HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-06-02; Planning Commission; Resolution 4556/I 0 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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4556
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO ALLOW
THE SUBDIVISION OF 1.5 1 ACRES INTO 5 SINGLE FAMILY
LOTS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF
BUENA VISTA WAY IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: WORTHING SUBDIVISION
CASE NO.: CT 98-16
WHEREAS, Brooks & Pamela Worthing, “Developer” and “
has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
Portions of Lots 3 and 4 of the Wilsonia Tract, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according
to map thereof No. 169, filed in the office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, August 13,1929.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunc
said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 2nd day of June, 19!
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered 2
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the
Commission hereby APPROVES the Mitigated Negative Declar:
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program according to Exhi
~
~
1
2
0 0
dated April 22, 1999, and “PII” dated March 12, 1999, attached hereto :
a part hereof, based on the following findings:
3
5
1. The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures o 4
Findinm:
alternatives identified in the MER 93-01 which are appropriate to this project 1
incorporated into this design.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
2. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, anal,
considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration dated April 22, 1999, the envir
impacts therein identified for this project and said comments thereon, and the h
Monitoring and Reporting Program, on file in the Planning Department,
APPROVING the project. Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments the:
Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence the project w
significant effect on the environment and hereby APPROVES the Mitigated
Declaration.
3. The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration re
independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad.
l3
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guideline
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, has been prepared in accorh 14
4. The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Declar
15 Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad.
16
l7
Conditions:
1. Approval is granted subject to the approval of CT 98-16 and subject to all c
18
19 2. The Developer shall implement and comply with all applicable mitigation
20
contained in Resolution 4557.
required by the MEIR for the 1994 General Plan Update.
3. The Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the CT 98-1 21 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
...
...
...
...
.. .
PC RES0 NO. 4556 -2-
ll 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
,
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2nd day of June, 199
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Heineman, L’Heurc
Nielsen, Segall, Trigas, and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CAFUSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
1) PC RES0 NO. 4556 -3-
-
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: North of Buena Vista Way between Arland Road and Wi'
Street in the northwest quadrant.
Project Description: Subdivision of a 1.5 1 acre infill parcel located in the R- 1 Zone j
five standard single family lots ranging in size between 9,1
square feet and 10,891 square feet.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described pro
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review,
initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but
revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before
proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environm
would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the C
that the project "as revised" may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore
Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for 1
action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Mitigated Negative .Declaration with supportive documents is on file in
Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within
days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planni
Department at (760) 438-1 161, extension 4477.
DATED: April 22,1999
CASE NO: CT 98-16
CASE NAME: Worthing Subdivision
PUBLISH DATE: April 22,1999
Planning Director
2075 La Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-1 161 - FAX (760) 438-08
e
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CT 98-
DATE: MARCH 12. 19!
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: WORTHING SUBDIVISION
2. APPLICANT: B. A. WORTHING
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 690 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIV
SUITE 201. CARLSBAD. CA. 92008 (760) 729-3965
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: OCTOBER 1.1998
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: REOUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A 1.51 ACRE INFILL PARCEL(
LOCATED NORTH OF BUENA VISTA WAY BETWEEN ARLAND ROAD AND WILSC
STREET IN THE R-1 ZONE INTO FIVE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this projel
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Imp2
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Land Use and Planning W TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 Water Hazards
(XI Air Quality 0 Noise
0 Cultural Resources
0 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
0
DETERMINATION.
0
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on 1
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the rnitigat:
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATI'
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.
B I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, bu_
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earl
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigati
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Mitigat
Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to
addressed.
0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on 1
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentia
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant
applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier El
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed proje
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
/ Y/&T Planner Signature 1 .Date
4!i5#/+7 Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
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 follow
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and hur
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with informatiol
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negal
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
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following e;
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced informat
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
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adop
general standards and policies.
e “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporat
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect fkom “Potentially Significant Impact” t
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and 1
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce 1
effect to a less than significant level.
e “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that
effect is significant.
e Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially signific.
effect on the environment, but &I potentially significant effects (a) have been analy;
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applica
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitiga
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed ur
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the pr.
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additio1
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
e When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily requir
to prepare an EXR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier E
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
e A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence tl
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
e If there are one or -more potentially sipficant 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 f
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporatt
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
e An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and includ:
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect 1
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, 2
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less tl
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations’’ for the significant impact 1
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not redt
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is I
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect,
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially signific;
effect to’ below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of 1
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attenti
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determin
significant.
ENVIRONMENTAL Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Significant Significant Significant Impac
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
aj 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)
cj Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
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)
0 0 o [XI
0 0 w
0 17 El 0
0 0 0 Ix
0 0 0 El
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 0
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area 0 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 0
[XI
(XI
[x1
4 Rev. 03/28/96
1 0
ENVIRONMENTAL
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Potentially
Significant
Impact
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?
((#l:PgS 5.1-1 - 5.1.15)
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
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)
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)
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?
((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
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
1 1)
body? ((#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
11)
5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
0
0
0 o
El
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- [XI
1 - 5.3-12)
- 5.3-12) 0 b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1
5
0
Potentially Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0 0
0'
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than Nc Significant Imp:
Impact
0 B Ei nB
0 Ix
0 Ix 0 Ix
0 Ix 0 K
[XI
0 w
0 [XI
0 w
o w
0 [XI
El
0 [XI
0 w
0 w
0 0
0 [XI
Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL Potentially Potentially Less Than , Nc
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Significant Significant Significant Imp;
Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated
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 €3
17 0 €3
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
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 -
(#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)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plints, 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 (eg. 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)
El
0
0
0
O
0
o
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
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13- 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 0
the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5
& 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
6
IXI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 o
0
o
E
E
E
E
E
Ix
E
0 0 [XI
0 0 [XI
0 o w
0 0 Ea
0 0
0 0 [XI
0 0 [XI
0 0 [XI
Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
f ENVIRONMENTAL, Potentially Potentially
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Significant Significant
Impact Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
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,
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0 0
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)
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 0
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)
C) Schools? (#l:PgS 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
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)
5.12.8-7)
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)
e) Storm water drainage? (#1 :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)
0 0 0 0
0
0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0 0
0 0 0 0
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
5.11-1 - 5.11-5) 0 o
0 0 5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
7
Less Than NI
Significant Imp
Impact
0 E
o E
o E
0 6
0 E
0 E o E
0 E o E
[XI C 0 €3
0 €3
0 E
0 E o E
0 IXI 0 [xi 0 [xi 0 [x
0 [x
0 [x
Rev. 03/28/96
.. 0
ENVIRONMENTAL Potentially Potentially Less Than Nc
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Significant Significant Significant Imp;
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation Incorporated
c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.1 1-5) 0 III UE
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 hstorical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change whch
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 E
10)
10)
0 0 0 E
0 0 0 E
0 0 0 E 0 0 E
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? (#l:Pgs
0 E
5.12.8-7)
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7) 0 0 0 E
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the 0 0 0 [XI
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? 0 0 0 IXI
(“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?
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis of this proposed 5 lot subdivision has been completed through the General PI
Update (GPA 94-01) and related Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR 93-01) . T:
MER is cited as source #1 in the preceding checklist. This proposal is consistent with t:
applicable portions of the General Plan and within the scope of MEIR 93-01. A mitigatic
0 0 0 ixI
8 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0 0
measure is proposed to reduce the project’s cumulative impact on traffic which is the on
potentially significant impact identified for the project not analyzed and mitigated in the MEIF
All feasible mitigation measures identified in MER 93-01 which are appropriate to the proje
have been incorporated into the project.
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
This project is located north of Buena Vista Way between Arland Road and Wilson Street in t
R-1 zone. The project site is designated by the General Plan for Residential Low Mediu
(EM) density land use allowing a maximum of 3.2 dwelling units per acre under Grow
Management growth control point (gcp) regulations and consists of two vacant, flat, infill 1(
totaling approximately 1.51 acres which have been previously graded and cleared. Existi:
infrastructure and public utilities serve the project except that a new local street (James Drik
will be required to provide access to 4 of the proposed lots. James Drive will be extended to t
north to provide access to lots created by future subdivision of this area. Proposed gradi:
would be balanced and consists of 2,500 cubic yards each of cut and fill to create 5 f
residential lots that range in size from 9,005 to 10,891 square feet in area.
11. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
A. Environmental Impact Discussion
Land Use
The proposed density of 3.3 ddacre is consistent with the applicable General Plan Resident
Low Medium (RLM) density land use designation (0 - 4 ddacre) which would allow for t
development of a maximum 4 lots using the Growth Management growth control point of !
ddacre. However, the subdivision is located in LFMP Zone 1 where project density may exce
the growth control point if the applicable zoning would allow a higher yield and additional pub
facilities are in place to satisfy the additional demand. The proposed subdivision is infill and ~
required public facilities are adequate to satisfy the additional demand The parcel is zoned R
allowing minimum 7,500 square foot lots. While the R-1 zoning would allow 5 ddac
consideration is also given to existing lot sizes in the surrounding area. The project site, which
currently vacant, is surrounded by existing single family lots of varying size. The propos
9,000+ square foot lots are compatible with surrounding development in that existing 1(
adjacent to the proposed subdivision which cannot be further subdivided range fi-c
approximately 9,100 square feet to 16,125 square feet in area. Consistent with this existi
development, other larger parcels in the area which can be further subdivided, are likely to crei
parcels similar in size to those proposed.
Air Quality
The implementation of projects that are consistent with and within the scope of the updated 19
General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle mil
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reacti
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are t
9 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since 1
San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment -basin”, any additional air emissions are consider
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in 1
updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a varie
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisio
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measw
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Dema:
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including m2
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable a
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into t
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, tl
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 2
quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequel
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, r
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at tl:
Planning Department.
TransportatiodCirculation
The City has received its annual Growth Management Traffic Monitoring Report and the Repon
has recorded an unanticipated intersection “level of service” (LOS) failure at Palomar Airpon
Road (PAR) and El Camino Real (ECR) during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. This
potentially creates a changed circumstance negating reliance on previous environmenta:
documentation. Pursuant to 9 151 62 of the CEQA Guidelines a lead agency must preparc
“subsequent” environmental documentation if substantial evidence (i.e., the recordec
intersection failure) determines that a changed circumstance exists. However, case law ha:
interpreted this section of the CEQA Guidelines to not require the preparation of a “Subsequenl
EIR’ if mitigation measures are adopted which reduce the identified impacts to a level of
insignificance.
A mitigation measure has been identified which, if implemented, will bring the peak hours LOS
into the acceptable range. The mitigation measure involves construction of two dual right turn
lanes-northbound to eastbound and westbound to northbound. This project has been
conditioned to pay its fair share of the intersection “short-term improvements’’ thereby,
guaranteeing mitigation to a level of insignificance.
The implementation of projects that are consistent with and within the scope of the updated 199~
General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate tc
accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severel!
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. Thesc
10 Rev. 03/28/96
T e a
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carls‘c
Boulevard. Even with the- implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersectic
are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildoul
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerc
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measu
to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to devel
alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestri
linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies wh
adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highw
onto City streets creates impacts that are not withm the jurisdiction of the City to control. T
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 t
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefo,
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 t
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, includ
a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement (
Ovemding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plar
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulatil
impacts is required.
111. EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of ths project and are on file in the City 1
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 9200
(760) 438-1 161, extension 4477.
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.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
4 e 0
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
The Developer shall pay their fair share for the “short-term improvements” to the El Cami
Real/ Palomar wort Road intersection prior to approval of the final map or the issuance 01
grading pennit, whichever OCCUTS first. The amount shall be determined by the methodolo
ultimately selected by Council, including but not limited to, an increase in the city-wide traf~
impact fee; an increased or new Zone 1 -LFMP fee; the creation of a fee or assessment district;
incorporation into a Mello-Roos taxing district.
ATTACH MITIGATION MOMTOlUNG PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
PROJECT NAME: Worthinn Subdivision FILE NUMBERS: U
APPROVAL DATE: Mav 19. 1999 CONDITIONAL NEG. DEC.:-
The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval f
this project in order to mitigate identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance.
completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure h
been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City’s monitoring requirements with respect 1
Assembly Bill 3 180 (Public Resources Code Section 2 108 1.6).
11 the El Camino ReaVPalomar Airport Road intersection 1
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES ANI
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
419,4”\
Date
12 Rev. 03/28/96