Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-11-17; Planning Commission; Resolution 4662d e - 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 1 e 0 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4662 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO SUBDIVIDE 4.28 ACRES INTO 12 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH 12 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND TWO SECOND DWELLING UNITS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHERN TERMINUS OF JAMES DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASE NAME: JAMES CANYON ESTATES CASE NO.: CT 98-20/SDP 99-09MDP 98-22/CDP 98-90 WHEREAS, WHEREAS, Hall Investment, Inc., “Developer”, has fil a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Alex J. Santl Ltd., “Owner”, described as Lot 16 and 17 and a portion of Lot 18 in Block “G” of Bellavista, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map No. 2152, recorded March 7, 1929 in the office of the County Recorder. (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring : Reporting Program were prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of November, 15 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 testim and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all fac relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Plam Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. . fi 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 9 0 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Plann Commission hereby APPROVE the Mitigated Negative Declaration i Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, according to Exhibit “B dated August 31, 1999, and “PII” dated July 21, 1999, attached hereto and m a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findinm: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered Mitigated Negative Declaration da August 31,1999, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project any comments thereon prior to approving the project; and b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance v requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guideli and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the CitJ Carlsbad; and d. based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evide the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Conditions: 1. This approval is granted subject to the approval of CT 98-20, SDP 99-09, HDP 98- and CDP 98-90 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commiss Resolutions 4663,4664,4665, and 4666. ... ... ... ... . .. ... ... ... ... PC RES0 NO. 4662 -2- d e e 1 2 3 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planr Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th day of November, 1999$ 11 the following vote, to wit: 4 5 6 7 8 9 AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners Compas, L’Heureux, Nielsen, Segall, and Trigas NOES: Commissioner Welshons ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 10 11 l2 COURTNEY E. 13 CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PC RES0 NO. 4662 -3 - 9 e. 2 - City of Carlsbad MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project AddresdLocation: Located in the northwest quadrant in the R-1 (One Family Residential) zone at the southern terminus of James Drive between Highland Avenue and Park Drive in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. Project Description: A tentative tract map, site development plan, hillside development permit and coastal development permit to allow the subdivision and grading of 12 standard single family lots with 12 single family homes and 2 second dwelling units on a 4.28 acre infill parcel located in the northwest quadrant in the R-1 (One Family Residential) zone at the southern terminus of James Drive between Highland Avenue and Park Drive in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the 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 the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Mitigated .Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at (760) 438-1 161, extension 4477. DATED: AUGUST 3 1,1999 CASE NO: CT 98-20/SDP 99-09/HDP 98-221CDP 98-90 CASE NAME: JAMES CANYON ESTATES PUBLISH DATE: AUGUST 3 1,1999 /uA A MICHAEL J. HMZMII~ER Planning Director 2075 La Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-1 161 - FAX (760) 438-0894 e 0 , ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CT 98-20kIDP 98-221CDP 98-90 DATE: JULY 2 1, 1999 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: JAMES CANYON ESTATES 2. APPLICANT’: HALL INVESTMENT COMPANY, INC. 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2775 VIA DE LA VALLE, SUITE 208, DEL MAR, CA 92014 4. DATE EL4 FORM PART I SUBMITTED: DECEMBER 22,1998 5. PROJECT DESCIUPTION: A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW THE SUBDIVISION AND GRADING OF 12 STANDARD SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH 12 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND TWO SECOND DWELLING UNITS ON A 4.28 FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE AT THE SOUTHERN TERMINUS OF JAMES DRIVE BETWEEN HIGHLAND AVENUE AND PARK DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. ACRE INFILL PARCEL LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST OUADRANT IN THE R-1 (ONE SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 0 Land Use and Planning TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services Population and Housing Biological Resources Utilities & Service Systems c] Geological Problems [I1 Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics 0 Water B Hazards Cultural Resources [XI Air Quality H Noise 0 Recreation [I1 Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 03128196 ~ 0 0 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [x] I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) lias been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. : 0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. t. a" * a/30/9* Planner Signature Date LA%dL&JOG- gkdyj I ' \, . Planning Director\d Sidure Date ' 2 Rev. 03/28/96 0 e ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. a A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. a “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. 0 . “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect fiom “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. a “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. a Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but &I potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). a When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. 0 A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. 3 Rev. 03/28/96 * 0 c 0 If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. e An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier Em, (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 4 Rev. 03128196 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) 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) Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 El 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area 0 0 or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) 0 population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) 5.5-6) 111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Faultrupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2) b) Seismic ground shaking? ((#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#1 :Pgs 5.1-1 - e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil 0 0 0 ((#l:PgS 5.1-1 - 5.1.15, #2) 0 0 5.1-15) , 0 0 0 0 0 conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs 0 I7 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? (#1 :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- 0 0 such as flooding? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11, #3 ) 0 0 surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved 0 0 oxygen or turbidity)? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 11, #3) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of 5 Less Than KO Significant Impact Impact mu I80 I80 OH OM OB OIx] n[xI UIXI n[xI n[xI OH OH UIXI UBI u[xI OBI u[xI n[xI UIXI Rev. 03/28/96 * a e. ENVIRONMENTAL Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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 body? ((#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) ((#i:Pgs 5.24 - 5..2-11) 11) 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) Potentially Significant Impact 17 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated III] 0 0 0 0 0 V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3- b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) d) Create objectionable odors? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) IXI 0 1 - 5.3-12) - 5.3-12) 0 0 0 0 0 0 VI. 4 b) c) d) e) f) SI TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. 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? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) 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) 5 [x] 0 IXI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats result in impacts to: (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, 0 0 animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (eg. oak (#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) 0 0 forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) 0 0 6 Less Than No Significant Impact Impact urn OH 05 05 OH 05 00 0.5 OH om 00 UKI OIXI 05 OIXI UIXI OB NU OH Ea0 Rev. 03/28/96 c ENVIRONMENTAL 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 (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) - 5.4-24) 0 0 VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13- c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and . the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 proposal? (#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 1 - 5.13-9) & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential e) Increase 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) 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) 1 - 5.9-15) 17 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6) b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4) c) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1, e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 0 0 0 0 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 e Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant impact Mitigation Incorporated Unless Impact 0 OH 17 OH 0 OH 0 .[XI 0' [XI 0 om 0 0151 0 0151 0151 0 OH 151 on 0' 0 [XI mu 0 OH 0 mu 0 LIB 0 0151 0 0151 Rev. 03/28/96 e ENVIRONMENTAL Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant !mpact b) Communications systems? (#l; pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7) e) Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8) f) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3) g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 0 o 0 facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) 5.12.3-7) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5) 5.11-1 - 5.11-5) 0 0' 5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5) 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- c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the 10) 10) o 0 0 0 0 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: .. a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 - b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#1 :Pgs 0 5.12.8-7) 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 8 0 Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact WIh8 LmpaGt Mitigation Incorporated 0 om OH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [XI [XI [XI [XI 0 OB 0 OB 0 OH El OB 0 OH nIxI 0 Elm 0 0 nIxI OB OB 0 OIxI Rev. 03/28/96 s 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis of ths proposed 12 lot subdivision has been completed through the General Plan Update (GPA 94-01) and related Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR 93-01). The MEIR is cited as source #1 in the preceding checklist. This proposal is consistent with the applicable portions of the General Plan and within the scope of MEIR 93-01. A mitigation measure is proposed to reduce the project’s cumulative impact on traffic which is the only potentially significant impact identified for the project not analyzed and mitigated in the MEIR. All feasible mitigation measures identified in MEIR 93-01 which are appropriate to the project have’been incorporated into the project. 0 OB 0 0 om DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING This project, which is located in the northwest quadrant at the southern terminus of James Drive between Hillside Drive and Park Drive in the R-1 (One Family Residential) zone, consists of the subdivision and grading of a 4.28 acre parcel into 12 standard single family lots with 12 single family residences and two second dwelling units. The project site is designated by the General Plan for Residential Low Medium (RLM) density land use allowing a maximum of 3.2 dwelling units per developable acre under the Growth Management growth control point (gcp) regulations. The site, which is surro,unded by existing single family development, consists of an irregularly shaped vacant lot which has been previously disturbed by undocumented grading and illegal dumping. Vegetation on the site consists of disturbed native and non-native plant species including two potentially sensitive plant species, Torrey Pine and Wart stemmed Ceanothus. Topographically, the site consists of elevations that range from 94’ to approximately 166’ above sea level and is characterized primarily by gently to moderately sloping natural terrain that descends generally to the east from the northwest and southwest property boundaries and by an existing, relatively level building pad surrounded by manufactured 1 : 1 and 2: 1 slopes in the area along Hillside Drive. A large, approximately 15’ deep north-south trending unimproved drainage course traverses the property although storm water is currently carried through the property by a 48 inch storm drain located within a 20’ storm drain and sewer easement. Sidewalls of the drainage course are very steep to vertical and exhibit numerous slope failures. Existing infrastructure and public utilities serve the project from James Drive, a Iocal street that the project will extend approximately 650’ to the south where a cul-de-sac will be created. The proposed project grading necessitates 17,000 cubic yards of import to create building pads for 12 9 Rev. 03128196 a -0 0 single family lots ranging in size from 7,809 square feet to 22,688 square feet in area. One and two-story single family homes are proposed and two of the units will have second dwelling units to satisfy the project’s inclusionary housing requirement. 11. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS A. Environmental Impact Discussion I. Land Use dc) The proposed density of 3.3 ddacre is consistent with the applicable General Plan Residential Low Medium (EM) density land use designation (0 - 4 ddacre) which would allow for the development of a maximum 13 lots/units using the Growth Management growth control point of 3.2 ddacre. However, the subdivision is located in LFMP Zone 1 where project density may exceed the growth control point if the applicable zoning would allow a higher yield and additional public facilities are in place to satisfy the additional demand. The proposed subdivision is infill and all required public facilities are adequate to satisfy the additional demand The parcel is zoned R-1 allowing minimum 7,500 square foot lots. While the R-1 zoning would allow 5 ddacre, consideration is also given to compatibility with respect to existing lot sizes in the surrounding area. The project site, which is currently vacant, is surrounded by existing single family lots of varying size. The proposed 7,809 - 22,628 square foot lots are compatible with surrounding development in that existing lots adjacent to the proposed subdivision range in size from approximately 7,500 square feet to larger one-half to one acre parcels. Consistent with the existing and proposed development, the larger parcels in the area which can be further subdivided, are likely to create parcels similar in size to those proposed. Additional compatibility considerations include subdivision and grading design. The proposed design would extend James Drive approximately 650’ to the south where a cul-de-sac will be created. A second, very short cul-de-sac street that interesects with the James Drive extension will provide access to four lots in the northwestern portion of the site. No access would be provided from Hillside Drive due to traffic safety concerns. Generally the pad elevations are within 5’ of existing grade and single family units are one and two story, consistent with surrounding residential development. Rear yard 2: lslopes are created that ascend to Hillside Drive and a 30’ descending slope at the rear of Lot 12 is necessitated to create a building pad for that lot. The single family lot abutting Lot 12 to the southeast is currently vacant and its building pad height will likely have to increase to enable access from Hillside Drive. When this occurs, the slope on Lot 12 is likely to be substantially reduced in height. A covenant of easement to enable grading to reduce the Lot 12 slope will be a condition of project approval. b) The project is consistent with Mello I1 LCP policies limiting grading to the summer season (April - October) and preservation of steep slopes (25%+) possessing coastal sage scrub and chaparral plant communities (dual criteria). The project is consistent with these policies in that the project will be conditioned to restrict grading to the summer season, and the site contains no dual criteria slopes. Additionally, the Mello I1 hydrology standards require the drainage system to be designed to ensure that runoff resulting from a 10 year frequency storm of 6 hours and 24 hours duration under developed conditions, are less than or equal to the runoff from a storm of the same frequency and duration under existing conditions. The project has been designed so that runoff from the project will be substantially less than existing after development is completed.. 10 Rev. 03/28/96 c. 6 0 0 V. Air Quality The implementation of projects that are consistent with and within the scope of the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the 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 variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted, The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. VI., TransportatiodCirculation 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 Palomar 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 $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 “Subsequent 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. 11 Rev. 03128196 r. e 0. The implementation of projects that are consistent with and within the scope of the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all fieeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections 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 measures 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, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations’’ for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of Ovemding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. b) The project will require the import of 17,000 cubic yards of fill dirt and the export of an unknown quantity of unsuitable surface soils (trash and debris, undocumented fill, topsoil, and alluvium). This will result in the transport of approximately 850 truck loads of fill dirt and an unknown number of truck loads of unsuitable surface soils past existing single family residences and Valley Junior High School to complete the proposed grading. Although this impact would be temporary, the additional noise and safety hazard created by truck traffic through and adjacent to a school and single family neighborhood is a potentially significant impact without mitigation. The applicant has agreed to mitigate this impact by limiting the transport of fill and removal of unsuitable soils to the hours between 9:OO a.m. to 2:OO p.m. daily. This will avoid conflicts with pedestrian traffic to and from the school and avoid disturbance to residents during the early morning and late afternoon and evening hours. VII. Biological Resources The site is largely void of native vegetation and is described by biologists (Royce Riggan of RBRiggan and Denise Dixon of REC) as disturbed, dominated by non-native plant species. No endangered, threatened or sensitive wildlife species were observed. The existing drainage swale is deeply incised and does not support a definable wetland. With the following two exceptions, no endangered, threatened or sensitive plant species were encountered on the site. A single individual of Torrey Pine is located on the site, however, it is a very large shrub-like aspect of the tree which has sprouted from a stump and is not a relict of a former natural stand of trees. No further consideration is given since it is not considered sensitive coastal vegetation. Approximately 6 individuals of Wart stemmed Ceanothus are located within two relictual stands 12 Rev. 03/28/96 ? 0 0 6 of mixed chaparral. The mixed chaparral stands are approximately .15 acres each and disturbed and disjunct from any significant adjacent stands of natural vegetation. The chaparral does not occur on coastal slopes (>25% gradient), and does not constitute (because of its size and isolation) a significant wildlife habitat. The collection of Ceanothus are small in stature and an association of this small number of plants does not constitute either a viable or necessarily . significant stand. More action to preserve or mitigate any impacts to this species are inappropriate. Therefore, given the heavily disturbed nature of the site, the very limited resource and wildlife habitat value of the vegetation present, and the level of surrounding urban development, it is concluded that implementation of the project as proposed will not result in significant biological resources. X. Noise Construction activities, including the transport of fill dirt to the site and removal of unsuitable soils from the site, will temporarily increase noise levels within the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The applicant has agreed to mitigate this potentially significant noise impact by limiting the transport of fill to the site and removal of unsuitable soils from the site to the hours between 9:00 a.m. to 2:OO p.m. daily. This will avoid disturbance to residents during the early morning and late afternoon and evening hours. XI. Public Services b) Fire Protection The project, which is located at the end of an existing local public street (James Drive), will create a cul-de-sac. The length of the cul-de-sac exceeds the length permitted by City policy, however, there is no alternative design. The surrounding area is currently developed with single family homes, and access fiom Hillside Drive which abuts the property along its western boundary and provides the logical secondary access point, would create a traffic safety hazard. To ensure timely emergency response, the Fire Department will condition the project to require that all structures be protected by approved fire sprinkler systems due to the inability to conform to the City’s secondary access and cul-de-sac standards. 11. EARLIER ANALYSES USED The following documents were used in the ,analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92009, (760) 438-1 161, extension 4477. 1. Final Master Environmental ImDact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department. dated August 8, 1989, and 1998, prepared by Crosby Mead Benton & Associates. September 28, 1989 prepared by RBRiggan and Associates and update letter for “Carlsbad Tract 88-5” (currently CT 98-20) dated April 21, 1999 fiom Denise Dixon, Associate Biologist, REC. 2. “Preliminary Geotechmcal Investigation”, prepared by Hetherington Engineering, Inc. 3. “Preliminary Hydrologic and Hydraulic Report - James Canyon Estates” dated December 4. “A Biological Survey of City of Carlsbad Tract 88-5” (currently CT 98-20) dated 13 Rev. 03/28/96 7 e 4 - ~UU-LO-YY rnu 10; i6 0 r. IS .-_.. .- WG MEAS-CIEEl 1. T'he hWeloper shall pay their fair share for the "'shon-rexm improvements" 10 thc El Camin0 Rd khnar Airpm Road htewstir~n prim to approval ofthc final map or the issuance of 8 gEdng pmit, whichever occurs first. The amount shall be detcnnincd by the m&dsllogY Uimateiy selected by Council, including bur not iimited to, an iacrease in the cir)l-wide &c impact fee; an increased or new Zone 1 LL"p fee; the creation of B fcc or assessment &&a; or incorpora.ton into a Meflo-Roos raxiy disaict 2. Tndss nm~o~8 fill dirt to thc gite and unsuitable soils from the sile bngh th~ mistillg nclghborhoods and adjacent to Valley funior Uigh School are restricted to the hours betvleen 9;OO am. to 200 p.m- daily. r,TC',QlT CTfNCWCE WTI.1- THIS IS TO CERTIFY lHAT 1 HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOn MmCAmG MEASWS AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDiTION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROEa. *% sip& % Date r ': . .. 14 RCV. 03/28/96 r- ~OHJ c'I1- I Tt!n!hJ!:!nC. 'A2-/! '17WC1 ~pp~TPpc,Tq 57 :8rA 6GF.T (, 7 '8 ENVIRONMENTAL MITILA d ON MONITORING CHECKLIST: @ 1 of 1 0 03 Q) I- o CY i/j IY W m 2 3 z !i! - LL v) W l- I- v) W z a e z o v) W I a a 7 w z a z F 0 ul OL 6 a 0; n .. w cj W z 5 0 k n z 0 0 cn 03 cn 7 IY W m P 0 0 w l- a n -I s 0 IY a a a ,"%;_x m13a .g; $ E2 $ ,o .o 4 5 .E + .- m uo c S!G .E 3 8 8 ES " C '5 20 rLz 2 $.gal LE$) P 5 '5 $h) 280, a22 #2 E 6 ""# 0 .P a, 0 '"5 a7 # 5 mz uE$ g Ea b O2 ea 5 QajE a,sg & g .- 5.ESZ $% 3z sa + ms c .- E -0- =Q- .E Qc L u-x s 000 'E u A F % 003 - a,+ s- .- a, u .E 0 s 3 .- m.- mcq gF A a,# a,"auc\l E $2 s Y=moa, o E5 m om .- m3 -=#am Ca, €500 - mag $J a# C.E m z a-r LJ go## .sEmW a, g E.o '$a,%& 5 .a, :E a u_Y- c E;;; ~2 n.0 pga C S a,c 0.5 C n c s.G 3 - 0-0 mo 13 a" cur,- 1-.?5m L 5 u- L a, 0 c as 5b - if .- E; =E a 2s f '5 m .z .ccn mm B a0 0 g .E €u 0) 25, cas %: :: € m5 cvz 2; F 3 E B II .- 5 Ow$ 'E 8 3 ._ c .- K2 V) ._ c.- f :i $2 $4 3s: j F$ - ." 1 7352; 9rr a ,!j .' L - m S V .- 5 Q m S 13) .- :T. c b E e P L - al m 8 0 Q m 2! s V c a, 0) $6 L .- - 5 0- z ;;as@ E.G Q) m 5 6g.: 2 P II m 00 E b " Q.e 0 -. c .P .? 0) 5 * - [ii' fJ .% Wl-3 3 d C ENVIRONMENTAL MlTlGA 1) ON MONITORING CHECKLIST: P@ 1 of 1 0 eo Q) I- o irj .. 04 =ci 3w zz w_I "a LLZ 0 E n z 0 0 9 z8 UI to I- CnQ, UIQ, Q, Zr 2 Zr !22 4= .. GS WE 0,. ab cnE on WE za an W z_I wo wn aa $Z> mca -= v) a, a' E .- a, v) '0 0 0 04 5 .& + ' LFa, €5 v) -00 oSQ .- cv)a g 2 + $ €5 -5 c -3 LO I1.E uI m-z .- v, .E) a, 5 .= E LE2 p 2z .- -mu 0s Fa,2? 280 SAC.. 5 a .g E v)? E 2 O"W 0 ms 0 .B a, a-E v) 5 m= 0-05 zs+ .- a, 2 ; p m 0 -0- b 03 24 g 8E .- c $2 a,sg 5 g .- 3-z- . v).EGg %.Egz 2% sz € $2 c ea, SA9 .smoa, 0 E'S m 00 .- 0s -E3 8% CI ca, - an0 9amU-l c.g m a, a,-c 2 €ma3 Qb .g u-Y c 000 -= -0 h .- z g5 Cuv) a-uhl gam: s-z 5 -2 E a,ol: a, g E.2 0.5 c E '3 a,z& - 9 %.PO 2s E; c cur a,.!4= E25Z s s.0 3 .e 03 (I) Y, 2 2 .- c 0 U+ m a,s Ea 'E E kGS - c :2 3m (I) gzi c c a, a S r a, m a, Q .- m a a, c W S a 0 S c e S S m E .- L n S \ .- L .- 8 ti a S Y 'C a, 2 on 0 a, => s Sk 5 m h EX z€ a, a0 -rY a, *ci sa 5E "8 5 .'. a q E2 a,: 0L-i 2 2% - .E 8 c obi ro LL - - iF 0 .- + ZO P mc s2 a YE $5 LS sa, = 22 c gi : 0a 0 3% €6 Pr .- sa E2 25 -22 k2 c € .g sa5 %e U'a, (I).- E €22 L- SQZ z$)z s LE.& Imo h 3 v) m .- ge %% 33 .- a .E Q t3) .- m oc a,= 8g s z 0 u- L - 9s 56 - gq- .- E2 =E a, Bg 8% 5 'E :$ P .- -c .= g .r 50 0 05.2 .- mu Lo ..-ass '5 m c: a 9 r .m c a- 0 3zg II 'a, b 0-g Loo, 0 .- cQ u, =E 2 22 -gap grn $E ;E"$ a,.3 92zz 28: g =- L.5 .- >w - z -5 3 0 .- m m m S 0 c .- L c .- E L P n a, u) S - oa Lo 92 s 2 L a, u) '= 0 $: - ;d E: In "-5 g g.gg2 2 %a E I: g 'I. s 'i; " E.B .. 3 E . .- c - li" 5 a,'C II 5 ul-z