The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1999-12-01; Planning Commission; Resolution 4672II II a ll I ll PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4672 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW LOCATED WEST OF PI0 PIC0 DRIVE, SOUTH OF YOURELL AVENUE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASE NAME: TALLMAN PROPERTY CASE NO.: CDP 99-18EIDP 99-09 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY GENERALLY 9 11 WHEREAS, Jeffrey C. And Pamela Tallman, “Owner/Developer”, have file( 10 11 verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property, described as 12 13 14 That portion of Tract 7 of Laguna Mesa Tract, County of San Diego, State of California, as per Map No. 1719, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, 6-20-21, as described in Attachment “A” ll (“the Property”); and 15 16 17 20 the project was redesigned based on written and verbal input; and l9 WHEREAS, subsequent to the public notice and review and comment peril 18 and Reporting Program was prepared in conjunction with said project; and 22 21 WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitori: WHEREAS, the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitori and Reporting Program were amended on November 10, 1999, based on the redesign 23 I/ project; and 24 25 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimo: 26 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 1st day of December, 199 27 11 and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, a- 28 considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factc relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 9 e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Plann Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Plam Commission hereby APPROVES the Mitigated Negative Declaration : Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program according to Exhibit ’T dated September 8, 1999, and “PII” dated July 27, 1999, and as amenc November 10, 1999, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on following findings: 9 Findinys: 10 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered Mitigated Negative Declaratiol Tallman Property, the environmental impacts therein identified for this pro] and said comments thereon, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program, on file in the Planning Department, prior to APPROVING the projc and b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring 2 Reporting Program have been prepared in accordance with requirements of California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and c. they reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the Cit] Carlsbad; and l9 II d. based on the EM Part I1 and comments thereon, the Planning Commission, tf 2o I/ is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on environment. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 e. recirculation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration is not required pursu to Section 15073.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that: 1) Mitigation measures are replaced with equal or more effective measu pursuant to Section 15074.1 of CEQA guidelines; and 2) New project revisions are added in response to written or ver comments on the project’s effects identified in the proposed mitiga negative declaration which are not new avoidable significant effects; ar 3) Measures or conditions of project approval are added after circulatior the mitigated negative declaration which are not required by CE( which do not create new significant environmental effects and are necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect; and )I PC RES0 NO. 4672 -2- e 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4) New information is added to the mitigated negative declaration wh merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to mitigated negative declaration. Conditions: 1. The Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the Tallman Prope Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Plann Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of December, 1999, by following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners Compas, L’Heureux, Segall, Trigas, and Welshons NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Nielsen ABSTAIN: - COURTNEY E. HEINEMkN, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: Planning Director 1 1 )I PC RES0 NO. 4672 -3- - MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project AddresdLocation: West side of Pi0 Pic0 Drive between Yourell Avenue and Forest Avenue (APN 156-350-08 and -09). Project Description: The proposal consists of a Coastal Development Permit, Hillside Development Permit, and Adjustment Plat to adjust the boundary lines of two existing parcels and to grade and construct a new single-family residence on one of the two lots. 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 (EM 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 Barbara Kennedy in the Planning Department at (760) 438-1 161, extension 4455. DATED: September 8, 1999 CASE NO: CDP 99-18/HDP 99-09/ADJ 538 CASE NAME: Tallman Property PUBLISH DATE: September 8, 1999 Planning Director 2075 La Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 - (760) 438-1 161 - FAX (760) 438-0894 * * ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CDP 99-18mDP 99-09/ADJ 538 REVISED DATE: November 10,1999 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: TALLMAN PROPERTY 2. APPLICANT: Jeffrey and Pamela Tallman 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1833 So. Coast Hw, Oceanside 92054 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: April 7,1999 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed lot line adjustment, grading, and construction of a new single-family residence. APN 156-350-08 and 09 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. Land Use and Planning Ix] TransportatiodCirculation c] Public Services Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources c] Utilities & Service Systems m Geological Problems Energy & Mineral Resources c] Aesthetics Water 0 Hazards c] Cultural Resources [x] Air Quality 0 Noise Recreation 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 03128196 a e 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. 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 MITIGATED 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. 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) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An EWeg Dec 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 Master Environmental Impact Review WEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-01), including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. 1 91,/7'? P1S;mer Signature ' L Date ' Date I I" 2 Rev. 03/28/96 * 0 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. e 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 To 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. a “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “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 glJ 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. e 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 0 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. 0 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 Ovemding Considerations” for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (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 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? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) 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) ? (# 1 :Pgs 5.6- 1 - 5.6- 18) 0 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 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? (#l: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 0 0 0 o 0 5.1-1 - 5.1.15) 5.1-15) 0 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) g) Subsidence ofthe land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) 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) 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 I7 11) 5 m Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated El 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Impact 0 w w la w ow OB 0 ow 0 OH ow 0 ow 0 nw ow 0 wu 0 OB 0 ow 0 UBI MU ow ow Rev. 03128196 0 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) (#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 1 1) 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 I7 0 0 0 No impact w IXI lxl lxl w w 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) [XI on 1 - 5.3-12) - 5.3-12) ow nw 0 0 ow VI. a) b) c) dl e) f) g) TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) 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? 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) (#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) (#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) (#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) [XI 0 on 0 ow 0 0 UBI ow 0 o nw 0 0 ow 0 ow 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 ow 0 0 uw 0 nw (#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) 6 Rev. 03/28/96 0 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- 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) 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? (#1 :Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, 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) 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? e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - (#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) 5.12.8-7) XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 17 17 0 0 I7 0 Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact Mitigation Incorporated Unless Impact 0 ow ow 0 n[XI 0 up3 0 UEI 0 ow 0 nw 0 ON UIXI ow OBI 0 ow [I] 0 [I] 0 0 0 0 [XI N [XI ow ow Rev. 03/28/96 e Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact 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 - 17 0 0 o 0 facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) 5.12.3-7) 0 XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5) - 5.1 1-5) 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- 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) 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 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 Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact Mitigation Incorporated Unless Impact 0 om 0 UIXI 0 ow 0 ow 0 ow 0 OB 0 0 I7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 ow ow om ow ow ow ow ow OB CIN ow 8 Rev. 03128196 e e Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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? Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 u[xi 0 OM 9 Rev. 03128196 a 0 XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site- specific conditions for the project. 10 . ,.. ._*I_ Rev. 03/28/96 9 QB DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. PROJECT DESCRIPTIOND3NVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project proposal consists of a Coastal Development Permit, Hillside Development Permit, and Adjustment Plat to adjust the boundary lines of two existing parcels and to grade and construct a new single-family residence on one of the lots. Both sites are zoned R-1-7,500 and the properties are located on the west side of Pi0 Pic0 Drive between Yourell Avenue and Forest Avenue. Existing Parcel 8 has a General Plan Land Use Designation of RLM (Residential Low- Medium 3.2 du/ac) and consists of a 0.67 acre lot with fiontage on Pi0 Pico. The property also has access rights over a 16 foot wide paved dnveway easement. The lot is relatively flat, except for the western triangular portion of the lot which slopes at a gradient of between 4% and 10 %. The lot has been previously graded and contains no sensitive habitat. Existing Parcel 9 has a General Plan Land Use Designation of OS (Open Space) and consists of a 3.69 acre site with frontage on Jefferson Street. The lot consists primarily of slopes ranging fi-om 15 % to 40 % or greater. There are some isolated areas near the top of slope with grades of less than 15%. The lot is vegetated with an old olive orchard. No native vegetation exists on the site. The proposed lot line adjustment will result in the merger of Parcel 9 with the triangular portion of Parcel 8 resulting in Parcel “A”. The remaining Parcel 8 will consist of a rectangular shaped lot of 9,500 square feet referred to as Parcel “B”. The access rights to the driveway easement will be granted to Parcel “A” and will be relinquished by parcel “B” as part of the Adjustment Plat. The resulting configuration will allow for the development of one single-family residence on each lot. The proposed subdivision will result in a net density of 3.1 dwelling units /acre which is consistent with the RLM (Low-Medium Density Residential - 3.2 ddac) General Plan Land Use Designation. Parcel A and Parcel B contain net lot areas of .0.444 acres and 0.203 acres, respectively. The proposed lot sizes and configurations comply with the minimum standards of the R-1-7,500 Zone. The proposed subdivision is subject to the Hillside Development Ordinance which requires sensitive hillside grading. A conceptual grading plan has been submitted which indicates 200 cubic yards of cut, 500 cubic yards of fill, and 300 cubic yards of import. Estimated grading quantities are 2,272 cubic yards per acre and are within the acceptable range of 0-7,999 cu. yds./acre. The proposed grading design is compatible with the existing hillside topography. A sewer and storm drain easement will be located over all of old Parcel 9. This easement may be necessary if subdivisions of adjacent properties occur in the future. Therefore, the exact location of the easement has not been determined. 11. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS B. Environmental Impact Discussion I a. Land Use and Planning Existing parcel 8 has a Zone Designation of R-1-7,500 and a General Plan Land Use Designation of RLM (Residential Low-Medium). Parcel 9 has a Zone Designation of R-1-7,500 and a General Plan Land Use Designation of OS (Open Space). The proposed boundary adjustment 11 Rev. 03128196 9 0 will result in a split General Plan Land Use Designation of RLWOS for new Parcel “A”. In order to insure preservation of the Official Open Space area contained on the sloping portion of Parcel “A”, the project will be conditioned to record an open space deed restriction over the open space area. The developer will also be conditioned to participate in future City initiated rezoning of the open space area fi-om R-1-7,500 to OS. The remaining net developable area of Parcel “A” contains 0.444 acres and is adequate in size to accommodate the proposed single-family residence. I11 f. Geology The proposal includes the development of a single family residence on the level portion of Parcel A. The building pad will be raised zero to four feet above natural grade. Grading quantities consist of 200 cubic yards of cut, 500 cubic yards of fill, and 300 cubic yards of import. The estimated grading quantities of 2,272 cubic yards per acre are within the acceptable range of 0 - 7,999 cubic yarddacre. The project will be conditioned to provide an erosion control plan in association with the proposed grading as a means of controlling surface erosion. In addition, because the project is located within the Mello I1 Segment of the Local Coastal Program, the project will be conditioned to prohibit grading during the winter months (October lst - April lSt ). IV a. Water Development of Parcel A with a residential structure will increase the amount of runoff due to an increase of impervious structures (building and paving) proposed on the site. However, this additional runoff is considered to be less than significant. The project will be required to comply with all applicable City regulations regarding drainage and runoff, including compliance with any applicable NPDES regulations/requirements. V a. Air Quality The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in 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 12 Rev. 03/28/96 e 0 “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 a. TransportatiodCirculation The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad 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 Overriding 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. The City has received its annual Growth Management Traffic Monitoring Report. 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 0 15 162 of the CEQA Guidelines a lead agency must prepare a “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 13 Rev. 03128/96 e 0 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. XII. Utilities and Services Systems The project will be required to provide a sewer and storm drain easement over all of old Parcel 9. This easement may be necessary if subdivisions of adjacent properties occur in the future. Therefore the exact location has not been determined. The environmental analysis for the location of the sewer and storm drain will be analyzed with future development proposals. Storm drain alignments which would be carried through or empty into Buena Vista Lagoon shall not be permitted, unless such improvements comply with the requirements of Sections 30230, 30231, 30233, and 30235 of the Coastal Act by maintaining or enhancing the functional capacity of the Lagoon in a manner acceptable to the State Department of Fish and Game. 14 Rev. 03/28/96 e 0 111. 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) 438-1161, extension 4471. 1. Final Master Environmental ImDact ReDort for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department. 15 Rev. 03128196 0 e LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) 1. Prior to approval of the Adjustment Plat, the Developer shall prepare and record an open space deed restriction, subject to the approval of the Planning Director and City Engineer, for that portion of Parcel A containing constrained lands identified as OS on the General Plan Land Use Map and identified as “Official Open Space” on the City of Carlsbad Official Open Space and Conservation Map (dated September 1994). 2. Grading activities shall be limited to the “dry season”, April 1 to October 1. The City Engineer may permit an extension of the grading season until November 15 if all precautionary measures regarding erosion, consistent with the City’s grading ordinance, have been put into place by October 1. 3. The Developer shall pay his fair share for the “short-tern improvements” to the El Camino Real/ Palomar Airport Road intersection prior to or the issuance of a building permit, whichever occurs first. The amount shall be determined by the methodology ultimately selected by Council, including but not limited to, an increase in the city-wide traffic impact fee; an increased or new Zone 1 LFMP fee; the creation of a fee or assessment district; or incorporation into a Mello-Roos taxing district. ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) Attached. 16 Rev. 03128196 a e APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. /$4$t&z7-/7fl / ~LL&? Date '.-,<, - -) ,-) - y "; f ,: #L - r '7 c <&A e< \ ,- '\, c~&"l c- - ry j\ ! 1.j ~\ 17 Rev. 03/28/96 co c3 Lo 7 n 4 n a z h a n ;/j rY W m 2 3 Z 2 Q, Q) co ? Q) 0 Y - LI E er W a 0 er a z a E -I -I 2 w 2 6 Z I- o W rY 6 a ENVIRONMENTAL MlTlGA * ON MONITORING CHECKLIST: P!@ 1 of I sz> .!2- E mca .- +mal €S$ (II ,o .o 6 & .r z -zg$ % €5 uo OSQ .- sa* 2 2 2% + LEg E c .- - ox F$F &E .E 0; a?€ 6 6.5; 9 oms 272 + .-c 3 520 mE Q.G a 01 6 .Z 3 Q+ 1 rCY c 000 - " .. Lu S0-m n :sua u al .- 5 ;z5 sE c $2 2 2s- h "u 0 uE~ z S€ 0 gs$ alsg & .o .- 3.EZri a.Fm(q 2 zc- :E sz € $2 s c a, =g -=moa) 0 €0 m om .- cn3 .= m a"j Sal €500 -mno 5 =m E3 2 5 ceso gamm o e6 c .- rC 3"rn a"oc\I s.Eg g w .5€$$ al g €2 3 0.5 s 13 -3 alz& 0 5.pa rY Y=EF; 0- cur,- a La.-, Q ~-esm t- cs - s !=.s 3 5 ou.=,O .if u) m $ DL K 0 $9 .- c !Fa, bE >a, E S - S :2 5; (I) aF ki 0) 0) P c a, .- my K K .- &g u) gEh b .E 8 .- c SK ._ m., K m a, m S K K u) S W W .- \ u) S .- .- - bg 5c 2 =o-uV)c mu QQ a, Us-- ~eQ~~~rcc Qc3 a 2z"pg - -5 k5.s 'E 0 .g 2 L .% c2 z 0 & g gs z m O.r psszg 0 h: L = aF-K ku3 sa" QwO hag, =JJ,~Q 2Ks65:mS - mn- +I a h"-ra,cr ;.+.g- os 5 aK agE-Sc m .E€ =a,zg .- a, Q ~EEQE ,,,gn.G~ - c $0 0 $uza 2 Q K tU s m.=.r KOu 2 .- :q-hrS: S$%$$ G$b:u)ag% (II Bn -ms$3 u ; rm$soo. ml moa,sz .- gg/h EaLc$,(I) 2 U'Em-0 qmz 0% m,$5 g 0 m ??+kc.- --:'95%s rc- b 0 mu--$z F= m 1% y as 0 m a, g a=2 - ;ggu mrGj maz E; %:OF pzs=.E€OP Om'"& USUS O- 5 gaa, u)c Lu 8 ~ -,&.&.G ob 0 "v) 0-h 0 ".&y m.2- YDLa,"$$ - LC c-u 0 m ha EU.=-Uc K L u) QX U-0 K.S~ a-2 m ,,, - $fcUskg .- ^KSFc - mzn mk g $"? QUI E ,,, s m- a, 3 0 gn o= 5- a, o c n x- .; .!E .LC .- 0 -K m2 m a,S-J 01 $ .~~~~~ sSu)'K5m a, .G c +I 3 m--+m.- .- c .- ' &uss$%{Gg c,x,,a, %UaoKmz mm0m m Ea,, =a, 4- -bsbUQa, Kyj L -&?.-* EZOm, KT Q) CQ ggo.;;a,c5 orca(30 v) V)sb~),Etgs :is .Gz -e 0- m 5 $% $zg$ E u)b u)g g 02 >+ 2 am $5 Q0 $& g.5 KEF a,Qa,.- gz~a,~ .pga,iij em .GQ s - % QoO.S Q) $4 v, v) a" m oaQ ,,, m u 0% m.g L Qm Q0.O- 0 n g $2:~ $ g% LE" Q E 0 $2 F.-.E 3 E,.& mu 00 a~ b a ~SS ~0% L L 05.2 g a,.= 7 cri hi L a, 0 5 u- L c 0.2 Cb - $$- .- e: =E a, $5 3 .? (I)= mm -c .o, Fe 2E Eu ZJl 525 'E 5 .g 2% 0 5 :E .G 0-g 0 .- m L .!?-a u) 50 0 - K'Z II .- 5 C-0 KZ v) == ; :& Egg $q g(I) mz.g sm r $ 9n L - m S 0 m Q F m 0 C 0 c K .- L E L P - -0 a, v) fz 0 Q (I) F 5 I a, 0) g6 .- 5 0- L - is GZ$@ 2 P II .- =.E 8 6%: a, m m on ; 05 WZ .o .p o] E 0; K IC -Q.P - c /;;a ma.= a, 'E E WFI e e ATTACHMENT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN IS SITUATED IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL B: THAT PORTION OF TRACT 7 OF LAGUNA MESA TRACT, COUNTY OF sm DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFOmIAt AS PER MAP NO. 1719, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE "JTy RECOWER, 6-20-21, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: - 1 "" 'COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID TRACT 7, SAID C,ORMER BEING MARKED BY A CONCRETE MONUMENT; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT 7, NORTH OOO2' WEST 905.24 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF'THAT PORTION OF SAID TRACT 7 CONVEYED TO JOSEPH H. BRADFORD & LAURA THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF TRACT 7 AND ITS NORTHERLY PROLONGATION NORTH OOO2' WEST 169.69 FEET (.RECORDED 170.55 ACCORDING TO SAID COUNTY SURVEY NO. 135; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTER LINE OF COUNTY ROAD THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCE, NORTH 77O25' EAST 97.65 FEET; NORTH 58O36' EAST 116.61 FEET NORTH 36O18' EAST 118.99 FEET; NORTH 27'46' EAST 188.10 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. THENCE RETRACING ON SAID CENTER LINE OF ROAD SURVEY 135 SOUTH 27O46' WEST 188.10 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 36O18' WEST 118.99 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 58'35' WEST 116.61 FEET; SOUTH 77O25' WEST 97.65 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0 O 02 I EAST 169.96 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE LAND CONVEYED TO JOSEPH H. BRADFORD ABOVE REFERRED TO; THENCE FOLLOWING THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID BRADFORD LAND NORTH 89O58' EAST 146.10 FEET; THENCE NORTH 73O42' EAST 361.15 FEET; THENCE NORTH 34O02' EAST 128.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 4O52' EAST 127.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY IN A STRAIGHT LINE TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL c: THAT PORTION OF TRACT 7 OF LAGUNA MESA TRACT, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCOFXlING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 1719, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUN'IY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, JUNE 20, 1921, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: F. BRADFORD, 2-19-29 AND RECORDED IN BOOK 1601, PAGE 263 OF DEEDS AND FEET) TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE CENTER LINE OF THE COUNTY ROAD, e 8 COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 7; THENCE ALONG THE LCL"ERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT 7, NORTH 00°02'00t1 WEST, 905.24 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED TO MARION A. HENRY, RECORDED JANUARY 30, 1931 IN BOOK 1865, PAGE 20 OF DEEDS, RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID HENRY J s LAND NORTH 89O58'00" EAST, 146.10 FEET TO THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED TO ALTON P. BRADFORD, RECORDED AUGUST 31, 1936 IN BOOK 546, PAGE 439 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID BRADFORD'S m NORTH 89O55'45" EAST, 521.52 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE WESTERLY LINE OF OLIVE DRIVE AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP NO. 1719; THENCE ALONG SAID hRSTERLY LINE NORTH 0O0O2'0Oft WEST, 124.90 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED TO IRENE COULON, RECORDED FEBRUARY SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID COULON'S LAND SOUTH 89055'4511 WEST, 158.57 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHWESTERLY'BOUNDARY OF SAID BRADFORD'S 34°02'00" WEST, 29-07 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT THEREIN AND SOUTH 73O42'00" WEST, 361.15 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. 27, 1947 As DO3J"IENT NO. 21743 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE ALONG THE LAND; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY AS FOLLOWS: SOUTH ;EXCQPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 7, THENCE NORTH 00°02'00*1 WEST 905.24 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID TRACT 7; THENCE LEAVING SAID WEST LINE, NORTH 89O58 ' 00" EAST 146.10 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89O55'45" EAST 521.52 FEET TO A POINT IN THE WEST LINE OF OLIVE DRIVE; THENCE NORTH 00°02'00" WEST 124.90 FEET ALONG SAID WEST LINE OF OLIVE DRIVE TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID WEST LINE OF OLIVE DRIVE SOUTH 89O55'45" WEST 158.57 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED TO JOSEPH H. BRADFORD, ET UX, RECORDED MARCH 21, 1929 IN BOOK 1601, PAGE 263 OF DEEDS; THENCE SOUTH 00°02'00" EAST 60.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89O55'45" EAST 158.57 FEET TO A POINT IN SAID WEST LINE OF OLIVE DRIVE; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST LINE OF OLIVE DRIVE NORTH 00°02' 00" WEST 60.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. - 0 -+t - nJ 4lk 03 m- A‘ 2; -, , ?I I, LC ” c. .. .- .I . -_ .. t- rl A? - - o ?$.: . *> -. . . )...I .. , ‘***n. __ Ij T ul l- u .o ! h. z d Y ,,l b. < .= 0 0 w & & ;N L 0 > m- =awl- - 0. @ $; $335 0 1- 128 zzz. c (Ira3 J .I I^ ”,