Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-10-20; Planning Commission; Resolution 4646.r I .. 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 i 1 ?) e PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4646 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW 14 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND TWO SECOND DWELLING UNITS ON SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF PARK DRIVE AND MONROE STREET IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASE NAME: CARLSBAD PARK ESTATES CASE NO.: SDP 98-05(A)/CDP 97-58(A) WHEREAS, Carlsbad Estates, LLC, “Developer”/”Owner”, has filed i application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as Lots 1 through 14 of Carlsbad Tract Map CT 97-24, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 13784 filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, May 20,1999 (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monito; Reporting Program was prepared in conjunction with said project; and ~ WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 20th day of Octobe 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 tt and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered a1 relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Rc Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the 1 Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the PI Commission APPROVES the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitl Monitoring and Reporting Program according to Exhibit “ND” September 7, 1999, and “PII” dated July 21, 1999, attached hereto and : part hereof, based on the following findings: I 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 e e Findinys: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: A. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered Mitigated Negative Declar; Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the environmenta therein identified for this project and any comments, thereon APPROVMNG the project, and B. the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accord2 requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State ( and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; an C. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of tl Carlsbad; and D. based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Conditions: 1. The Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of Carlsk Estates Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. ... ... ... ... ... ... . .. ... ... ... ... ... I 1 PC RES0 NO. 4646 -2- I (1 e 0 1 2 3 4 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of October, 195 following vote, to wit: 5 6 AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners Compas, L’Heurc Nielsen, and Trigas 7 II NOES: Commissioner Segall 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ABSENT: Commissioner Welshons ABSTAIN: n ~~ COURTNEY FHEINEMAN, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: Planning Director 11 PC RES0 NO. 4646 -3- a 0 , City of - Carlsbac MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Address/Location: Northwest quadrant at the corner of Park Drive and Monra Street Project Description: Coastal Development Permit Amendment and Site Deveiopmer Plan Amendment to construct 14 single family homes and tw second dwelling units on previously subdivided and graded lots i the R- 1 - 10,000 zone. 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 an the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, tk initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1 revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before tk proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid tk 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 Cit 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 th Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments fiom th public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 3 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Plannin Department at (760) 438-1 161, extension 4477. DATED: September 7, 1999 CASE NO: SDP 98-05(A)/CDP 97-58(A) CASE NAME: MAY SUBDIVISION PUBLISH DATE: September 7, 1999 h-&Gq MICHAEL J. H~L~MI~~ER Planning Director n 26%yas Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 (760) 438-1 161 FAX (760) 438-08 e 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 11 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: SDP 98-05(A)/ CDP 97-58(. DATE: July 21. 19 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: May Subdivision 2. APPLICANT: Carlsbad Estates, LLC 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 110 Juniuer Street. San Diego. C 92 10 1 ~ (6 19) 702-2042 4. DATE EL4 FORM PART I SUBMITTED: Auril 7,1999 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Coastal Develoument Permit amendment and Site Develoumt Plan amendment to allow 14 single family homes and two second dwelling: units on Dreviou: subdivided and m-aded lots located in the northwest quadrant at the corner of Park Drive a Monroe Street in the R-1-10,000 zone. 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 Imp2 - Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. H Land Use and Planning H TransportatiodCirculation Public Services 0 Population and Housing Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems c] Geological Problems Energy & .Mineral Resources (x1 Aesthetics Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 03/28/96 e '0 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) - u I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on tj environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. - u I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on ~ environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigatic measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIi DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 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 earlj document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigatil measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Mitigat Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to addressed. - u 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 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. Therefol a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. c/pu. j k.y, q+L.,** < L/ / ( - L;I -c Planner Signature -/ I Date S/l/4S Date 2 Rev. 03/28/96 0 .. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the Cj 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 followi pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and hum factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negati Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. 0 A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that a adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following eac question. A “NO Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced infomatic 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. 0 “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that tl potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopt1 general standards and policies. 6 0 “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporatic of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and tl City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce tl. effect to a less than significant level. 0 “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that 2 effect is significant. 0 Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significa effect on the environment, but @J potentially significant effects (a) have been analyze adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicabl 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 upo the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to c 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). 0 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 EL pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement o Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. 0 A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence thz ’ the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. 3 Rev. 03/28/96 0 .. - 0 If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, a those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In tl case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporate may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. 0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and includi but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect h not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier ‘EIR pursuant to applicable standards, a the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less th significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact h’ not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not redu the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is n possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significa effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of tl form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attentic should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determinl significant. 4 Rev. 03/28/96 ? e 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): (Source #I, #2) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (Source #I, #2) ' c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (Source #1, #2) Potentially Significant Impact 17 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impac Impact UIXI UIXI 0.. Ell d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from 17 17 IXI incompatible land uses? (Source #1) established community (including a low-income or 17 17 OH minority community)? (Source #1)) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (Source #I) OIXI b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an 0 0 UIXI undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (Source #1) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (Source #1) UIXI 111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (Sources #I, 4) b) Seismic ground shaking? (Source #4) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (Source #3) . e) Landslides or mudflows? (Source #3) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (Source #4) (Source #4) ' g) Subsidence of the land? (Source #4) h) Expansive soils? (Source #4) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (Source # 4) IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (Source #5) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (Source #2,5) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (Source #2) 0 0 17 0 I7 17 0 -0 El 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 Elm UIXI UIXI UIXI nIXI OH CIIXI OIXI OM OH OH 0, B.l 5 Rev. 03/28/96 e 0 -. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (Source #2) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (Source #2) 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? (Source #2) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (Source #2) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (Source #2) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (Source #2) Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0. 0 0 0 0 El V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source IXI 0 #2) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Source c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or d) Create objectionable odors? () #2) cause any change in climate? () VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Source #2) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (Source #1) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e) Hazards or bamers 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? (Source #1) 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? (Source #I, 2) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (Source #I, 2) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source #I, 2) d) ' Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (Source #I, 2) 6 ix1 0 0' IXI 0 0 a 0 0 El 0 17 0 0 0 17 CI 0 0 CI 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than No Significant Impact Impact om om ON UN am OIXI nu on OIXI om no OH OIXI nix1 om UIXI om nix1 OM OIXI OIXI Rev. 03/28/96 0 -. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). e) Wildlife dispersal or migration comdors? (Source #I, 2) VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (Source #1,2) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (Source #1,2) 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? (Source #I, 2) 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 rahation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response 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, ' plan or emergency evacuation plan? () health hazards? health hazards? (Source #6) grass, or trees? () X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Source #1,2) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Source #I, 2) 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? (Source #1) b) Police protection? (Source #2) c) Schools? (Source #1) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? e) Other governmental services? (Source #2) (Source #I) 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? (Sources #I, 2) b) Communications systems? () c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Source #I, 2) facilities? (Source # 1,2) 7 0 Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impacl Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 I7 05 cl 0 om 0 0 OIXI 0 0 nIxI om 0 0 om 0 D UIXI 0 IXI 00 UBI 0 0 om 0 0 om 0 0 OH OBI 0 .m 0 0 05 0 05 0 om 0 05 0 I7 n5 05 Rev. 03/28/96 0 ‘0 -. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impac Impact Unless impact Mitigation Incorporated e) Storm water drainage? (Source #1,2) f) Solid waste disposal? (Source #1,2) g) Local or regional water supplies? (Source #1,2) 0 0 om 0 0 o[xI 0 0 om XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (Source #1> b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? (Source #2) (Source #2) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? () b) Disturb archaeological resources? () c) Affect historical resources? (Source #2) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (Source #2) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (Source #2) XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? () parks or other recreational facilities? (Source #1) 0 0 El 0 0 0 0 0 n. IZI 0 NU 0 ON El ON 0 ntxl 0 UiXI 0 ON 0 om OH 0 om XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce 0 0 ON 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? 0 om (“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 0 UIXI beings, either directly or indirectly? 8 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)@). In this case a discussion should identify tl. following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are availab for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify whch effects from the above checkli! were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursua 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 Mitigatia Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated ( refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address sitc specific conditions for the project. 9 Rev. 03/28/96 0 .e < DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Pro-iect Description The project consists of a coastal development permit amendment and a site development pl amendment allowing 14 one and two story single family residences and two attached sed01 dwelling units formerly approved as detached second dwelling units on previously subdivid and graded single family lots located in the northwest quadrant within the boundaries of t Mello I1 LCP segment and R-1-10,000 zone. c Environmental Analysis Ia/b/c. Land Use Placement of the single family units on the lots require compliance with Chapter 21.10 (R-: One Family Residential Zone) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The R-1 zone provic development standards for setbacks, building coverage, and building height and the proposc development meets or exceeds all minimum setback, building coverage, and building heig standards. The subject site is located withm the boundaries of the City’s Mello I1 LCP segment and subject to the requirements of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone, however, due to I previously graded condition, none of the regulations apply to the project. The site is not locatl in the Coastal Shoreline Overlay Zone; therefore, the preservation of public views is n applicable. As stated above, the project is in compliance with the R-1 zone developme standards for setbacks, building coverage, and building height. As required by the gradil permit issued for the site, construction of the project will adhere to the City’s Master Draina; and Storm Water Quality Management Plan and Grading Ordinance to avoid increased runc and soil erosion. The single family homes are compatible with surrounding single family development in that tl proposed craftsman architectural styles utilizing wood siding and shingles with cultured st0 and river rock elements, shake tile roofs, and 4 muted colors schemes are similar to arch~tectu~ styles, materials and colors found in the adjacent neighborhoods. Two single story and 12 tw story units are proposed, and except for the two units proposed with second dwelling units ab0 the garages, the detached and attached garages on each lot are single story. This is consiste with the existing neighborhood which consists of a mix of one and two story units. Although tl neighborhood currently consists of more single story homes than two story homes, there is r zoning restriction limiting remodels of existing homes to single story. It is therefore possib that in the future the mix of one and two story homes will change dramatically. V. Air Quality The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updatr 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle mil’ traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactil 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 considerc 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. 10 Rev. 03/28/96 * i e a z 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) measurc to reduce vehicle tips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demax 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 a 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 marke “Potentially Significant Impact”. Ths 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 Cil Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for a quality impacts. This “Statement Of Ovemding Considerations” applies to all subsequel projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, I: further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at t1 Planning Department. VI. Circulation a) The City has received its annual Growth Management Traffic Monitoring Report and the Report has recorded an unanticipated intersection “level of service” (LOS) failure at Paloma Airport Road (PAR) and El Camino Real (ECR) during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. This potentially creates a changed circumstance negating reliance on previous environmental documentation. Pursuant to 0 15 162 of the CEQA Guidelines a lead agency must prepare “subsequent” environmental documentation if substantial evidence (i.e., the recorded intersection failure) determines that a changed circumstance exists. However, case law has interpreted this section of the CEQA Guidelines to not require the preparation of a “Subsequenl EIR” if mitigation measures are adopted which reduce the identified impacts to a level of insignificance. A mitigation measure has been identified which, if implemented, will bring the peak hours LOS into the acceptable range. The mitigation measure involves construction of two dual right turn lanes-northbound to eastbound and westbound to northbound.. This project has been conditioned to pay its fair share of the intersection “short-term improvements” thereby, guaranteeing mitigation to a level of insignificance. XIII. Aesthetics b) The proposed homes, which consist of two two-story floor plans (Plans 1 and 2) and on< single story floor plan (Plan 3) that range in size from 3,809 square feet to 4,107 square fee (including three car garages), are aesthetically consistent with the surrounding neighborhood Two different facade treatments are proposed for each of the two-story units. Plan 1 has 2 detached single story garage located behind the main structure, Plan 2 has an attached singlc story garage located at the rear of the structure, and Plan 3 has a side loaded garage whch result: in a street scene exclusive of garage doors. The proposed architectural style is craftsman wit1 steeply pitched shake tile roofs, wood and shingle siding, cultured stone and river rock trin elements, and enhanced window treatment on all elevations. Four different muted color scheme: 11 Rev. 03/28/96 * 0 a, 7 are proposed. The Plan 3 single story unit is proposed for Lots 10 and 13 fronting on Monro previously approved with detached second dwelling units, are now proposed with a Plan 2 whic is altered by the addition of a 625 square foot, one bedroom second dwelling unit located abov the single story garage. Exterior stairway access is provided to the unit and a parlung space i provided in the driveway outside of the front yard setback. SOURCE DOCUMENTS: - Note: All source documents are on file in the Plannin Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009, Phone (760) 438-1161 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan’ Updai 2. Mitigated Negative Declaration for May Subdivision (CT 97-24LCPA 97-12/ZC 9’ c Street and the remaining lots are proposed with a mix of Plans 1 and 2. Lots 7 and 8, which wer certified September 6,1994. 08/CDP 97-58) dated May 22, 1998. LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) 1. The Developer shall pay their fair share for the “short-term improvements” to the El Camin Real/ Palomar Airport Road intersection prior to issuance of a building permit. The amour shall be determined by the methodology ultimately selected by Council, including but nc limited to, an increase in the city-wide traffic impact fee; an increased or new Zone 1 LFM fee; the creation of a fee or assessment district; or incorporation into a Mello-Roos taxin district. ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE] 12 Rev. 03/28/96 FRMl : PALMTRG DFlvIS CO"UNIT1ES I 0 F"E& NO. : 619'702 2042 e Sep. 01 1999 .. , +2\558p a &PPLICANT CQKCURRENCE WlTH MUGATION ME.4SURE.S THIS 1s TO CERTIFY 'I'NAT 1 HAXT REVIES'D THE -BOW? MrnG~nn;G MEAsUIUis -437) v CON&= WITH THE ADMTiON OF TlESE MEAStRES TO lffE I'ROJEXZ* *(, LSCC &sL/y Date u Signam u .. .. ., . -. .. . . _.. _..... '. '. . . ,. ." ,... . .I .. 13 Rcv ,03/28!96 * t v . ENVIRONMENTAL MITE rn ON MONITORING CHECKLIST: I pa, QZ ak 9n m& 3: nE irj .* E$ #n 3w =o; zz WJ ~a LLZ 0 t n z 0 0 w0 1%. v) Q, Q .w .w 4% +92 no mCv P QI 2% Q. 3: Liik lii EQ 2; ig 5: DLn La $%A .P .+I E mcn =ma, m €9 g 3 .o Q LZS Fg)$ " .+I $ 2 g €5 -7 c '3 PO mE .2 .E a, 5 .ti E 3g P 5 '5 iijm- >a2 kP .p a .v, s v)2 E 5 "^W 0 Wg a,Z * 5 m= OG Z$+ UES 2 575 8"2 ea 5 oajE okE $ 2 *- 3-eF . v).PmC 5.GSZ € $g s 0 Eo -=moa, g)s "0 .+I !=a, pJ mu ow0 - con0 $ Qv) a, .- + OZQ sm* Q.= v) OL Qcl L rCX K - .- 000 *= u h 5 o= = 0 .- k; .- a, u 0 .- c "2 av) v)rc po mo 7 a,-Uc\I Kg ag .- &.E a 8 earn8 .z $ $E a, g E.9 .- CtOX pa,%& - ,o % .Po pgS c2 KX0 m.5 I= n - Pg E;;; .= 03 r a).%= 0s kxgm me 1 of1 7 I + I .5 - c G ( C C I a 0 0 E S e 0 .,. E 6 5 c II C .- c c 0: C - i - 2 3 r E d, > m S .- - - Go Kc5 5 j" 6 .r .- c s $ "a, luk x?