The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1999-12-15; Planning Commission; Resolution 4690* 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4690 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO GRADE SUBDIVISION ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF UNICORNIO STREET BETWEEN CACATUA STREET AND EL FUERTE STREET IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6 CASE NAME: THE REGENCY CASE NO.: CT 99-14EUD 99-06 1.77 ACRES INTO A 12 LOT, 11-UNIT SMALL LOT WHEREAS, Regency Development, LLC, “Developer/Owner”, 1 filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as Lot 417 and 418 of La Costa Meadows Unit No. 3, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 7076, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, October 6,1971; and, property owned by Theresa T. Gordon and C. Anthony Thomas as Trustees for Danny Thomas Family Trust U/D/T dated 12/28/81 as amended 3/9/82, “Owner”, descri as Lot 419 of La Costa Meadows Unit No. 3, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 7076, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, October 6,1971 (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring i Reporting Program was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 15th day of December, 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, i 0 0 ’ 2 considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all fact relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 3 4 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Plann 5 6 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. Commission as follows: 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Plann Commission hereby APPROVES the Mitigated Negative Declaration a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program according to Exhibit “h dated October 14, 1999, and “PII” dated September 17, 1999, attached her and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: ~ FindinPs: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: A. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered Mitigated Negative Declarat and Mitigation Monitoring and Program, the environmental imp; therein identified for this project and said comments thereon, and Program, on file in the Planning Department, prior to APPROVING project; and B. the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring : Reporting Program have been prepared in accordance with requirement: the 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 City of Carlsbad; and D. based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, the Plann Commission, finds that there is no substantial evidence the project 7 have a significant effect on the environment; and 23 11 Conditions: 24 25 Monitoring and Reporting Program. 1. The Developer shall implement or cause the implementation of The Regency Mitigai 26 27 28 ... ... ... PC RES0 NO. 4690 -2- 0 0 1 I/ PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Plann 2 I/ Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of December 1999, by 3 4 following vote, to wit: 5 II AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners Compas, L’Heureux, Nielsen, Segall, Trigas, and Welshons 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: COURTNEY E. HEINEMAN, Chairperson CAIUSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: Planning Director ~ 11 PC RES0 NO. 4690 -3- e e - City of Carlsbad MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project AddressLocation: APN 215-360-16, -17, and -18, Lots 417,418, and 419 of La Costa Meadows Unit No. 3, Map No. 11174 Project Description: 12-10tY 1 1-unit, attached single-family residential planned develop- ment 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 fi-om the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 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: OCTOBER 14,1999 CASE NO: CT 99-1 4PUD 99-06 CASE NAME: THE REGENCY PUBLISH DATE: OCTOBER 14,1999 MICHAEL J. I~%ZIV~&LER Planning Director 2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-1 161 - FAX (760) 438-0894 e 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CT 99-14PUD 99-06 DATE: September 17, 1999 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: THE REGENCY 2. APPLICANT: Brett Development. Inc.. 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 205 Meadow Vista Wav Encinitas. Ca 92024 760-753-6269 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: 7/16/99 .5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 12 lot, 11-unit small-lot planned development proposing twinhome units and one single family unit on lots greater than 3,500 square feet in area. The site, currently consisting of three parcels totaling 1.77 acres, is bounded on the north and south by Unicornio Street and Alga Road, respectively, and is located east of Cacatua Street. The proposal will require approval of a Tentative Tract Map and Planned Development Permit. The site is located within an urbanized area and has been previously graded. 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 [x1 TransportatiodCirculation Public Services Population and Housing Biological’ Resources c] Utilities & Service Systems B Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics 0 Water - u Hazards 0 Cultural Resources (x1 Air Quality IxI Noise 0 Recreation - u 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 the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. H 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. 0 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) bas been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An EIR 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 (MEIR 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. k& lolb 173 Planner Signature ' Date ' I&/?? Date 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 “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. e “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. e ’ “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect fi-om “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. e “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. e Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but &l 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). 0 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 e e 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. 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 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. 03/28/96 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) ? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) 0 0 17 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact Mitigation Incorporated Unless impact 0 0 n5 Elm 0 OH 17 om 0 om 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 0 OH o 17 OB or extension of major mfrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable 5.5-6) housing? (#l:PgS 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) 111. a) b) c) d) e) f) €9 h) i) GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: Faultrupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) Seismic ground shaking? (#I :Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-1 5) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-1 - 5.1.15) 5.1-15) , 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) 5.1-15) IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff! (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2- b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 11) 5 0 I7 OH 0 0 ON 0 0 OH cl 0 OB 0 0 OH 0 0 OH 0 0 OH 0 0 OH I7 0 NO 0 0 om 0 0 OH 0 0 OIxI 0 I7 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) 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) 0 I7 I7 (#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 0 1 1) 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 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) lxl 17 I7 0 1 - 5.3-12) - 5.3-12) VI. a) 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? 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) (#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) 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, andbirds)? (#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) (#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) 6 IXI 0 I7 I7 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact Mitigation Unless Impact Incorporated ’ cl UKl nIsI I7 OIsI .. 0 UISI 0 OB 0 om 0 no 0- La 0 OB 0 om 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IXI 151 lxl La 151 I7 OB 0 ULa 0 OB Rev. 03128196 0 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) 17' 0 - 5.4-24) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 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) 0 o 0 0 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? (#1 :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 fre 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) bass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) 0 0 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) 0 0 1 - 5.9-15) [XI. 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 - 0 0 0 0 17 I7 (#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) 0 0 .7 Less Than No Significant Impact Impact OH UBI 0 I% 0 .[x] 0' IXI UIXI ON UBI OH om om no 0 0 0 IXI IXI [x] Ix1 UBI OIXI Rev. 03128196 0 0 Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). b) Communications systems? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) d) Seweror septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 3.12.3-1 - 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 - 5.12.3-7) 0 0 OBI 0 0 UIXI Incorporated w II3 Kl [XI 0 0 0 0 0 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 5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5) 5.1 1-1 - 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 - 5.12.8-7) b) Affect existing recreational. opportunities? (#1 :Pgs 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? OB OH 17 0 OH 0’ o[xI UIXI 0 0 0 UBI OH 0 0 UH 0 L. OH 0 0 UH 0 UIXI 0 8 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 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 project;, 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 Kl no I7 Ixl. ,. 9 Rev. 03/28/96 e a XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses of the proposed single-family residential project have 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 is considered a project that was described in MEIR 93-01 as within its scope. There will be no additional significant impacts due to this development that were not analyzed in the MEIR and no new or additional mitigation measures or alternatives are required. This project is, therefore, within the scope of the prior MEIR and no new environmental document nor Public Resources Code 21081 findings are required. All feasible mitigation measures identified in the MEIR 93-01 which are appropriate to this project have been incorporated into this project. 10 Rev. 03/28/96 0 <. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project proposal consists of a 12 lot subdivision consisting of 10 attached twirihomes, 1 single-family unit, and 1 common lot. The project will require approval of a Tentative Tract Map and Planned Development Permit. The site is zoned RD-M (Residential Density-Multiple). The proposed development will result in a density of 6.2 dwelling units per acre which is consistent with the RMH (Residential Medium-High) General Plan Land Use Designation'of 11.5 ddac. The 1.77 acre site currently consists of three separate lots and is bordered by Unicornio Street on the north and Alga Road on the south. The site is located withm an urbanized area and is surrounded by multi-family residential housing on the east and west, a detached single-family residential planned development towards the north, and a church and multi-family residential housing to the south. The site, which was previously graded in 1972, is relatively level except for a 25 to 30 foot tall slope at the south end of the site which slopes up towards Alga Road. Ruderal vegetation occupies the majority of the site and drought tolerant shrubs for erosion control are located within the slope areas. The residences will be accessed via Unicornio Street by two private streets (one single-loaded and one double loaded). The lot sizes range fi-om 4,257 square feet to 5,636 square feet. A common recreation area and RV storage area is located at the south central portion of the property. Guest parking spaces are located near the common area and along the single-loaded private street on the east. Grading for the project consists of 594 cubic yards of cut, 2,373 cubic yards of fill, and 1,779 cubic yards of import. The applicant is proposing to purchase 1.94 housing credits for the project to satisfy the requirements of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. 11 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 11. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS B. Environmental Impact Discussion I. Land Use and Planning The project site is located in an area designated by the General Plan as Residential Medium-High (RMH) with a zoning classification of RD-M. The RD-M zone allows a minimum lot size of 3,500 square feet with approval of a Planned Unit Development and implements the General Plan Land Use Designation. The surrounding neighborhood is developed with multi-family and’ single-family planned unit development residences. Under the current Growth Management Ordinance, the project has the potential to yield 20.3 dwelling units. The project proposes development of 11 units. The proposal. is 9.3 units under the Growth Management Dwelling Unit Allowance. 111. Geologic Problems The site and surrounding area was graded in 1972. The soils report indicates that expansive soils are located within the upper 3 feet of the lots. Special design and precautions are recommended for the construction of the slabs and footings of the homes in order to minimize the possible damaging effects due to differential movement of the potentially expansive soils. The project site is appropriate for the proposed development, subject to the recommendations in the study. Grading activities for the project will be subject to the City’s adopted grading regulations and the Landscape Guidelines Manual, which will include requirements for implementation of all necessary erosion control methods. The site does not contain any unique geologic or physical features. IV. Water The amount of surface water runoff will increase with the development of the vacant land. However, a Hydrology Report has been. submitted which indicates that the private and public streets will adequately convey the additional surface runoff to the existing underground storm system. V. Air Ouality 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 12 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 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 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 fi-om 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 3 15 162 of the CEQA Guidelines a lead agency must prepare a “Subsequent” environmental documentation if substantial evidence (i.e., the recorded 13 Rev. 03/28/96 e 0 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 hous 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. X. Noise An acoustical study was prepared to investigate potential noise impacts to the proposed development due to the site’s proximity to Alga Road and location witlxn the 65 dB(A) CNEL noise exposure contour. The noise report concluded that future .exterior noise levels for the units were found to be below the 6O-dB(A) CNEL threshold established by the City. Second.floor areas of units constructed upon Lots #1 and #9 would require interior mitigation measures to reduce impacts below a level of significance (45 dB(A) CNEL). The report recommends completion of the interior acoustical analysis prior to submission of final architectural designs for the proposed units on the affected pads. 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) 438-1 161 , extension 4471. 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update L. (MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department. .* 14 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) - 1. The Developer shall pay his fair share for the “short-term 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. , 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the owner shall submit an acoustical analysis which demonstrates that the architectural plans for Lots 1 and 9 comply with the State of California interior noise standard of 45 CNEL. The architectural plans shall incorporate any additional measures (thicker glazing, sound absorption material, shielding of vents, or artificial circulation system) to attenuate the noise to an acceptable level. Where windows are required to be unopenable or kept closed in order to meet the interior noise standards, mechanical ventilation and cooling, if necessary, shall be provided to maintain a habitable environment. The system shall supply two air changes per hour to each habitable room including 20% (one- fifth) fresh make-up air obtained directly fi-om the outdoors. The fresh air inlet duct shall be of sound attenuating construction and shall consist of a minimum of ten feet of straight or curved duct of six feet plus one sharp 90” bend. ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) 15 Rev. 03/28/96 e 0 -I pJ:-#&~T~r#”””- u .. --- - --- - jd%2?v” ~flT33ADas’~-@;&!!~~ WT * ”_.. we3 s m czEimFL%T: z??Yz :s*=*a .%%% g&y$% ”mAm7Q *w‘&sLTLq p3 DmcLR lx-rz ~ ”- =& &EfigT@X< z .Egg ‘iTW“?S Fz a-6 *.oxb”< .- if]” 3- .@q irc -i= *.s L ” mi7 td x.3.- %”- h .- z? ENVIRONMENTAL MITI&ON MONITORING CHECKLISH~~~ I of 2 CD Q, Q, 3 ? n 5 F Ch Q, I- o (I, .. . ECj ~a 0 !I n Z 0 0 .r$ $0 sg w_I LZ > o Z W (3 W K W I I- w+ w >a an +a Yg 6E ZA .rn na c1 a%& g; g €: 2 ,o .o Q P 2; .s 3 3 $ €5 GO c0-E .E .E" a, S" E LE2 ,o c '5 "UU 982 P6rn a .v, ,o cn$ E 5 o ,cn 0 '"5 ae cn mra .- & .E - DO OSQ .L ".I K '5 Q-S C0 0- .G Q+ L by K 000 - .- z7J x U a= = E$ + 0-5 0 .- 5 CUE .- a, u KSb uE2 S€ 2 0 u- 0 vS Fa fj &jE a,2r ,& g .- 3.E z n cn.o,m(q 5.5gz zz sz .- = os cum a)"oN E $2 K ~s Qg =moa, 0 Eo m ocn .- 0s = cn a= Ka EZa,O -mag ,m Qcn fj.Q 8 pg5 '5 E 22 a g E.2 '5 a, (uv 2; .go $ a.E= (I32 gam Kt rn.5 K n K Kg2 .- co 22% E;;; K +n5m z 2 (I) E c 0 .- 8" c c Ea, bE >u E - 8 :go zs z v) at; m c c a, 'E '= E a, .- YOr Q) r@J c 0 E '6 In 5 + a 8 0 0. .- 8.$0 .o 3 m e= > u ma - .- a.ZC3ma "I c .& .E .= $ L muu E LrnLSa) +ka)EQ)="qzm 0 25 35 2% 0 Q) .G $[r;jggza)N5s 0 X Q)ogL. osgg, 5.G Q)U ssgg L. E L > Q) %" p m.gZ.Ga $0 L L mtY , go n.o E mu 02 m- J=$uFa)Q)Q) jjj w .o KbzOgs2 2 L 0 Q) gmm u) ma)Q)Ea,ZS"+ m +A= E La v) m.E 02 c, "0 O.G 3 -- v)"I Q) Q) i!4 .- - ZCUCv), m%?z ag; .- U E E0.G m rnr 3 =gLt; Q) g- = gr a 075 mr L Q) a, 0 m.g g 6 .E+ %3 -- g .G Q) L Q)+z m*n O &E m 0 UCCE;;,: cl $5 A=- Z Ez v) E 0532a.g.g .c.' a= dr K.G CI m .o m _n=v) m= m .= a)Lm .- cn -"Io=+ "OL c a- 0 - =a 02 F'-o.o- L. E *- 0 3,:- 3 Q)-JJ=> u- .o .o +Sn.ZG €.E ~NUU T- I 5 a, 0 d L 2s fb - kg E; .c E 2s gt Ed c" ._ a v) 'J mm c .E wm 0 g .E .o % c caO mu 0 .- mu rn ?i ss Em 2% 0) 3 :e .c CB (0 0-$ 23L a ce ,gy"$ h! Y KuG Kg /I .- t == E E 2.i - ;;:I EE a % .- L - m 2 0 .- 5 Q m m C ._ 5 = C E L e G n $! s a (0 O K v) - 0 K a $2 - % 6- iE in.Z,E$ s.G e: @:! - o " z.0 .P q mE ._ s oim = x0 .c - ). 1." 5 I1 a 'E 5 wl-2 . ENVIRONMENTAL MITI~ION MONITORING CHECKLISH~~~ 2 of 2 I 'u) E E B t 0 8" .- .I- Eo, bE >u E t - C :2 5: 0 z v) cnz .- KQ) sa 6 g 2: .- an c .E 3s c c .- Km gc rc u) K 0 .- kg- ala e>. 0 0 .E st- z - S2.c Lm 0 3-3 E *c COB & a.g '3 Q c- 8 v) Lb a, a, 0- a, use *as a, r tn-=s5 c, m L.9 0 c Q)oc L* maL v) 2KS c *$ =.- +LQ)OC, 0 s2.s-5.E): 5 LL mL v)$ & 34= 0 mu- 0,s 3 0 v) .- gws 3 0 o Oc Kc= 3 6 E= 3 $- E'j 2c2.S" E v) ii.= 3 v).g c-0 c Q) v) a, LE 0s 3 -c v) 0 a,; aG 3.: Eg;a,mEz - m4gz m -oa,~cig.5Q)w sg v) pyili2 220 2 Q)zzj+-E! v) c a E 2E-X 32 cmm- a, hg2 &&E*%+ m .- mE rnQ)Q)cSo~m~ + grc 2! v) om-* = 4n Q oo$+pg .A3 a a*a,*c $83 .y= mzG*v,LCe.L.S'ja..V)3 m i! C-dg.s.goa2 $ ,m 3.k m c c m2 0 .c. 03 az mF3(&-E.E)= OEU5 8% c, 50 ~0 3a K c- m2-',*- 2 .- g &2 mqpma, g.c+K3e" a, "% 3 z zzg* Ki m*G Qo 8 Os no.,: v) L B -ms%$ --a,-= c$Pss-Oo Z%,p !.! r.2 c[J a,z U" m" 0 3 Q)z.-z v) Q) 0.E e,+ n.- (TJ €=E L L me c .- .- c .E Q) gzg m m 0 ga 5 Em (0.E g 2 5% EL 7 2 2Y-a Q) ET323 gF.E x a,E gz+ Q) e- m a, a,-* m°F J= Q) = OL- Q) 0 g.f a, L )rm mc 0 $L t-u a c v) m> S L > Qv) a, €+Ob+ v) hj CS> a mu a,= mu .- .- --Q cv)Q~OSk *2 En QOZ s & 2.0 c 6 v) Cu mg a, C v)a L';;c,o K.gjO$O L O,OUS.GU KJ QUI O a0 a,,., cia,"" L a, 0 s d L - fJ.2 Sb - Fog- .- E: cE a, fZ E .g 'E c 5: 2 -s v)= 0 mm .c .FJ OF .- a si: g$.F 23I a, 8-O r $5 $g E8:; bZ,g zs .FJu v) mu 0 KZG II .- 6 E0 0- a, e$ u) .- -=u !Em -- L.& a, >E m 3 0 - L E n m c m .- b .- I c E I P - a, v) c 0 Q v) 0 2 5; c a, 0) .- $2 - - m- iE ;;a$@ s ujg: z.G a m a go Q $ell E - 2.p ~~~ 04 mz g e, f II k - a, .E WFI