The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1999-08-18; Planning Commission; Resolution 46091 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4609 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNTA, APPROVING A TION OF 73 SINGLE FAMILY UNITS WITHIN THE LOHF SUBDIVISION LOCATED WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL, BETWEEN DOVE LANE AND CASSIA LANE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 21. CASE NAME: LOHF PROPERTY CASE NO.: SDP 99-01/CDP 99-01 WHEREAS, Lamco Housing, Inc., “Developer”, has filed a verified ay with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Lohf Family Trust, “Owner”, I as NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUC- Parcel 2 of Map No. 2244, filed in the Office of the County Recorder on January 10, 1974, and the southern half of the northeast quarter of Section 26, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, all in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction P project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 18th day of August, 19 a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all tt and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by st considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the I Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the €’ Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according to 0 0 1 2 “ND” dated May 14, 1999, and “PII” dated May 7, 1999, attached hl made a part hereof, based on the following findings: 3 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: 4 Findinps: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered Negative Declaration, the envir impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon APPROVING the project; and b. the Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with require the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of thc Carlsbad; and d. based on the ELA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial the project will have a significant effect on the environment. 14 l6 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of August, 199! 15 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the following vote, to wit: 17 18 AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners Compas, Nielsen, Segall 19 20 NOES: Commissioners Trigas and Welshons 21 22 23 24 ABSENT: Commissioner L’Heureux COURTNEY E. CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 25 26 ATTEST: 27 28 Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 4609 -2- e 0 - City of Carlsba(: NEGATIVE DECLARATION 'Project AddresdLocation: West of El Camino Real, between Dove Lane and Cassia Lane, the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. Project Description: Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit to all( construction of 73 single family homes on previously subdivid and graded lots within the Lohf Subdivision (CT 97-15). The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described projl pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act a the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on 1 environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in 1 Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planni. Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public s invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of d: of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Michael Grim in the Planning Department (760) 43 8-1 16 1, extension 4499. DATED: MAY 14,1999 CASE NO: SDP 99-01/CDP 99-01 CASE NAME: LOHF PROPERTY PUBLISH DATE: MAY 14,1999 I4dq*tD q-. 4 MICHAEL J. Ff6LZFdILLER Planning Director 2075 La Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 * (760) 438-1 161 FAX (760) 438-08 e ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART IT (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: SDP 99-01iCDP 99. DATE: May 7. 1999 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Lohf Property 2. APPLICANT: Western Pacific Housing for LAMCO Housing. Inc. 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2385 Camino Vida Roble. Suite 11 Carlsbad, CA 92009 (760) 929-1600 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: January 4. 1999 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for a Site Development Plan and Coastal Developm Permit to allow construction of 73 single family dwelling on property generally located west El’ Camino Real, between Cassia Road and Dove Lane, in the City of Carlsbad, County of : Diego. 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. Land Use and Planning [XI TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems 0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics 0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources B Air Quality 0 Noise 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. 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 the mitigati measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIT DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. W 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 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 Negati Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on 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 pursuant to applical standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier, includi revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefo a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. 7i7 y ,-,. s -,y/ - (l&k 1' i Date FhG/$$ 1 Planner Signature J': i W$*upQe- .t %,h/(%q Planning Director s Sig&re Date 2 Rev. 03128196 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 follow1 pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and hun factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negati Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. e A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that : adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses followino, ea question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced informati sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that t potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopt general standards and policies. e “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporati’ of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” tc “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and t City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce tl effect to a less than significant level. e “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that i effect is significant. e Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significa effect.on the environment, but fl potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzc adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicab standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigate Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upc the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to ( supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the pric environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no addition. environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). e When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily require 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 c Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. e A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence tk the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. 3 Rev. 03/28/96 e a 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 t case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporatt 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 1 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 r 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. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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, #2, pg 10) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (#l, pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18, #2, pg 10) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (#l, pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18, #2 pg 10) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (#I, 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) Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 Less Than No Significant ImpaL Impact 0 w 0 El o w IXI 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 b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an 0 undeveloped area 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 0 w 0 0 w 0 0 IXI 4 Rev. 03128196 " 0 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; #2) b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l, pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l, pgs 5.1-1 e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l, pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l, g) Subsidence of the land? (#l, pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; h) Expansive soils? (#I, pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2 i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l, pgs 5.1- #2) (#l, pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15: #2) - 5.1-15; #2) #2) pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2) #2) 1 - 5.1-15; #2) 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 b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (#l, pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11; #3) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (#1, pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1; #3) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (#l, pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1; #3) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (#l, pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1; #3) 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; #3) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l, pgs 5.2-1 - i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l, pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1; #3) 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1; #3) (#l, pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11; #3) 5.2-11; #3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cl V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? [XI w existing or projected air quality violation? 5 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .El '0 0 Less Than No Significant lmpac Impact 0 El 0 H 0 [XI 0 Kl ON 0 0 [XI O w 0 Kl 0 [XI [XI 0 [XI w 0 E 0 E o [x 0 Ix 0 [x 0 C 0 C Rev. 03128196 .- e 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than KO Significant Significant Significant Imps Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (#l, pgs 5.3.1 - 5.3- d) Create objectionable odors? (#l, pgs 5.3.1 - 5.3- 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 E 12) 12) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 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- c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby 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)? (#1, pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7-22) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l, pgs 22) uses? (#l, pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7-22) (#l, PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7-22) (#l, PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7-22) 5.7-1 - 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 plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? (#l, pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24, b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#l, pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24, #2, pgs 11-12) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l, pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4- d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l, pgs #2, pgs 11-12) 24, #2, pgs 11-12) pool)? (#l, pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24, #2 pgs 11-12) 5.4-1 - 5.4-24, #2, pgs 11-12) m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C E Ix E Ix E Ix 0 Ix 0 0 E Ix 0 0 IXI 0 0 a VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (#l, pgs 5.12.1 - 5.12.1-5) 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 (#l, pgs 5.12.1 - 5.12.1-5) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jl 0 5.12.1 - 5.12.1-5) w Ix1 Ix1 6 Rev. 03/28/96 .* e 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: Potentially Potentially 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)? (#1, pgs b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#l, pgs c) The creation of any health hazard or potential d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-3) 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-3) health hazards? (#l, pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-3) health hazards? (#l, pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-3) grass, or trees? (#l, pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l, pgs 5.9-1 - b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l, pgs 5.9-15) 0 o 5.9-1 - 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 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5) b) Police protection? (#l, pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5) c) Schools? (#l, pgs 5.12.7-1 - 5.12.7-5) 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) 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 5.12.2-1 - c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l, pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) e) Storm water drainage? (#l, pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3- 5.12.8-7) facilities? (#l, pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) 7) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o f) Solid waste disposal? (#l, pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3) g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l, pgs 5.12.2-1 0 0 - 5.12.3-7) 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Impat 5 EJ E! [XI IXI [x [x [x 15 [x [x [x Ix E E [x [x E E 7 Rev. 03/28/96 .. 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). ., Potentially Significant Impact XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l, b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? (#l, pgs 5.10.3-1 - 5.10.3-2) PgS 5.11-1 - 5.11-5) 0 0 0 (#I, PgS 5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l, pgs 5.8-1 - b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l, pgs 5.8-1 - 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? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (#I, pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10, #2 5.8-10, #2 pg 12) 5.8-10, #2 pg 12) .#2 pg 12) (#l, PgS 5.8-1 - 5.8-10, #2 pg 12) Pg 12) 0 o 0 0 0 XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#l, pgs b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l, pgs 0 5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7) 5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7) 0 XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce 0 the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 0 0 8 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 cl 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than No Significant Impac Impact 0 IXI 0 [XI 0 w w 0 151 0 El 0 [XI 0 w 0 IXI o [x] 0 w 0 IXI Rev. 03/28/96 .I e e XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. .. The project site and development has been reviewed on two previous occasions. Source #1 is t: Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR 93-01) for the 1994 General Plan Update. Tf analysis reviews the potential impacts of developing the City in conformance with the Gener Plan in the areas of land use and planning, population and housing, geologic problems, water, i quality, transportation and circulation, biological resources, energy and mineral resourct hazards, noise, public service, utilities and service systems, aesthetics, cultural resources ar recreation. Source #2 is the Conditional Negative Declaration for the Lohf Subdivision, datt October 26, 1998, which reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the subdivision ar grading for 73 single family homes over 36.7 acres, with three open space lots. This Negative Declaration represents the third environmental review conducted on the propert The reason for this new environmental review is to analyze the effects of the current peak ho traffic volumes at the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real. The curre traffic volumes were not anticipated by the previous environmental reviews and, therefore, tf project conditions are being updated to address these impacts. Additional discussion regardin this issue is contained in the Circulation section below. With this new condition, the proposed action, as designed, has no additional impacts nc previously analyzed in the earlier environmental review and no additional review or mitigatic measures are necessary with regard to land use, population and housing, geologic problem water, biological resources, energy and mineral resources, hazards, noise, public service, utilitit and service systems, aesthetics, cultural resources and recreation. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The proposed project involves the construction of 73 single family homes on 29.6 acres c previously graded and subdivided land. The property is designated Residential Low Mediur Density (RLM), which allows for residential uses at densities from 0.0 to 3.2 dwellings pc developable acre (ddac) by the City’s General Plan and Growth Management Ordinance. Th subject properties also located within the City’s Coastal Zone. The project site is generally located west of El Camino Real, between Cassia Road and Dov Lane, within the City’s Coastal Zone. The site is surrounded to the west, north and east b: virtually undeveloped property, with the exception of two single family homes on the adjacen lots to the north. These properties are also designated for residential development in the densit range of 0.0 to 3.2 ddac by the City’s General Plan and Growth Management Ordinance. Soutl of the project site is Pavoreal, a 90 unit, single family subdivision at a density of 3.1 ddac The project site also borders the South Carlsbad Library parcel along a small portion of th, eastern side, just south of the entry point for Dove Lane onto the subject property. The project site is mostly cleared from previous agricultural operations and contains three singlt family homes. The homes are currently accessed via a dirt road leading from El Camino Real which lies approximately 200 feet to the west. Grading permits in accordance with previour project approvals (namely, Carlsbad Tract No. CT 97-15) are currently in process with the City’! Engineering Department. Future access to the homes will be taken‘fi-om Dove Lane, Mimos; Drive, and future Poinsettia Lane, which will traverse the northern portion of the site in an east west direction. The water, sewer, and storm drain facility requirements would be met througl: 9 Rev. 03/28/96 .f 0 e existing and proposed infrastructure and would be in place prior to occupancy of any structul below, all potential impacts, except for Air Quality and Circulation, will be mitigated to a lek of insignificance. .- The proposed development conforms to all applicable regulations and policies. As discuss1 AIR QUALITY: The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updatt 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle mill traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reacti7 organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are tl 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 tk updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variei of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisior for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measurt to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demar, Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mas transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5 participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable an appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into th design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project i located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is markec “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, thc 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 Overriding Considerations’’ for ai quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequen projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, nr further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at thl Planning Department. In addition to the impacts discussed above, there are a number of occupied single family home: on the southern and northern borders of the project area. To preclude local air quality impacts tc these residences during grading, a mitigation measure designed to reduce construction-relatec dust and emissions is included. CIRCULATION: The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad 10 Rev. 03128196 .. a e Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersectior .- are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerol mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions 1 develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalk pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulatic strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate ( State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City 1 control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures haye eith( been 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, therefor the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because tl recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, include a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement ( Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no hrther environmental review of circulatic impacts is required. In addition to the above, the City’s latest annual Growth Management Traffic Monitoring Rep0 indicates that there is currently an unanticipated intersection “level of service” (LOS) failure the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real during the morning and evenic peak hours. The City has identified “short-term” improvements that will bring the peak hol LOS back to an acceptable level. Therefore, the Lohf Property project has been conditioned I pay its fair-share for the “short-term” improvements to the El Camino Realpalomar Airpo Road intersection prior to issuance of building permits. By guaranteeing implementation of tl road improvements through payment of a fee, the potential circulation impacts on th intersection due to this project are reduced to a level of insignificance. LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AN CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature 11 Rev. 03128196