HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-08-04; Planning Commission; Resolution 4595c 0 0
II 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4595
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO GRADE
AND CONSTRUCT 16 AIRSPACE CONDOMINIUM UNITS
ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF
GIBRALTAR STREET NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF JEREZ
COURT IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6.
CASE NAME: LA COSTA FAIRWAY VILLAS
CASE NO.: CT 99-07/CP 99-09/HDP 99-05
9 WHEREAS, Darling Pacific Builders, “Developer”, has filed a
10 application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Stanley P. Millan, ‘
1 1
12
described as
Lots 399,400, and 401 of La Costa South unit No. 5, in the City
13 of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to Map thereof No. 6600, filed in the Office of the
14 . County Recorder of San Diego County, March 10,1970
15
16 (“the Property”); and
17
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 4th day of August 199 19
and Repotting Program was prepared in conjunction with said project; and 18
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Ma
2o (I duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
21
22
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all t
23 II and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by s
24 considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered a
25 relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
26
27
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the
Commission as follows:
28 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the
Commission hereby APPROVES the Mitigated Negative Declarat
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program according to Exhit
dated June 9, 1999, “PII” dated May 19, 1999, and Program attached hc
made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
FindinPs: -
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analy
considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts
identified for this project and said comments thereon, on file in the Planning Del
prior to APPROVING the project. Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments the
Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence the project wi
significant effect on the environment and hereby APPROVES the Mitigated
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
2. The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative De
has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Envirl
Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Proceduri
City of Carlsbad.
3. The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration rej
independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad.
4. The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures o
alternatives identified in the MEIR 93-01 which are appropriate to this project h
incorporated into the project.
Conditions:
1. The Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation, of, the I
Fairway Villas Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
~ 1 PC RES0 NO. 4595 -2-
@
1 /I PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the :
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
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 4th day of August 1995
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners Compas, L’Heurel
Nielsen, Segall, Trigas, and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
1 // PC RES0 NO. 4595 -3-
0 0
- City of Carlsbac
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddressLocation: APN 216-300-04, -05, & -06
Lots 399,400 and 401 of La Costa South Unit No. 5
Project Description: Single lot subdivision for a 16-unit airspace condominium
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described projel
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, tl
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 tl
proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid tl
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environmel
would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Cil
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 th
action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in tl
Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments fiom tl
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 2
days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Barbara Kennedy in the Plannir
Department at (760) 438-1 161, extension 4325.
DATED: JUNE 14,1999
CASE NO: CT 99-07/CP 99-O9/HDP 99-05
CASE NAME: LA COSTA FAIRWAY VILLAS
PUBLISH DATE: JUNE 14,1999
Planning Director
2075 La Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-1 161 - FAX (760) 438-08!
0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CT 99-07/CP 99-09MDP 99-
DATE: May 19.19
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: LA COSTA FAIRWAY VILLAS
2. APPLICANT: Darling Pacific Builders
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT:
28720 Roadside Drive Agoura Hills. CA 91367 818-991-3535
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: March 4.1999
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Single-lot subdivision for a 16-unit airspace condominium projec
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 Imp;
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
c] Land Use and Planning TransportatiodCirculation Public Services
Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
[7 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
[XI Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0.
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on tl
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on tl
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigatic
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIV
DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and :
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 NegatiT
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 tl
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 Environmenf
Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voidc
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.
.*? ' .q-i J/y,,.v.d &!I 3 Ljc
Planner Signature 1 I Date ' I
.*? ' .q-i J/y,,.v.d
Planner Signature 1 I
&!I 3 Ljc
Date fi
- Planning Director??&ignddre Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the Cil
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significa~
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the followir
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and hum2
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information 3
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negatil
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 ar
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following eac
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced informatio
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. ,
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, (
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
a “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that tk
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopte
general standards and policies.
a “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporatio.
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and th
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce th
effect to a less than significant level.
a “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that a
effect is significant.
a Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significan
effect on the environment, but & potentially significant effects (a) have been analyze(
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigatec
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed up01
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to o
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prio
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additiona
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
a When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily requirec
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement 0:
Ovemding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
a A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence tha
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
a If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing a
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, an
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In th
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
a An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and includin
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect h;
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, ar
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less ths
significant; (2) a “Statement of Ovemding Considerations” for the significant impact h;
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduc
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is nc
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, (
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 determine
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
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) 0 0
b)
c)
d)
e)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:.Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
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)
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
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 -
5.5-6)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) 0 0
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
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? (#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)
f) ' Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
expose people to potential impacts involving:
5.1-1 - 5.1.15) '
5.1-15)
5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
g) Subsidence of the 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
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- 0 0
1lj
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 0 0
5
Less Than No
Significant Impac Impact
0 w
0 €3
o w o w
0 (XI
0 (XI
0. [XI
o w
0 [XI 0 (XI 0 [XI
0 [XI
0 IXI 0 [XI
17 w 0 (XI 0 [XI
0 [XI
0 IXI
Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
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)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
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
(#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
11)'
5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
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
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
0
0
0
1 - 5.3-12)
- 5.3-12)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
proposal result in:
5.7-1 - 5.7.22) IXI
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)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0 o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
cl
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No
Impac
[XI
El
[XI
€4
[x]
IXI
€3
0
[x]
IXI
[XI
0
[XI
[XI
[XI
[XI
[XI
IXI
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
6 Rev. 03/28/96
8 e
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
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration comdors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1
(#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#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) o
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? (#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 fie 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
1 - 5.9-15) 0
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impacl
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless Impact
0 0 w
0 0 5
0 0 Ixl
0 0 5
0 0 IXI
0 0 [XI
0 0 5
0 0 [x]
0 0 5
0 0 5
0 0 [XI
0 0 [XI
0 0 5
0 o (XI
0 0 Ixl
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 [XI 0 '0 0 [XI 0 0 0 El C) Schools? (#l:PgS 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
7 Rev. 03/28/96
0
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
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? (#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? (#1 :Pgs 5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5)
5.11-1 -5.11-5)
5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
10) 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
1 0)
5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 -
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#1 :Pgs
5.12.8-7)
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
0
0 0
0 0 0 0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0 o 0
0
0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
NO
Impacl
1x1 w
w
1xI
[XI w w w w
o w
0 w o w
0 KI
0 [XI
0 [XI 0 [XI
o w
0 [XI
0 [XI
8 Rev. 03/28/96
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? 0
(“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
9
0
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless Impact
0 0 El
0 0 ixi
0 El IXI
Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQ
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negatil
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify tl.
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are availabl
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checkli:
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursual
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed b
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigatio
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated c
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site
specific conditions for the project.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project proposal consists of a one-lot subdivision for a 16-unit airspace condominium wi
an associated Condominium Permit and Hillside Development Permit. The site is zoned RD-1
(Residential density-multiple). The proposed condominium development will result in a nc
density of 13.5 dwelling units /acre which is consistent with the RH (High Density Residential
19 ddac) General Plan Land Use Designation.
The 1.18 acre site currently consists of 3 separate lots and is located south of Gibraltar Stre
near the intersection of Jerez Court. The lots have been previously graded and are terracc
downhill (west to east) with slopes of 10 to 12 feet between pads. A 2:l slope along the re,
property line slopes up to the south approximately 40 feet. The proposed site design will resu
in the creation of two pads separated by a 15 foot grade differential with half of the residences o
each level. The project proposes grading over slightly more than 1 acre of the site with portior
of the rear slope left undisturbed. The grading operations will result in a balanced gradin
operation with approximately 3,000 cu. yds. of cut and 3,000 cu. yds of fill. Retaining walls wi
be located at the rear of the site in order to create a level area for private open space. None c
the walls will exceed 6 feet in height and the project will be hlly landscaped for si1
beautification and erosion control. The proposed changes in topography are not considered to b
significant because the site consists of previously graded manufactured slopes and no native c
environmentally sensitive habitat or natural slopes exist on the site.
The layout and floor plans of the individual units vary based on their location on the site and, il
general, consist of split level three-story structures. Two groups of tri-plex residences are locatec
along Gibraltar Street with driveway entrances on both the east and west ends of the site. Duple:
and tri-plex structures are also located along the sides and rear of the site and are clustered alon;
the driveway. Two large open space areas are provided at each end of the site. The eastern sit
is designed as an active open space with bbq facilities and a spa; and the open space on the wes
end is designed as a c.hildren’s play area. It is not anticipated that the proposal will have a:
effect on air movement, odor, moisture, or temperature. The design concept has taken intl
consideration hillside conditions and has been designed to provide private “exclusive use rea
yards” for nearly all of the units. No uses have been identified specific to the residential naturc
of the project which would have offensive odors, create moisture, or change the genera
temperature.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
11. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
A. Environmental Impact Discussion
Air Quality
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updatc
1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle milt
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactil
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are tf
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since tl:
San Diego Air ’Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considere
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in tl
updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a varie
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) 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 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 :
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable an
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into tk
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 marke
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, th
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by Cit,
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Ovemding Considerations” for ai
quality impacts. This “Statement Of Ovemding Considerations” applies to all subsequer
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, n
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at th
Planning Department.
TransportatiodCirculation
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the update
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequatc
to 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
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbac
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersection;
are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerou:
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measure;
12 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
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, pedestril
linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies whc
adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic fi-om a failing Interstate or State Highw;
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 th
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, thereforc
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project i
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because th
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, include
a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement C
Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan‘
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulatio
impacts is required.
The City has received its annual Growth Management Traffic Monitoring Report. The Rep0
has recorded an unanticipated intersection “level of service” (LOS) failure at Palomar Airpol
Road (PAR) and El Camino Real (ECR) during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Thi
potentially creates a changed circumstance negating reliance on previous environment:
documentation. Pursuant to 8 15 162 of the CEQA Guidelines a lead agency must prepare
“Subsequent” environmental documentation if substantial evidence (i.e., the recorde
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 “Subsequer
EIR’ if mitigation measures are adopted which reduce the identified impacts to a level c
insignificance.
A mitigation measure has been identified which, if implemented, will bring the peak hours LO;
into the acceptable range. The mitigation measure involves construction of two dual right tun
lanes-northbound to eastbound and westbound to northbound. This project has been conditione(
to pay its fa’ir share of the intersection “short-tern improvements” thereby, guaranteeinl
mitigation to a level of insignificance.
13 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
111. EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City (
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 9200'
(760) 438-1161, extension 4471.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Updat
(MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
14 Rev. 03128196
e 0
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
1. The Developer shall pay his fair share for the “short-term improvements” to the
Camino ReaV Palomar Airport Road intersection prior to or the issuance of a buildil
permit, whichever occurs first. The amount shall be determined by the methodolo’
ultimately selected by Council, including but not limited to, an increase in the city-wi
traffic impact fee; an increased or new Zone 22 LFMP fee; the creation of a fee i
assessment district; or incorporation into a Mello-Roos taxing district.
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
None.
15 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
I
94 h-4 w
L=/ /x
Date
16 Rev. 03/28/96
1 ENVIRONMEN'
$%A
.E)+ E mcn
.- -ma, €SZ o Ea
& .s + - -Fg$
9 0,Q cmm
6, .- t) l!
n g €5 a .- s '3
e0 5 QZ $
9 .v, 13) $ 5 :z E
Q) LE$) n ,o c '5 Y -om
b 922 9 Q, P&m
Q) Q- .r a .v, s
(I, .. m$ E
$ 0 =-oh
2 (j SSO
u a, .=
0 .F (L,
w -I a,Z'u, 2 a sm~ LL z 0-07 0 ES+ t "U 0 uE~ z zgu
0 502 o pa6
8,E
a,sg & 2 .- PC?ri
m.E)mcq
5.rgz
E $g !=
g-)S urn
-0 0
v)
Q) -
Q) m
Q)
Q- L
-x s 000
+ 0 - .-
K $ 5""m
5: 0*s
.- s us
v) 4 e
z
2% 3z
2
cum
E (L,"aN
~2 Q.o
K 'Emoa, 0 €5
.= U-J a,= EZUO - mag 5 Qm
0 a,-c 2
w .s€ma,
E- a 0gE.o a n m.s c a z -I CS.G, k a .pzS 0 > oum
.- Ca,
v) 0 K.E m $
4 E:;; palm lii k cCaE -
w 0 5.pZ ZE +g a, E;;; K a c a,.'"= a a 1-35s
TAL MlTl a ION MONITORING
z v)
E 2
0 8 .- .+I 22 'CQ, &€ >a,
E -
S :2 5:
v)
P)z
'C E
sm
sa,
0- E"'
SE
P) 8 .- 8g. .- * $ E
&a L mz=cu L m
- mom.E aa c
Q-3pg;g Foam -a E 92 a E €9 gs 6
m a=:.s * mz 523, zcz>
LC baw-$&pcm E .-
2 Or mu 0 adz+ ggs
rn.S*& 0 cz g"
2 v) 5 z m5T go"." OLIZ 2 .$osaE L aa E$?j
8 mu.: Sge&." m.- E? g EanL*3ma)o - A5 c $? Azb- 2 m cI) X~~~-Q.G an-- 5 z ~ g .o u --" .cI QZ $
v)-t a-G ?5&- = &g.Gc> .o m5-r 3'Gcvh
a, L E .- sgE0 a.V, a02 am+ 0 Q?.b E5 A- r+.o 5 2 g $-.&NO Sb 'ne awa €5
o".& pas 2 3 cn
c
r
S
"
.-
.-
m
O'"0 am a E QZZSg s $.E r'L3ra"Lv)X l-$ha m m.G 0 cos
CHECKLIST: e ge 1 of 1
7 <
I I - .i
f
I
G C I e
(i r !
C
* n
4. E
5 5
:
II c
c
+ 0
C ;
- E -
7
E
: a
6 ._ m - 1 z ii3
e !i .5
u-.
ca .- %a 0 .G
5 II
x9 -a
u+