HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-10-20; Planning Commission; Resolution 4613w. 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
I
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4613
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM TO GRADE AND SUBDIVIDE 3.96 ACRES INTO
9 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF SEAVIEW WAY IN
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1
CASE NAME: SEAVIEW 9-LOT SUBDIVISION
CASE NO.: CT 98-21/SDP 98-24kIDP 98-23
WHEREAS, MSK Management, Inc., “Developer”, has filed 2
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Hisashi HOI
Kiyome Honda, Trustees of the Honda Family Trust dated 7/22/97, “Owner”, descr
A portion of Lot “J” of the Rancho Agua Hedionda, in the City
of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to Partition Map thereof No. 823, filed in the Office
of the County Recorder of San Diego County, November 16,
1896
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation MI
and Reporting Program was prepared in conjunction with said project; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to the public notice and review and comme
the project was redesigned based on written and verbal input; and
WHEREAS, the mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation M
and Reporting Program was amended on September 14, 1999 based on the rc
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 20th day of Octob
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all .
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by
0
L ' 11 considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered i
2
3
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
4 /I NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the
5
6 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
Commission as follows:
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Mitigated
Declaration according to Exhibit "ND" dated July 12, 1999, and "PII" (
6, 1999, and as amended September 14, 1999, attached hereto and m
hereof, based on the following findings:
FindinPs:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered Mitigated Negative C
Seaview %Lot Subdivision CT 98-21/SDP 98-24/HDP 9
environmental impacts therein identified for this project
comments thereon, and the Program, on file in the Planning Dt
prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
B. the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monit
Reporting Program have been prepared in accordance with requil
the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guideline
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; ani
C. they reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commiss
City of Carlsbad; and
D. based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, the
Commission, finds that there is no substantial evidence the PI
have a significant effect on the environment; and
E. Recirculation of the Negative Declaration is not required pu
Section 15073.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act
in that:
1) Mitigation measures are replaced with equal or more
measures pursuant to Section 15074.1 of CEQA guideline
2) New project revisions are added in response to written
comments on the project's effects identified in the
negative declaration which are not new avoidable s
effects; and 11 PC RES0 NO. 4613 -2-
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
3) Measures or conditions of project approval are adc
circulation of the negative declaration which are not ret
CEQA, which do not create new significant environmen
and are not necessary to mitigate an avoidable significz
and
4) New information is added to the negative declaratic
merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modific
the negative declaration.
Conditions:
1. The Developer shall implement or cause the implementation of the Seavi
Subdivision Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of October 19
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners Compas, L'Heurl
Nielsen, Segall, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Welshons
ABSTAIN:
COURTNEY E. HEINEMAN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
" MICHAEL J. HOL~~ILLER
Planning Director
I I
PC RES0 NO. 4613 -3-
d e 0
- City of Carlsba(
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddresdLocation: APN 167-070-04
A PORTION OF LOT-J OF THE RANCHO AGUA HEDIOND
Project Description: A 9-lot single family residential subdivision
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described projc
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, I
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 1
proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid 1
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environmt
would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Ci
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 ti
action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in t
Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from t
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within i
days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Barbara Kennedy in the Plannir
Department at (760) 438-1161, extension 4325.
DATED: JULY 12,1999
CASE NO: CT 98-2l/SDP 98-24MDP 98-23
CASE NAME: SEAVIEW 9-LOT SUBDIVISION
PUBLISH DATE: JULY 12,1999
MICHAEL J.mZ&LER
Planning Director
2075 La Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-1 161 - FAX (760) 438-089
I e 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 11
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CT 98-21/SDP 98-24/HDP 98-
DATE: June 8, 1 S
REVISED: September 14,lS
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: SEAVIEW 9-LOT SUBDIVISION
2. APPLICANT: MSK Management. Inc.
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE PISUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5 142 Avenida Encinas. Carlsbad CA 760-438-4090
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: 12/2/98
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 9-lot subdivision map proposing single-family home lots grea
than 10,000 square feet in area with two second dwelling units to comply with the requireme]
of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The 3.96 acre site is located at the north end of Seavic Way, north of Chestnut Avenue. 3.48 acres of the site will be graded and the proposal v
require approval of a Hillside Development Permit. The site was historically used :
agricultural purposes and the existing single family residence will be demolished.
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.
0 Land Use and Planning TransportationKirculation 0 Public Services
17 Population and Housing Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 Water
Air Quality
Hazards
Noise
0 Cultural Resources
Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
@
DETEFWINATION.
(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.
IXI 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 MITIGATE
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
:[ find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ;
:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
0 :[ 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 earlj
(document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigatic
:measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An EIR
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on t
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potential
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Master Environmen,
Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been void
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-0'
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed proje
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
*hfi- Planner Signature @-- Date 'iI30 I77
!Mu 91?0!v!
Plannir Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
0 a
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the Ci
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 hum;
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negati
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
0 .4 brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that a
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following ea(
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced informatic
;sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved.
“‘No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to,
:it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
e “‘Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that t
.potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopt
general standards and policies.
“Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporatil
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 t
effect to a less than significant level.
e “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that
effect is significant.
Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significl
effect on the environment, but &l potentially significant effects (a) have been analyz
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applical:
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigat
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed up
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the pr
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additiol
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily requil
to prepare an EIR 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 t:
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
0 I:f there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing :
IZIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, iu
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In th
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporate(
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
0 ,4n EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and includi~
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect h
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, a
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less th;
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact h
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not redu
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is n
:possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect,
{determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significa
(effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end oft
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attentil
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determin
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
e
l
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
c) 13e incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
e) llisrupt 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)
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
b) 1:nduce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 -
5.5-6)
c) jDisplace existing housing, especially affordable
IIOUS~~~? (#l:PgS 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
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
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#1 :Pgs 5.1- 1 - 5.1- 15)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 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)
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)
11)
5
Potentially Significant Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
0
0
0 0 0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
0
0 o
0 o
0 17 0
0
0
Less Than No
Significant Impac Impact
OH
OH
OH
UIXI
UIXI
OH
OH
OH
OH OH UIXi
OH
OB HC
OIX lac OK
OK
CIE
OIX
Rev. 03/28/96
0
Issues (ad Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Impact
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
3.2-1 - 5..2-11)
body? (#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
(#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
I. 1)
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)
IXI
:I - 5.3-12)
-' 5.3-12) 0 0
0
VI. 'TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) i1nc;eased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
.5.7-1 - 5.7.22) IXJ
b) :Hazards to safety fiom design features (e.g. sharp
2urves 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 -
N(#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
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) 0
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
6
0
Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impad
Mitigation
Unless Impact
Incorporated 0 UBI
0.
0
ow
OB
nIxI
(7 ON
0
El
UBI
on
0 OH nIXI
OH
0 nu
0 nIxI
0
0
ON
OK
OK
OIX
0 UIX
0 UE
0 nlz
0 OB
Rev. 03/28/96
0
Issues (ad Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Impact
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1
0
0 (:#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
- 5.4-24)
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b) IJse 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)
8~ 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
mbstances (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 -
!5.10.1-5)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
e) 1:ncrease fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
0
0
0
X. YOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) :Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9-
b) :Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9- 15) o
0 1 - 5.9-15)
XI. :PUBLIC SERVICES. 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) o 0 0 0
0
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 & 0 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
7
8
Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impacl
Mitigation Incorporated
Unless Impact
0 OH
0 OH
0 ON
0 OH
UIXI
0 OH
OH
OH la on
0 OH
0. OH
0 OH
0 om 0 om 0 om OB
0
0
OE
DE
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Impact
b) Communications systems? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
c) L,ocal 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 -
0 o 0
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) 17
5.12.3-7) 0
0
Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact
Mitigation
Incomorated
Unless Impact
0 urn 0 OBI
0 OH 0 om IIIIXI 0 OH
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5) 0 0 OBI
5.11-1 - 5.11-5) 0 0 OH
0 0 OH
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Ilisturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
b) Ilisturb 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
5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) 0 0 OH
1.0) 17 0 OH
1.0) RH
0 OB 0 OH
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 -
5.12.8-7)
b) ,4ffect existing recreational opportunities? (#1 :Pgs
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7) 17 OH
0 0 OH
XVI. ]MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) :Does the project have the potential to degrade the
Iquality of the environment, substantially reduce the I7 nIXI
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?
8 Rev. 03/28/96
8 e
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impac Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually l.imited, but cumulatively considerable? IXI nu
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
i:ncremental 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
arobable future Droiects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
*.I I 0 0 UKI
9 Rev. 03/28/96
8 0
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses of the proposed single-family residential project have been completed throug
the General Plan Update (GPA 94-01)and related Master Environmental Impact Report (ME1
93-01). The MEIR is cited as source #1 in the preceding checklist. This proposal is consistel
with the applicable portions of the General Plan and is considered a project that was described :
MEIR 93-01 as within its scope. There will be no additional significant impacts due to th
development that were not analyzed in the MEIR and no new or additional mitigation measur1
or alternatives are required. This project is, therefore, within the scope of the prior MEIR and r
new environmental document nor Public Resources Code 21 081 findings are required. A
feasible mitigation measures identified in the MEIR 93-01 which are appropriate to this proje
have been incorporated into this project.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. - P'ROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The 3.96 acre site is located at the north dead end of Seaview Drive within Local Facilitie
Management Zone 1 and is bordered by single-family residences to the north, south, east an
west. The east portion of the site is occupied by abandoned greenhouse structures and a singlt
family dwelling. A small 2:l slope approximately 3 feet high descends from the east propert
line to the existing grade. The remainder of the property slopes gently downhill to the west ;
about a 16% slope. The total difference in elevation between the southeast property corner ar
the northwest property corner is approximately 65 feet and varies between 327 feet (MSL) an
262 (MSL), respectively. The site vegetation on the westerly two-thirds of the property an
around the greenhouses consist of ruderal vegetation. The vacant dwelling is surrounded 1:
overgrown ornamental landscaping and dead turf.
The project proposal would consist of the demolition of the existing structures and subdivision (
the property into a 9-lot single-family residential subdivision. The proposed street desig
provides for the extension of Seaview Way to the north and east throughout the subdivision 1
provide access to the residential lots. Seaview Way will end in a cul-de-sac configuration. TI:
project originally proposed 10,584 cubic yards of cut, 23,860 cubic yards of fill, and 13,31
cubic yards of import. However, the project has been redesigned to lower pad elevations on tI:
east end of the site through the use of crib walls up to 12 feet in vertical height. The revised si
design proposes 18,993 cubic yards of cut, 18,993 cubic yards of fill, and results in a balancc
grading operation. The project site is designated at RLM (Residential Low-Medium Density) c
the General Plan Land Use Map. The zoning for the site is R-A-10,000 (Single-fami'
Residential Agriculture Zone, minimum lot size 10,000 sq. ft. Plans for two second dwellir
units are included with the project to satisfy the requirements of the Inclusionary Housir
Ordinance.
11 Rev. 03128196
0 0
11. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
B. Environmental Impact Discussion
I. Land Use and Planning
The project site is located in an area designated by the General Plan as Residential Low-Mediu
(EM) with a zoning classification of R-A-10,000. The R-A-10,000 zone requires a minimur
lot size of 10,000 square feet and implements the General Plan Land Use Designation. Tk
surrounding neighborhood is developed with single-family residences. Under the current Growl
Management Ordinance, the project has the potential to yield 12 dwelling units. The projec
proposes development of nine single family residences and two second dwelling units for a tot;
of 11 units. The proposal is one unit under the Growth Management Dwelling Unit Allowance.
111. Geologic - Problems
A preliminary geotechnical investigation was conducted for the project site. The stud
concluded that the project site is appropriate for the proposed development, subject to tl
recommendations in the study. Soils identified near the west end of the project site in Test Pit
were identified as being “moderate” in expansion potential. As proposed, this area will receil
fill with depths from 4 to 14 feet above natural grade. As stated in the report, if these moderate:
expansive soils remain 48 inches below finish grade, as proposed, special design consideratior
with regard to foundations are not anticipated. Prior to constructing fill slopes, shear keys wi
be constructed in accordance with the recommendations outlined in the report and in accordanc
with the City of Carlsbad Grading Ordinance.
The pad elevations for the lots at the east end of the subdivision are between 1 and 15 feet belo
natural grade. The report indicates that both cut and compacted fill slopes constructed to
maximum height of 25 feet with maximum slope ratios of 2:l will be stable provided they a.
properly maintained and planted with erosion control plantings.
IV. Water
The project has been designed with the majority of the project drainage flowing to Seaview Wi
and out to Chestnut Avenue. The remaining drainage, for Lots 1 through 4 and for the rear ya
of lot 5, will drain to the existing 10 foot private drainage easement near the northwest comer o
to Donna Drive. The drainage will be diverted by the use of drainage swales located on tl
western and northern property lines. Subdrains located at low points on pads 1 through 5 w
divert drainage directly to the swale in order to reduce the amount of flow over the manufacturl
slopes. The hydrology report indicates that the drainage volumes will not exceed the volume
site runoff which is currently collected in the private drainage easement.
Ground water was not encountered during the time of the soils investigation within the five 1
feet deep test pits. However, verbal communication was received that groundwater accumulat
on off-site residential properties adjacent to the west and northwest comers of the site. In f
event groundwater is encountered during grading operations, the developer proposes to inst;
subdrains in conjunction with the adjacent property owners according to updated geotechnic
investigations and recommendations of the soils engineer.
12 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
V. Air Quality
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the update
1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle mil6
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactit
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are tk
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since tk
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 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 ma
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and :
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable ar
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into tl
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the ‘‘Initial Study” checklist is markt
“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 a
quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subseque
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, r
Wher environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at tl
Planning Department.
VI. TransportatiodCirculation
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updatt
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequa
to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severe
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. The
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsb;
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersectio
are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numero
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measur
to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develc
alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, 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 within 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.
13 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of tl
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefor
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because tl
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, include
a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement C
Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulatic
impacts is required.
The City has received its annual Growth Management Traffic Monitoring Report. The Repc
has recorded an unanticipated intersection “level of service” (LOS) failure at Palomar Airpc
Road (PAR) and El Camino Real (ECR) during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Th
potentially creates a changed circumstance negating reliance on previous environment
documentation. Pursuant to 0 15 162 of the CEQA Guidelines a lead agency must prepare
“Subsequent” environmental documentation if substantial evidence (i.e., the recordc
intersection failure) determines that a changed circumstance exists. However, case law h
interpreted this section of the CEQA Guidelines to not require the preparation of a “Subseque
EIR” if mitigation measures are adopted which reduce the identified impacts to a level
insignificance.
A mitigation measure has been identified which, if implemented, will bring the peak hours LC
into the acceptable range. The mitigation measure involves construction of two dual right tu
lanes-northbound to eastbound and westbound to northbound. This project has been conditionc
to pay its fair share of the intersection “short-term improvements” thereby, guaranteeiI
mitigation to a level of insignificance.
E. Hazards
Master Environmental impact Report 93-01 prepared for the general Plan Update requires tl
following mitigation measure for proposed residential development in areas that are presently
have previously been used for agricultural production. Chemical residue may exist in soil a~
affect the health of future residents. The project site has been use for agricultural purposes and
Phase I site assessment for soils has identified residual concentrations of organochloril
pesticides in six near surface soil samples. The report recommends removal of surface soils tc
depth of one foot, with placement of these soils in deep fill areas and under roads in order
reduce the exposure concern (inhalation, ingestion, and dermal contact).
The Phase I site assessment also identifies that removal of the existing residence may warrs
concern for asbestos containing building materials such as roofing materials, insulation, acous’
ceilings, floor tiles, and mastic materials. The report recommends reduction of airborne dl
during demolition of the house using copious amounts of water.
Therefore, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce impacts related
hazardous materials to less than significant:
1. A detailed agricultural chemical residue survey with recommended remediation shall
completed and comments received fi-om the County of San Diego Environmental Hea
Services prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
2. All trash and debris within the property shall be disposed of offsite, in accordance w
14 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
c current local, state, and federal disposal regulations. Any buried traslidebris encountere during grading of the site shall be evaluated by an experienced environmental consultant an
shall be treated per the consultant’s recommendation prior to removal of the material.
3. An asbestos survey of the onsite buildings shall be performed and any applicable remediatic
completed prior to their demolition.
X. Noise
Construction noise will be generated in conjunction with the proposed developmen
Construction noise is a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise generated k
construction equipment and construction activities can reach high levels. The City’s Gradir
Ordinance limits the hours of construction to normal weekday working hours and shoul
minimize any potential impacts.
XI. Utilities and Service Systems
The project has been designed to sewer through Seaview Way and will require the installation t
a deeper sewer lateral along the length of Seaview Way to the manhole at Chestnut Avenue. TI
elevations of Lots 1 through 4 have been set as low as possible while maintaining positive sew1
flow.
A project alternative to reduce the slope heights and grading volumes was discussed with tl
project applicant and the City Engineering Department. This alternative would have resulted
lowering Seaview Way so that the pad elevations of Lots 1 through 4 could be lowered, resultir
in a lower slope facing towards the east. However, to accomplish this, a 20 foot wide pub1
drainage easement would need to be acquired to Donna Drive to accommodate run-off fro
Seaview Way. Currently a 10 public drainage easement exists to Donna Drive, however, th
easement is only suitable for private run-off. In addition, a 20 foot public sewer easement wou
be required to Donna Drive. Given the potential for disruption to the existing residences c
Donna Drive, and that the objectives of designing a balanced grading operation could 1
provided through the current proposal, the best alternative is to provide sewer service and dive
drainage from the project out through Seaview Way, and only using the 10 foot private drainal
easement for the west portion of the project.
XII. Aesthetics
The surrounding residential properties, as well as the subject property, have ocean views whit
were identified as being impacted in written and verbal communications to the City. Althoui
the City of Carlsbad does not have a view preservation ordinance, the project has bet
redesigned to address the neighborhood concerns regarding preservation of views. In order
achieve these objectives, building pads on the east end of the site have been lowered at least 2
feet below the grade of the existing residences to the east. In addition, the height of tl
residences is proposed at 26 feet. Crib retaining walls up to 12 feet high will be constructed
the east end of the site to enable the pads to be lowered as proposed.
Neighbors were also concerned about the height of the slope on the west end of the site. Th
slope has been lowered as much as possible without diverting street drainage flows through
Donna Drive. Diversion of street drainage flows would create the need to obtain a 20 foot wic
public storm drain easement to Donna Drive. The slopes have been stepped at the rear of the 1
to reduce the overall height to no more than 20 feet and the residences are set back from tl
15 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
e property line 77 feet or more. Hillside guidelines also require a .7:1 setback from the top of slo~ for any structure. The visual impact to existing west end residences to the proposed residencl
will be minimized due to the siting of the structures, the requirement for a slope setback, and tl
provision of a landscaped slope buffer.
111. EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City 1
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 Upda
(MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
16 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
? LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
1. The Developer shall pay his fair share for the “short-term improvements” to the El Camil
Real/ Palomar Airport Road intersection prior to or the issuance of a building perm
whichever occurs first. The amount shall be determined by the methodology ultimate
selected by Council, including but not limited to, an increase in the city-wide traffic imp;
fee; an increased or new Zone 1 LFMP fee; the creation of a fee or assessment district;
incorporation into a Mello-Roos taxing district.
2. A detailed agricultural chemical residue survey with recommended remediation shall
completed and comments received from the County of San Diego Environmental Hea
Services prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
3. All trash and debris within the property shall be disposed of offsite, in accordance wil
current local, state, and federal disposal regulations. Any buried traswdebris encountere
during grading of the site shall be evaluated by an experienced environmental consultant ar
shall be treated per the consultant’s recommendation prior to removal of the material.
4. An asbestos survey of the onsite buildings shall be performed and any applicable remediatic
completed prior to their demolition.
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
17 Rev. 03/28/96
Ir
.I i > ,i b
* e 0
? 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.
L”4F
Date
17 Rev. 03128196
- ENVIRONMEN'
1
* 2 .v, = mgm .P+ > %! m= €5 E
o*@ -raw L5 fn a, .o Q m Tug 9 0 .E -r
co .r 2 a, 0
n n .% g 2
9 s '$ .E .s
Q, g5s n L .P 2 p .= E
9 2mcT 03 na, 2
k a2 m 0 y- "0 .r og 8
cl, .. z%z cf i om0 mn u 5% E
2 (lj em""
=I w OF2 z z ?Po w -I @ma, =! a. 525 LL = gmv, 0 cU- b .-a,&
Q) +-JQ 0'/)v)
I
-t
03
\
"Ea, z
gEg
cl
.c m JE .L >03
Q) QL
W
a zsy-
0 !!E: 0 00
"3
z e Qu
e 0 u- gas .& 6 a, K
g2g a, (13- 32 Q
v) K .- .- E s 2 2.FU .
-J cJ2 c- L 0.E (uc9 n (u a,%gS
m E-
v) c ?;z
5 a= 0 02 a, e + .PS E 0
3 E+j sm
- m q W 3 na, 5 00 $.Eo0 3 E323
v) 'Er: 2, 2 w 5EG
2 a a,ona, 60 .f (u cf z -1 FZgg I- a 'p $ >o Z2-a 0-0 51: +.-x-
E n c a,.-- a a I--OEC~>
z
3
6 .-
Q -= = a,
Q)
w I- KSSv)
5 g a,Kgg 4-0
TAL MlTlbrlON MONITORING CHECKLISTaAGE I OF 2
% s
v)
rx
.- .b4
0 z.s
>%
.- t !ka,c &E
E -
t
sc 0,
1 2:
v3
u)F ca, 'e E
u) .- c u) c .- sz
zn
2j a, a, S a S a
U U c
b sg t .- .-
u) c .x a, on .e! >
2 s+
&L a, 2 a,="L" ea 0 g5 3s oca, a,.& 5x3 0 a,
GE-3 " ="E€$ 3 m.2 &
hU0 ; 0"n"SZN cn-r cn QOOL am S$)&.5? 5.g- a,u c 3 * 0 I>a,h"a)~o :Em a,
c(- 6 E m -0 Lz a, .r Ea g c I mfx WOO EY-5
mo6= 6 FU Qz bu a,= a, G 0 h.S -z a,z 6 &E 3'; a, 5 a, a)> p 3-c * -uz.r ge -0Q
S v) .~a,a)Ea,~&gmo L 0.= a, m ZZU cn
m '5 2 L-0 cn cu" 2% a, a, s
S 5s .r mcc zg E a, 2 5% .Q .Q .- a uccn- m p
.- =s o=z E-&.- a, L
cU eE2 x=- Lo 5 J=a, cop 075 m a, 'E
- ma 02 ~II o hi L u =3 U.f 9 E I a,+z a%$ O - a, a, c Eu a," m 0 u .E L ;-;A -g€a,CE
n €$ p''a.g.o - € €.e a a,EL?3A-rZa,ZJZb -a a, g E zz 0 Jz L rn cn 2 a, ozlL.V).v)
I-~!..v,;F €.E ~JUU 4 I a0 ow 0
7 c\i
.- c ao
2
.- cn a,Q w Q= -r 6'; 0 .s
mu*& Q= me megzz
g c5-s
0
Q CD
.c1 - .-
* $~~~A - -r
cn $a,omE E= ena0 s$s .&t h3 " €5 .- 2
8 2.51 L-
a C bu mg 0% 92 g a m .-
u) .- '0 m a r
0
5
c
.- .c) m 5 m
Q x W
-
v
i
t
ENVIRONMENTAL MlTlbrlON MONITORING CHECKLlST.AGE 2 OF 2
v) ii 5 141
0 .- az .a, s ka,C b€ >u - E
Lz $2
C
cs om
m
DE .- ca,
zn
b e-
m S m S &E s; .- .- S
.- .-
Q,
m S W
b a, S m S W
0 C .- 5%
:+
.e &
2
agSS2 a,"
Z?Z$ €5.2 a -"0 .Q 'rmss
0s
3 .- g Q5 .- EOU5S
?!E 52 -.Ega,a,
mE g) sz g e3 =-La 'SSE
a,(qm"a,o
a¶ a) 07 & QZ a,mk .e ,o .Q
v) 5 5 g).g'Ez 5 m Q.S
a¶ e2 L 2 QZ E 6 QO
z ~gz-c$$!ELE "0
ma, m€
.- 0 3;gzca,s do Q& ma L m m .E .E + A- .o 5 &-a;,
L "c3ca-L =-5 .- a a,- 3& a $.=mOa)mc 209 g a, s 030.0 -0 0% a,= ex 0 a.0
f=%* v) m m-c$ ak a O"'E >+ e 0
L-0 cQ a, !z a,
Q-r mZ c 8 a$ E =.E3 gc 0 a, am m+ m o L a QO
cli +
- a, m2 -a m .- Lo ma, c mCh"!=ma,
"
QSg g a) L- 2:
L J
m
S
=-L
CI
CI) .- .-
+ a a,
SSL L 0,
zn-0
g: mFa- a,a)3€ % Eg h 0 aiL- =€ v)
a) 02
ca,o
v)
K
-0 m
I a,
O
C 0
C m
m
Q
W X
.-
Y-
.- c
-