The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1999-11-17; Planning Commission; Resolution 4649c 0 0 n, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4649 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION DIVIDE, GRADE AND DEVELOP A 9 LOT, 5 UNIT RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ON 1.19 ACRES LOCATED NORTH OF LA COSTA AVENUE AND EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6 CASE NAME: LA COSTA GREENS CASE NO.: CT 98-23PUD 98-08/SUP 98-10EtDP 98-25 WHEREAS, Legacy Development, a California Limited Liability CI “Developer”/”Owner”, has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad I property described as MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO SUB- Lots 9 and 10 of La Costa Greens, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof No. 6708, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, August 10,1970 (“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 3rd day of Novemb and on the 17th day of November, 1999, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribe to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all tc and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by SI considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered a1 relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Rt Program. 0 0 w 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 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission hereby APPROVES the Mitigated Negative Declaral Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program according to Exhil dated September 3,1999, and “PII” dated July 6,1999, attached hereto a a part hereof, based on the following findings and subject to the fc condition: Findinm: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: A. It has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declara Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the environmental therein identified for this project and any comments thereon 1 APPROVING the project; and B. the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordar requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State GL and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and C. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the Carlsbad; and D. based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial 6 the project will have a significant effect on the environment. 2. That this project could have a potentially significant negative cumulativt impact on the Palomar Airport Road/El Camino Real intersection. Howel project has been conditioned to pay its fair share of the “short-term improve thereby guaranteeing implementation of a mitigation measure that redu potential impact to a level of insignificance. Conditions: 1. The Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of the La Costa Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 1 ,.. ~ ... ... PC RES0 NO. 4649 -2- 0 0 . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th day of November, the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners Compas, L’Heure Nielsen, Segall, Trigas, and Welshons NOES: 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11 PC RES0 NO. 4649 -3- 0 0 . - City of MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Address/Location: APN: 216-310-09 &lo, North side of La Costa Avenue, 200r feet east of El Camino Real and west of Anillo Way in the Cit of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. Project Description: A nine lot subdivision of two existing parcels, on La Costa Avenue ea: of El Camino Real and west of Anillo Way, containing 1.1 9 acres of lan for the development of five, three story, single-family detached units o separate lots, three open space lots, and a lot for a private cul-de-sa street to provide access. The project requires grading and imp01 material to create the access drive and developable pads which wi encroach into the 100 year flood plain. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described projec pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act an1 the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, th 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 th proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid th effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environmer 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 thj 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 from th public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 2 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Van Lynch in the Plannin Department at (760) 438-1 16 1, extension 4447. DATED: September 3, 1999 CASE NO: CT 98-23 / PUD 98-08 / SUP 98-10 / HDP 98-25 CASE NAME: La Costa Greens PUBLISH DATE: September 3,1999 hhu QibUQbA . ,, ,, i’ MICHAEL J. WZ~LLER Planning Director 98 H:-lates\Mitipated NegD( 2075 La Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 (760) 438-1 161 FAX (760) 438-08 0 m - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CT 98-23/ PUD 98-OS/ SUP 98-10/ HDP 98-2 DATE: July 6, 199 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: LA COSTA GREENS 2. APPLICANT: LEGACY DEVELOPMENT, LLC 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2614 Unicornio Street. Carlsbad C. 92009 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: December 3 1,1998 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A nine lot subdivision of two existing parcels, on La Costa AvenL east of El Camino Real and west of Anillo Way, containing 1.19 acres of land for tl development of five, three story, single-family detached units on separate lots. three ouen sua( lots, and a lot for a private cul-de-sac street to provide access. The proiect requires 7,700 cu Y( of grading and 7,500 cu vds of import material to create the access drive and develouable uac which will encroach into the 100 year flood plain. Proiect includes adding sidewalk along I Costa Avenue and connecting into the existing sewer line that traverses the site. Proiect requirc a Tentative Man Planned Unit Development Permit, Suecial Use Permit for encroachment in1 the flood plain, and Hillside Development Permit. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this projec involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impa Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 0 Land Use and Planning H TransportatiordCirculation 0 Public Services c] Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities LG Service Systems 0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics Ix] Water 0 Hazards c] Cultural Resources IxI Air Quality Ix] Noise Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 03/28/96 e 0 DETERMINATION. ., (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on th environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. w I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on th environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigatio measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATE1 NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and a ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but ; least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlic document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigatia measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An Negatia Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on tf- environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potential1 significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Master Environment; Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voide or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-01 including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed projec Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. .yy& g? -30 -47 Planner gnature Date Planning Directw Sign'dure Date I 2 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL, IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the Cit conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significar effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the followin pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and huma factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information t use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negativ 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 ar adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following eac question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced informatio sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. 1 “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, c it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. 0 “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that th potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopte general standards and policies. 0 “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporatio of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and th City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce th effect to a less than significant level. 0 “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that a effect is significant. 0 Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significa effect on the environment, but &l 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 up0 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). 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 E1 pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement ( Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. 0 A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence th the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. 3 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 e If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing a EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, an those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In thi case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. a An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and includin but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect ha not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, an the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less tha significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact ha not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduc the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is nc possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, c determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significar effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of th form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attentio should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determine significant. 4 Rev. 03128196 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact 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) Be 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) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community) ? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) (#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) 0 0 0 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) Induce 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 - c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable 0 0 5.5-6) housing? (#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? (#1 :Pgs d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs I7 I7 0 0 5.1-1 - 5.1.15, #2) 5.1-15) 0 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2) g) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2) h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2) 0 IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2- b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11, # 2) 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) 0 0 El 11) 5 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated I7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than No Significant Impact Impact OIxI OH ow ow OB om n[XI om om ON nIxI ow nIxI ow nw om om la0 IxIn OH Rev. 03/28/96 0 Issues (and 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, # 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? (#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 body? (#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11, # 2) (#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 1 1) 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 0 I7 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- 1 - 5.3-12) 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) lxl - 5.3-12) 0 0 VI. 4 b) c) d) e) f) s) TRANSPORTATIONICIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) 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) IXI 0 0 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)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) 0 0 0 (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) 6 e Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Unless Impact Mitigation Incoruorated 0 0 [XI 0 0 0 0 0 0 I7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rev. 031 No Impact IXI 0 El [XI [XI Izl 0 IXI [XI [XI [XI El BI [XI IXI [XI [XI 151 [XI '28196 e Issues (and 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 (# 1 :PgS 5.4- 1 - 5.4-24) - 5.4-24) 0 VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13- 1 - 5.13-9) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) proposal: (#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 0 0 I7 IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, 5.10.1-5) hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) 0 0 0 0 0 X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9- b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9- 15) o 0 1 - 5.9-15, # 3) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6) b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4) 0 0 0 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) 0 XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 0 7 @ Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact Mitigation Incorporated Unless Impact 0 u[XI 0 OH OH 0 0 0 ow LIB 0151 0151 0 0151 0 OH 0 0151 OH 0 El0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H [XI [XI [XI ow 0 0151 Rev. 03/28/96 0 a Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incomorated b) Communications systems? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7) e) Storm water drainage? (#1 :Pg 5.2-8) f) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3) g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - n I 0 UIXI UIXI 0 0 0 l”l facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) -, - 5.12.3-7) ” - U Ti 0 0 la [XI IXI [XI XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs b) Have or demonstrate a negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5) 5.11-1 - 5.11-5) 0 OH 0 0 om 0 0 um (#l:PgS 5.11-1 - 5.11-5) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8- b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8- 10) 0 0 UIXI 101 17 I7 om 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 0 UIXI 0 UIXI potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) 0 UIXI 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) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#1 :Pgs 0 OIXI 0 UIXI 5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7) XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce 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? 0 0 OH 8 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact 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? I7 0 Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impacl Mitigation Incomorated Unless Impact 0 UBI LIB 9 Rev. 03/28/96 0 e XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQ, process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negatil declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify tk following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are availab: for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checkli were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursua to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed k mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigatic 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. 10 Rev. 03128196 a 0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site is 1.19 acres in size and is located on the north side of La Costa Avenue, 2,lC feet east of El Camino Real. The site is sloped downward at 2:l from the La Costa Avent roadway for the first quarter of the property, then gently down-sloped (< 10%) northerly for tl remainder of the site. The topography ranges from 52 ASL to 14 feet ASL. The northwest cornc of the property extends into the San Marcos Creek. A concrete lined drainage ditch, whic collects runoff from the properties east of the site and south of the La Costa golf course, traversc the northern portion of the site which drains into the San Marcos Creek. An existing golf ca bridge crosses the ditch parallel to San Marcos Creek. The site has been disturbed by grading fi La Costa Avenue and other past fill activity as identified in the geotechnical report. The site h: been used by the La Costa Country Club as a green waste recycling area and is void of ar significant habitat. 11. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS I. Land Use and Planning The project site is designated Residential High in the Carlsbad General Plan (15-23 dwellir units per acre) and zoned Residential Density-Multiple (RD-M). The proposed five unit proje density is 4.2 units per acre. The surrounding development consist of multi-family attach< product to the east, San Marcos Creek and La Costa Golf course to the north, vacant land to tl west, and La Costa Avenue, a secondary arterial, to the south. 11. Population and Housing The development of the vacant site with five units is less than the density anticipated in tl General Plan and will not induce substantial growth as all infrastructure to serve the in-fill si and surrounding area is in place. IV. Water The project site is located adjacent to San Marcos Creek. The development of the residenti land use, including cul-de-sac street, driveways, patios and roof area would all result in mo impervious surfaces and increase runoff from the site. Chapter 15.12 of the Carlsbad Municip Code requires that development utilize best management practices to prevent pollutants fro entering storm water conveyance systems by complying with all applicable provisions of loc ordinances and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Stor Water Discharges. There is no development proposed in the San Marcos Creek floodway, however, the proposc development is located in the floodplain adjoining the floodway. The project’s floodpla analysis prepared by Crosby, Mead, Benton and Associates, dated April 23, 1999 indicates th the proposed grading and filling in the San Marcos Creek floodplain would not significant impact the limits of inundation, create erosive velocities, or result in any appreciable increase the water surface elevation. The proposed elevation of the residential building pads and priva street would be above the limits of the 100 year flood level. The project would not significant 11 Rev. 03/28/96 a 0 change the direction of surface water movement or ground water flow, therefore not impactin the adjoining properties. 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 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 th 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 th 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 variet of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provision for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measure to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Deman 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 anc appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into thl 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, th, preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by Cit Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of 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, nc further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at thc Planning Department. VI. TransportatiodCirculation The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updatec 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequatt to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 hll and 2 partial intersections will be severel] impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. Thesc generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbac Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersection: are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measure5 to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestriar linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies wher adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic fiom a failing Interstate or State Highwaq onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The 12 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either bee incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of th failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, thereforc the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project I consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because th recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, include a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement C Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan‘ Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulatio impacts is required. The City has received its annual Growth Management Traffic Monitoring Report. The Repon has recorded an unanticipated intersection “level of service” (LOS) failure at Palomar Airpor Road (PAR) and El Camino Real (ECR) during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Thic potentially creates a changed circumstance negating reliance on previous environmenta documentation. Pursuant to 5 15 162 of the CEQA Guidelines a lead agency must prepare i “Subsequent” environmental documentation if substantial evidence (i.e., the recordec intersection failure) determines that a changed circumstance exists. However, case law hz interpreted this section of the CEQA Guidelines to not require the preparation of a “Subsequen EIR’ if mitigation measures are adopted which reduce the identified impacts to a level 0: insignificance. A mitigation measure has been identified which, if implemented, will bring the peak hours LO into the acceptable range. The mitigation measure involves construction of two dual right tur lanes-northbound to eastbound and westbound to northbound. This project has been conditione to pay its fair share of the intersection “short-term improvements,” thereby guaranteein mitigation to a level of insignificance. X. NOISE Temporary construction activities will be required to comply with the City’s construction nois ordinance (Chapter 8.48 of the Municipal Code). Otherwise, the project will generate only tt normal amount of noise associated with residential uses (i.e. barking dogs, audio equipmen vehicle noise, garden power equipment, etc.). The project site is subject to noise from the adjacent golf course activities and La Costa Avenul Based on the findings in the project’s Environmental Noise Assessment Report prepared b Giroux and Associates, dated March 1, 1999, the project, because of its distance and elevatia below La Costa Avenue, will not be subject to significant noise impacts. XI. PUBLIC FACILITIES C) Schools. The project is conditioned to pay the statutory school impact fees which has bee determined to adequately mitigate any impacts to school facilities. 13 Rev. 03/28/96 e 111. EARLIER ANALYSES USED 0 . The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City c Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 9200! (760) 43 8- 1 16 1, extension 447 1. 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Updai 2. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation proposed 5 condominiums, Barry and Associate; (MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department. September 30, 1998. 1999 3. Acoustical Impact Analvsis. La Costa Greens P.U.D., Giroux and Associates, March 14 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 1 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) The Developer shall pay their fair share for the “short-term improvements” to the El Camin Real/ Palomar Airport Road intersection prior to approval of the final map or the issuance of grading permit, whichever occurs first. The amount shall be determined by the methodolog ultimately selected by Council, including but not limited to, an increase in the city-wide traffj impact fee; an increased or new Zone 6 LFMP fee; the creation of a fee ( assessment district; or incorporation into a Mello-Roos taxing district. c ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) See Attachment 15 Rev. 03/28/96 - * b APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES W THIS 1s TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGAT~G MEASURES AN CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. d - d I Date 16 Rev. 03/28/96 . I - ENVIRONMENTAL MlTlG a ON MONITORING CHECKLIST: @e 1 of 1 I v) 03 Q) 9 n h P 0 03 Q) P 3 r I 2 4 n E Y .. S6 co co Q) 3 m g: ojw c!j fP gz mn za wg W J!= iL2 v) z w W CL 0 2 4 v) 0 0 IiiF w za an ZJ kg 5E wn na ZZA .P+ E mc:n =ma, €2: o Ea & .G z 72: .- g 2 : €5 .- s '5 20 .z .g a, 5- E LE2 p I: '5 -go- ?we 250 2: .f a .z 9 m$ E 'Io"., 'E .- u > 7 Eo 0 .E a, 0 ms a7 m 5 ms +SU- Om7 .r a, u on5 S€ m 0 u- b OS Ea 5 Q~E a,5e & 2 .- 3-z 2 n m.Emq 5.GSZ $5 3: a,"aN E $2 s ss QS -;;moa, 0 €5 m om .- m3 -E% E: + ca, - ma0 s Qm $.E2 g p 2 2 -e 0 O3Q Kmm + Qg 3 c U-Y K 000 - .- .- e ou am c3 gamm .r/p-oa, c s me a, g E.2 m-5 c n .- c c.o 3 3 wzk - 0-0 ma - a,za pz Er;; c a,.%= a= I-Zdrn v) m E $ K - C 0 .- $$ .+- .- c ea, &E >a, E. " S sc om ism Oh 5 - .& a .E mE m sa m .- 4-8 bg g SEE - n am .Ea,ZrS, .- 9 g3.G gk .su= 2 LS 2% smo a,r u 02-0 a,ab a, 0 s 25- a, .- ye; E a,.& 5g E5.g mz c$Nz "m Ea,Z_xm 3u " "FS Z:: mGC6 + m 0 €.E 8 E; p)(3 a$= &u :2 mE >r -mm.E a, a,+ Q, 2kz r mQ m mu L Col,32 am, 5 I:miESOUG,K 3 Lw a, 0 0"- us s 0.2 z sgE$a, 5 LSL 5;f .- 0 .E -E - a, E-, mg ;;; I: m ([JI: a, s 5-4 ._ m 32 Q-p5+2 O s nw 23y5 =3 0 (== a, 2% E a,z.E 2 (Is L- .6 %:Eo.g a, s 9 a, "0.' a,==-& 0 >€.Em cal&)s g 2 m=O 3a E c a, a%" m >r.t:LL" AZO .- a, a,+ L E Q%" + ma, >o .Id 0 =a m&u s nm m3 L.E3 03 a, "m k L .s * c-- =z as a+ t: a, -0uo 5= mm-=> n>a,m:no a,a,"La,3T, 0 I-.E.G 0 ma 0J.G 7 c * i .i - S < ( < 3 < < < I S < t c 5 S < I .f I ; < S - 7 'i j / ! I ! 5 Q( .! Gi SI 2: c Oi mC sc .- 0 E! 'I CI - 5; Wt