HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-04-07; Planning Commission; Resolution 4511L e 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4511
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME
LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF HOLLY BRAE LANE,
SOUTH OF ALDER AVENUE IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 1
CASE NAME: GILSON RESIDENCE
CASE NO. : CDP 98-67/HDP 98-14
WHEREAS, Kirk and Nita Gilson, “Developer”, has filed a verified a]
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Kirk and Nita Gilson,
described as
Parcel B of parcel map no. 17879, in the City of Carlsbad, in
the County of San Diego, State of California, filed in the office
of the County Recorder of San Diego County, July 14,1998, as
file no 1997-0331534 of official records of San Diego County.
(“the Property”); andl
WHEREAS, a CEQA document was prepared in conjunction with said PI
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of April, 19s
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all 1
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by
considering any mitten comments received, the Planning Commission considered a
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the
Commission as follows:
- 4B 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
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the
Comlmission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according '
"ND" dated November 16, 1998, and "PII" dated November 2, 1998
hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following finding:
Findinzs:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, anal:
considered the Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts therein identifir
project and any comments thereon prior to APPROVING the project. Based 0:
Part I1 and comments thereon, the Planning Commission finds that thr
substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environ
thereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration.
2. The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration reflects the in(
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 April, 199
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners Compas, L'Heure
Savary, and Segall
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioners Nielsen and Welshons
ms'rm:
COURTNEY E.HEINEMAN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. H
Planning Director 11 PC RES0 NO. 451 1 -2-
-
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddresslLocation: 3905 Holly Brae Lane. Located on the west side of Holly Br
Lane south of Alder Avenue, Carlsbad, San Diego Coun
California.
Project Description: The development of a 3,054 square foot, two story, single-fml
residence, detached garage and second dwelling unit of 960 sq. ft. wi
200 cu. yds of grading.
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 ar
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 Plannin
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 9200?. Comments from the public a]
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of dai
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Van Lynch in the Planning Department ;
(760) 438-1161, extension 4447.
DATED: NOVEMBER 16,1998
CASE NO: CDP 98-67
CASE NAME: GILSON RESIDENCE
PUBLISH DATE: NOVEMBER 16,1998 ,
MICHAEL J. HOL?MI&!,ER
Planning Director
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 - (760) 438-11 61 - FAX (760) 438-0894
- m *
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CDP 98-67 / HDP 98-
DATE: 1 1-02-
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: GILSON RESIDENCE
2. APPLICANT: KIRK AND NITA GILSON
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1738 SCHOONER WAY, CARLSBA
CA 92008 (760) 720-5441
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: 09- 17-98
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The development of a 3.054 square foot. two story, sinele-fami
residence. detached garage and second dwelling unit of 960 sq. A. located on the west side
Holly Brae Ln. Carlsbad CA. APN: 207-063-44-00.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this proje.
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 @ TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services
c] Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources IJ Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
W Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
m * 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.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earli
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigatic
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An EIR
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
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 Environmen:
Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been void,
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-01
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed projec
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
\ + Plann Signature Date 1 r-fo -ye
I1IjblW
Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
m 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELIXES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the Ci
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significz
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.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that :
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following ea(
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced informatic
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved.
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to,
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
“Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that f
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopts
general standards and policies.
“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 f
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce tl
effect to a less than significant level.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that i
effect is significant.
Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significa
effect on the environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzt
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 Mitigatt
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed up(
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the pri
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no addition
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily requirc
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier E1
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement (
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
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
m 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 includi
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 oft
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attentic
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determint
significant.
4 Rev. 03128196
m
Issues (and Supporting Informati,on Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
landuses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
(#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
0
0
0
0
0
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 0
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 -
5.5-6)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) 0
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Faultrupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
b) Seismic ground shaking? ((# 1 :Pgs 5.1 - 1 - 5.1 - 15)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#1 :Pgs 5.1-1 -
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
((#l:PgS 5.1-1 - 5.1.15)
5.1-15)
5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
g) Subsidence ofthe land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l: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
0
1 1)
such as flooding? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 0
5
*
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impac
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless Impact
0 0 [XI
0 0 [XI
0 0 IXI
0 [XI
0 0 [XI
0 0 IXI
0 0 El
0 0 [XI
0 0 0
0
0 0
0 0 0
0 w o w 0 [XI
0 [XI o w o w
0 w 0 [XI 0 [XI
0 H 0
0 o w
Rev. 03/28/96
m * Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? ((H1:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? ((#l:Pgs
body? ((#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
((#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
1 1)
5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
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-
1 - 5.3-12)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
d) Create objectionable odors? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
- 5.3-12)
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?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
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)
5.7.22)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
[XI
0
0
0
IXI
0
0
0
0
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impac
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless Impact
0 [XI
0 0 [XI
0 0 [XI
0 o w
o w o w
0 w
0 0
0 0 [XI
0 0 [XI
0 El
0 0 0
0 0 [XI
0 o w
0 0 [XI
0 [XI
0 0 H
0 [XI
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.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1
(#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
(#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
- 5.4-24)
0
0
0
0
0
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5
proposal?
(#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 0
0
0
1 - 5.13-9)
& 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#1 :Pgs 5.10.1- 1 -
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
5.10.1-5)
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
0
0
0
0
0
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) O
0 1 - 5.9-15)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Wou.ld 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
0
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impac
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless Impact
0 o w
0 o w
0 o w
0 o [XI
0 o w
0 o w
0 0 w
0 0 w
0 0 w
0 o [XI
0 0 [XI o w
0 IXI
0 0 IXI
0 0 [XI
0 0 w 0 0 €3 0 0 w
Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1,
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) 0
5.12.8-7) 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? (#I; 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)
e) Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
f) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
5.12.3-7)
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)
5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
b) Disturb archaeological :resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
10)
10)
5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
o
0 o
0 0 0 0
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impac
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless Impact
0 o [XI
0 0 [XI
0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0 IXI
0 [XI 0 [XI
0 [XI 0 [XI 0 0 [XI
0
0
0
0 w
0 0
o
w w
[XI
[XI
0
[XI w
IXI
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? (#l:Pgs
17 0 o w
5.12.8-7)
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7) 0 0 0 [XI
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?
9
e
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impac Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
0 0 0 IXI
0 0 0 [XI
0 0 0 IXI
Rev. 03i28i96
ab e
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
This project is located in the Mello I1 segment of the Local Coastal Program on the west side
Holly Brea Lane and south of Alder Avenue. The site is designated RLM (1-4 ddac) whi
would allow for the development of a single family dwelling. The surrounding developmc
consists of single family units to the north, east, and west and vacant residentially designa1
land to the south. The east facing, rectangular ,418 acre site contains no slope areas greater tl:
25 percent. The project’s grading would consist of 200 cubic yards of cut and fill. The site
void of any sensitive vegetation and there is no adjacent vegetation that would be disturk
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 developmc
standards, there is no impact to geologic resources, energy and mineral resources, hazards, noi:
public services, utilities and service systems, aesthetics, and recreational impacts and no WI
environmental review or mitigation is required.
IIc. Housing:
The project consists of constructing a new single family residence and no existi
housing will be displaced. The project is subject to the City’s inclusionary housi
ordinance and will be required to pay an affordable housing impact fee, to ensure tl
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 w
be discharged and dissipated consistent with City of Carlsbad erosion control metho
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 t
updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption 8
vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbl
monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfw, and suspended particulatc
These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Die
Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional i
emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildc
as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the ,
quality of the region.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
a 0
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) provisio
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measur
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Dema
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including ma
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable 51:
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into t
design of the project or are hcluded as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is mark
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, t
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by C
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for i
quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subseque
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, I
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at tl
Planning Department.
VI. TransportatiodCirculation:
The implementation. of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in tl
updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will 1
adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will 1
severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional contrc
These generally include all1 freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsb;
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersectio:
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, numero
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measur
to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develc
alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrik
linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies whc
adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highwz
onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. TI
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either be<
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” checkl.ist 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, includc
a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement (
Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulatic
impacts is required.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
0
VII. Biological Resources:
The site has been previously disturbed by grading and is currently void of any sensiti
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
* 8 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, 920(
(760) 438-1 161, extension 4447.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Upd:
(MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
13 Rev. 03/28/96
- e e
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
None w
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
None
14 Rev. 03128196
e 0 0
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
* THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AT
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
15 Rev. 03/28/96