev. 03/28/96
0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
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? (#1 :Pgs 5.4- 1
(#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
- 5.4-24)
cl
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-
1 - 5.13-9)
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) o
0
0
& 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#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, ortrees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
0
0
0
cl
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
1 - 5.9-15) 0
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) o 0 0 C) Schools? (#l:PgS 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
7
e Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
Less Than No
Significant Impac Impact
0 [XI
0 El
ClM
0 Ix1
0 w
0 w o w
o w
o w
w
0 [XI w
cl IXI
0 IXI
0 [XI
0 w 0 IXI 0 IXI
Rev. 03/28/96
0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1,
e) Other governmental services? (#I :Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
5.12.8-7) 0
0
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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
b) Communications systems? (#l; pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 0
0 0
0
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
0
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impacl
Mitigation Incorporated
Unless Impact
0 0 [XI
0 [XI
0
0 0 0 0
0 0
El
[XI
[XI w 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 -
0 0 0 [XI 0 0 w
5.12.3-7) 0 0 0 [XI
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 w
0 0 0 IXI
0 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)
0 0 0 [XI
0 0 [XI 0
0 0 0 El 0 0 0 IXI
0 0 0 [XI
5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
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 [XI
0 0 0 [XI
5.12.8-7)
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
8 Rev. 03/28/96
0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
0
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impacl Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
0 0 0 IXI
0 0 0 [XI
0 cl cl [XI
9 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONlENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
This project is located in the coastal zone on the south side of Hoover Street and east of Adam
Street overlooking the Agua Hedionda Lagoon, although not within the Agua Hedionda Segmer
of the Local Coastal Program. The site is designated RLM (I -4 ddac) which would allow for th
development of a single family dwelling. The surrounding development consists of single famil
units to the north, east, and west and vacant residentially designated land to the south. The we:
facing, rectangular .344 acre site contains .046 acres of small slope areas greater than 25 percer
that appear to have been created by previous grading for driveways and public roads. Th
project’s grading would consist of 1750 cubic yards of cut and 300 cubic yards of fill with a
export of 1450 cubic yards of material. The site is void of vegetation and there is no adjacel.
vegetation that would be disturbed during the grading operation.
11. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
B. Environmental Impact Discussion
As a single family infill project that conforms to the General Plan and Zoning developmer
standards, there is no impact to geologic resources, energy and mineral resources, hazards, noist
public services, utilities and service systems, aesthetics, and recreational impacts and no hrthe
environmental review or mitigation is required.
IIc. Housing:
The project consists of constructing a new single family residence and no existin:
housing will be displaced. The project is subject to the City’s inclusionary housin;
ordinance and will be required to pay an affordable housing per unit impact fee to ensur
that adequate affordable housing is available within the City’s boundaries.
IV. Water:
The project would result in a minor increase in runoff, however, the onsite drainage wil
be discharged and dissipated consistent with City of Carlsbad erosion control method:
and NPDES to avoid adverse impacts due to surface runoff.
V. Air Quality:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in thl
updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption an(
vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbo]
monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfw, and suspended particulates
These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diegc
Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional ai:
emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildou
as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the ai
10 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0 quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variet
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 Demm
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including ma:
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 1
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable arx
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 marke
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General P1a1
therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Fin:
Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement C
Overriding Considerations” for air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overridin
Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s Fin;
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of a1
quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department.
VI. TransportatiodCirculation:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in th
updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will b
adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will b
severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional contro
These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsba
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersectior
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, numerou
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measure
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 whe:
adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highwq
onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. Th
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either bee
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 thc
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 i
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because thc
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, includec
a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement 0
Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’
11 Rev. 03/28/96
0 e
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulatio
impacts is required.
VII. Biological Resources:
The site has been previously disturbed by grading and is currently void of vegetation.
XIV. Cultural Resources:
A review of the cultural resource maps indicate that there are no known archaeological
resources located on the site.
12 Rev. 03/28/96
e e
111. EARLIER ANALYSES USED
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, 9200!
(760) 43 8- 1 1 6 I, extension 447 1.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Upda
(MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
13 Rev. 03/28/96
1) 0
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
None
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
None
14 Rev. 03/28/96
e * APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AN
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
15 Rev. 03/28/96