HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-01-20; Planning Commission; Resolution 4459* @
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. 4459
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO CREATE FOUR LOTS AND
CONSTRUCT THREE DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING UNITS ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWESTERN TERMINUS OF
CHINQUAPIN AVENUE IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 1
CASE NAME: KEYSTONE CARLSBAD
CASE NO.: SDP 98-14PUD 98-02
WHEREAS, Keystone Communities LLC, “Developer”, has filed 2
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by, Keystone Corn
LLC, “Owner”, described as
The northwesterly 120.00 feet of that portion of Block “W” of
Palisades No. 2, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego,
State of California, according to map thereof No. 1803, filed in
the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County,
August 25, 1924, lying southeasterly of the southwesterly line
of the northeasterly 300.00 feet of said block.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 20th day of Janua:
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all tc
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by s
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered a1
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the 1
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
0 a
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 I
~
26
27
28
”ND” dated November 13, 1998, and “PII” dated November 4, 1998:
hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findines:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, anal
considered the Negative Declaration SDP 98-14RUD 98-02, the environment2
therein identified for this project and said comments thereon, prior to APPRO’
project. Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, the Planning COI
finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effi
environment and thereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration.
2. The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Negative Declaration
prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Qu
the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the
Carlsbad.
3. The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration reflects the inc
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 20th day of January 195
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners Compas, L’Heure
Nielsen, Noble, Savary, and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT:
~ CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
l”&OU.
MICHAEL J. H’~ZMIL&R
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 4459 -2-
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddresdLocation: The site is located on the south side of the westerly terminus 1
Chinquapin Ave. between Carlsbad Blvd. and Garfield Street.
Project Description: The proposed project is for three single-family, two story detachc
units on a .34 acre site. Project includes a private street and on si
guest parking.
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 a
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) 438-1 161, extension 4447.
DATED: NOVEMBER 13,1998
CASE NO: MS 98-03 / SDP 98-14 / PUD 98-02
CASE NAME: KEYSTONE COMMUNITIES
PUBLISH DATE: NOVEMBER 13, 1998
Planning Director
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 - (760) 438-11 61 - FAX (760) 438-089
e m
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: SDP 98-14 / PUD 98-
DATE: November 04, 19
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: KEYSTONE - CARLSBAD
2. APPLICANT: KEYSTONE COMMUNITIES
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 9683 TIERRA GRANDE ST SUI:
201. SAN DIEGO. CA 92126
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: JUNE 26.1998
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A four lot subdivision for three two story single-family detach
units and one common access lot. The property is located on the south side of the weste
terminus of Chinquapin Ave. between Carlsbad Blvd. and Garfield Street.
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.
0 Land Use and Planning [x] TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources [7 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources [7 Aesthetics
0 Water Hazards
[x] Air Quality c] Noise
0 Cultural Resources
Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
0 e
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
IXI I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on t
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on t
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigati
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIT
DECLARATION will be prepared.
c] 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 Negati
Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on t:
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 and (b) have been voidi
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.
J&i+fi?L Il-(lrefB
P1anner;Aignature Date
\l/lcp/cz +3 Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
a 8
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the C
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a signific:
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the followi
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and hum
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negati
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 z
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following ea
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced informati
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.
e “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that t
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopt
general standards and policies.
e “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.
e “Potentially Significant Impact’’ is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that i
effect is significant.
e Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significm
effect on the environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyze
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 Mitigate
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upc
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to (
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the pric
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no addition
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
e When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily requirt
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EI:
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 th;
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
0 If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, a
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In tl
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporate
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and includil
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, a
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 pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not redu
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is n
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect,
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 discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determinc
significant.
4 Rev. 03128196
0 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially
Significant Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #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 - 5.6-18)
(#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
0
0
0
0
0
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) 0 0
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area 0 0
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 -
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
5.5-6)
housing? (#l:PgS 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) 0 0
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) (#2)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) (#2)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#1 :Pgs
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) (#2)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1.15) (#2)
5.1-15)
5.1-1 - 5.1-15) (#2)
g) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) (#2)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#1 :Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15) (#2)
0 0 0
0
0 0
0 0 0
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
0 0
0 0 1 1)
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
5
Less Than No
Significant Impa Impact
o [XI
0 [XI
o [x]
O w
0 €3
o w
0 [XI
0 [XI
w 0 w o w 0 o w w 0
[XI 0
o w w o w 0
w 0
0 [XI
Rev. 03/28/96
0
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
body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
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? (#1 :Pgs 5.2- 1 - 5..2-
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
(#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
11)
5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
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
- 5.3-12) 0
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)
w
1 - 5.3-12)
0
0
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
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? (#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)
w
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
6
Less Than No
Significant Impa Impact
€3 0
o w
0 €3
[XI 0
[XI 0
[XI 0
[XI 0
0 0
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 w
0 0 o w
o w o w w
0 w
0 w
Rev. 03/28/96
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.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration comdors? (#1 :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
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
proposal:
(#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 0 o
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13- 0 0
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
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
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
1 - 5.9-15) 0 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) 0 0 0 0 c) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5) 0 0
7
LessThan No
Significant Impac Impact
0 w
0 IXI
0 w
om
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 IXI
0 [XI
0 w
0 w
0 w
w
0 [XI
0 w 0 w 0 w
Rev. 03/28/96
e
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) 0
5.12.8-7) 0
e
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Imps
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless Impact
0 0 [XI
0 0 IXI
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
5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 0 0 0 IXI
0 0 0 [XI
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) 0 0 0 [XI
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
e) Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8) 0 0 0 [XI 0 0 0 [XI 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 - o b o [XI
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 5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
5.11-1 -5.11-5) 0 0 [XI o
5.11-1 - 5.11-5) 0 0 €4 0
0 0 0 [XI
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
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) 0 0 0 [XI
1 0)
1 0)
0 0 0 [XI
0 0 o w
0 0 0 w 0 0 w
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 -
5.12.8-7)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#1 :Pgs
0 0 0 IXI
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7) 0 0 o w
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
8 Rev. 03/28/96
0 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? (7
(“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 Less Than No Significant Significant Impac
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless Impact
0 0 Ixl
0 0 IXI
0 0 [XI
9 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEC
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negati
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify t
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are availaL
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. 03/28/96
0 0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCFUPTIONDCNVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The proposed project is for three single-family, two story detached units on a .34 acre site locat'
on the south side of the westerly terminus of Chinquapin Ave. between Carlsbad Blvd. a
Garfield Street. The undeveloped site is relative flat with a slight even downward slope to t'
west. The western edge of the property drops at a 2: 1 slope approximately 15 feet to Carlsb:
Blvd. The southern edge of the property drops at a 2:l slope about five feet to the property lix
and the natural northerly slope of the outer Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The property to the north
a 50 foot dedicated right-of-way for future Chinquapin Ave. and the property to the east is
developed three unit condominium. The project is receiving excess right-of-way from Carlsb;
Blvd.
The previously graded site over looks Carlsbad Blvd. and the Pacific Ocean to the west and Agl
Hedionda Lagoon to the south. The present pad elevation varies from 40 to 50 feet above SI
level. The site is covered with low grasses and small patches of ice plant. The site is void of a
significant vegetation. The project's grading involves 780 cu yds of cut, 120 cu yds of fill and i
export of 660 cu yds.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
11. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Environmental Impact Discussion
There are no anticipated significant environmental impacts to the following categories
environmental effects listed on the checklist: (1) land use and planning; (2) population a
housing; (4) biological and cultural resources; (5) energy and mineral resources; (6) hazards; (
noise; (8) public services; (9) utilities and service systems; and, (1 1) recreation, therefore,
detailed environmental analysis and explanation is not provided in this Initial Study, Tk
determination is based on the existing environmental setting for the following reasons: (1) t
project site has been disturbed by previous grading; (2) the surrounding properties are developc
with residential land uses; (3) the primary support utilities and service infrastructure have bet
constructed; and, (4) the project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning that applies to tl
area,
Geologic
A preliminary geologic report for the project identifies that there are no adverse geolog
conditions for the site. The site is not anticipated to be significantly impacted by liquefactio
fault rupture, or landslides. The soils of the site are considered to be relatively low in expansil
potential.
Water
The development of the vacant site with buildings and paving will increase the amount (
impermeable surfaces which will increase the amount of surface runoff from the site. TI
project will incorporate drainage structures to prevent increases in runoff and sedimentatic
discharge into the adjacent Agua Hedionda Lagoon and is conditioned to comply with tI
NPDES standards. Since there are no proposals to draw or add to ground water, no impacts 1
any ground water flows or quality will result from the project.
Air Quality
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the update
1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle milc
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reacti7
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulate. These aerosols are tl
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since tlr!
San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considere
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) provisior
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measurt
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 !
12 Rev. 03/28/96
e e
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted, The applicable a]
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into tl
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 mark1
“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 Ci
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for ;
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, 1
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at tl.
Planning Department.
TransportatiodCirculation
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updatt
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 Carlsbr
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 measurt
to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develc
alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrie
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 Highwe
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 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 tl
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 Considerationsyy 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.
Aesthetics
The site is proposed to have three detached single family homes. The separation of the units wi
provide some amount of visibility through the site as opposed to an attached product type. Th
units are separated from the adjacent project to the east by approximately 42 feet. Adjacent an
13 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
north of the project is the future right-of-way for Chinquapin Avenue which provides a vic
corridor to the Pacific Ocean. The units are 29 feet tall with pitched roofs and provide go1
articulation of the building planes. The units are setback from the top of slope from Carlsb
Blvd. which will reduce the visual impact of the units. The project will incorporate landscapi:
which will enhance the athletics of the units.
14 Rev. 03/28/96
a 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, 92001
(760) 438-1161, extension 4471.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Upda
2. Engineering Geologic Conditions. Lots 3 through 8, Palisades. Map No.1747, dated Octobt
(MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
2, 1997, Geosoils, Inc.
15 Rev. 03/28/96
0 e
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
none
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM !IF APPLICABLE’)
none
16 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
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
17 Rev. 03/28/96