HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-01-05; Planning Commission; Resolution 4699e 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4699
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
Q AND TO SUBDIVIDE 3.0 ACRES INTO NINE SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS LOCATED NORTH OF
POINSETTIA LANE, WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL AND
EAST OF FUTURE SKIMMER COURT IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 21.
CASE NAME: STEINER PROPERTY
CASE NO.: ZC 99-06/ LCPA 99-05/ CT 99-13 /SDP 99-
PROGRAM FOR A ZONE CHANGE FROM L-C TO R-1-7,500-
04/ SUP 99-04 /HDP 99-07
WHEREAS, Western Pacific Housing-Carlsbad 1, LLC, A Delaware Limi
Liability Company, “Developer”, has filed a verified application with the City of Carls
regarding property owned by Joseph and Marian Steiner and Western Pacific Housing
14 /I Camino, LLC, A Delaware Limited Liability Company, “Owners”, described as
15
16
17
18
19
Being a subdivision of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 2244, as filed in
the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County on
January 10, 1974 as File No. 74-007317 of official records
together with Lot 74 and Portion of Lots 67 and 68 of City of
Carlsbad Tract 97-15, according to map thereof No. 13839, all
in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California.
20
21
(“the Property”); and
11 WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring 22
23 Reporting Program as shown on Exhibit “ND” dated November 8, 1999 and “PI” d
24
conjunction with said project; and 26
Declaration And Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program was prepare( 25
October 6, 1999, attached hereto and made a part hereof, Steiner Property Mitigated Nega
27 11 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 5th day of January, 2000,
28 a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
0 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
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimc
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, 2
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all fact
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Report
Program.
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 Plann
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Mitigated Negal
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program based on
following findings and subject to the following condition.
Findinm: -
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered Mitigated Negative Declaration :
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the environmental imp;
therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporl
Program has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the Califo:
Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environme
Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the Ci?
Carlsbad; and
d. based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidc
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Condition:
1. The Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of the Steiner Prop1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
...
PC RES0 NO. 4699 -2-
0 0
1 I1 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Plann
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of January, 2000, by
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Heineman, L’Heureux,
Nielsen, Segall, Trigas, and Welshons
NOES:
~ ABSENT: I
ABSTAIN:
lo II
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I:, I
11 PC RES0 NO. 4699 -3-
-
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddressLocation: The project site is located north of future Poinsettia Lane and west
of El Camino Real and is identified by Assessors Parcel Number
215-050-58-00.
Project Description: Proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment and Zone Change to
change the land use designation from Limited Control (L-C) to
One-Family Residential, 7,500 square foot lot size minimum (R-1-
7,500), with a Qualified Overlay Zone(-Q), on a 3.0 acre parcel of
land. Also proposed is a Tentative tract map to create 9 residential
lots, a Hillside Development Permit, and a Coastal Development
Permit.
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 Van Lynch in the Planning
Department at (760) 438-1 161, extension 4447.
DATED: NOVEMBER 8,1999
CASE NO: ZC 99-06LCPA 99-05/CT 99-13/SDP 99-10/CDP 99-26KDP 99-12
CASE NAME: STEINER PROPERTY
PUBLISH DATE: NOVEMBER 8,1999
MICHAEL J. MLZMMLER
Planning Director
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 - (760) 438-1 161 - FAX (760) 438-0894
0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: ZC 99-06/LCPA 99-05/CT 99-13/SDP 99-10/CDP 99-26/HDP 99-12
DATE: October 6, 1999
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: STEINER PROPERTY
2. APPLICANT: Western Pacific Housing
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2385 Camino Vida Roble, Suite 107,
Carlsbad CA 92009, (760) 929- 1600
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: July 1, 1999
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment and Zone Change to
change the land use desimation from Limited Control (L-C) to One-Family Residential, 7,500
square foot lot size minimum (R-1-7.500), with a Qualified Overlay Zone(-Q), on a 3.0 acre
parcel of land. Also prouosed is a Tentative tract map to create 9 residential lots, a Site
Develoument Plan. a Hillside Develoument Permit, and a Coastal Development Permit. The
proiect site is located north of future Poinsettia Lane and west of El Camino Real and is
identified by Assessors Parcel Number 215-050-58-00
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.
c] Land Use and Planning H TransportatiordCirculation [7 Public Services
c] Population and Housing H Biological Resources Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems c] Energy & Mineral Resources c] Aesthetics
Water Hazards c] Cultural Resources
1XI Air Quality [XI Noise 0 Recreation
17 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03128196
m 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.
[7 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.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
H 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. 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 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.
doy&L /o-iy- 89
Planner gghature Date
tl 2/45
Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
0 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.
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.
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 all 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.
a 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 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 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?
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
landuses)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community) ? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
(#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
0
0
0
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) 0
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 -
5.5-6)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) 0
17
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, # 2)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, # 2)
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, # 2)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
0 0 0
o 0
0 0
5.1-1 - 5.1.15, # 2)
5.1-15, #2) 0
5.1-1 - 5.1-15, # 2)
g) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, # 2)
h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, # 2)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15, # 2) 17
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) 0
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)
17
1 1)
5
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
El
0
0
0
0 0 0
0
U 0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than No
Significant Impact Impact
ow ow
LIB nIxI
ow
ow ow
urn
ow ow ow ow ow OB
ow ow ow
ow
OB ow
Rev. 03128196
0 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact Mitigation
Incorporated d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
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?
(#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
0 ow
0 I7 up3
0 0 ow
0 ow
11) 0 UBI ow i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs 0 0
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- w 0 on
1 - 5.3-12)
- 5.3-12) 0 ow 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)
0 OBI
UBI
VI. TRANSPORTATION1CIRCULATION. Would the
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
b) 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)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -
proposal result in:
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)
5.7.22)
El 0 nn
0 0 ow
0 0 ow up3
0 0 up3
I7 ow
0 0 om
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, nu
animals, and birds)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24, # 3, #6)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24, # 3)
0 [XI
0 0 ow
6 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation Incorporated
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24, #
3)
0 ow
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, # 3)
- 5.4-24, # 3) 0 ow 0 El OH
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
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
(#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 0 UIXI
0 om
0 ow
& 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,
0 0 ow
0 ow
17 o ow
0 0 nw
I7 la on
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, ortrees? (#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) 0 OH w nu 1 - 5.9-15, # 4)
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 ow 0 0 ow 0 UBI 0 ow (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
5.12.8-7) 0 0 OH
7 Rev. 03128196
e
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
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)
b) Communications systems? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
0
0 0 facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
Potentially Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0. 0
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 0
5.12.3-7) 0
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
b) Have or demonstrate a negative aesthetic effect?
c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.1 1-1 - 5.11-5)
5.11-1 - 5.11-5) o
(#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5) 0
0
0
0 0
0
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, # 5)
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
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10, # 5)
10)
10, # 5) 0
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
I7
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?
17
8
0.
0
0
w
17
0 0
0
I7
0.
0.
Less Than No
Significant Impact Impact
OH ow OH
0 BI IXI H w
ow ow
OH
on om ow ow
OH
ow
nw
ow
Rev. 03128196
0 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 LIB
0 0 ow
9 Rev. 03/28/96
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 Rev. 03128196
0 0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONAZNVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project site is 3.0 acres in size and is located on the west side of El Camino Real and north of
future Poinsettia Lane. The project consist of 9 single-family lots with a minimum lot area of
7,500 square feet. The site relatively flat and currently occupied by a single family residence.
The property has been used for agricultural purposes and as such, the habitats on site consist of
disturbed and non-native vegetation types. Elevations range from 250 to 290 feet above mean
sea level. The south eastern portion of the property will be dedicated for the Poinsettia Lane, a
City of Carlsbad Circulation Element roadway. Adjacent to the south and west is and approved
subdivision, CT 97-15 - Lohf Property, which consist of 73 single family lots and three open
space lots. To the north is native and disturbed native habitats as identified in the Manzanita
Project (SDP 98-19), and to the east is an existing single family residence which will have access
provided by the proposed development. Access to the project will be through the Lohf
subdivision which is a cul-de-sac design off of future Poinsettia Lane. As of the date of this
report, the Lohf subdivision is being graded and improved. The proposed project is basically an
extension of the adjacent Lohf subdivision.
The entire 3.0 acre site is designated as Residential Low-Medium Density (RM 4-8 DU/AC) on
the General Plan Land Use Map. The project site is zoned Limited Control (L-C). A zone change
and local coastal program amendment are proposed to designate the site as One-Family
Residential, 7,500 square foot minimum lot size, Qualified Development Overlay Zone (R-1-Q)
to correspond to the existing general plan land use designations. In addition to approval of the
tentative map application, a Site Development Plan, a hillside development permit, and a coastal
development permit are being requested.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
11. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
B. Environmental Impact Discussion
Air Oualitv
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 particulate. 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.
TransportatiordCirculation
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
12 Rev. 03128196
0 0
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 4 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
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.
Cultural resources
There are potential significant fossil areas of Tertiary and Quaternary Ages within the project
site, therefore, the grading operations of the project are conditioned to be monitored by a
qualified paleontologist in case of fossil contact. These mitigation measures allow the
paleontologist to direct or divert grading operations to facilitate paleontological investigations.
Biological resources
The adjacent site to the north, Manzanita Partners, has been identified as having environmentally
sensitive biological resources in the form of plant and animal species. Although direct impacts
will not occur, indirect impacts to the California gnatcatcher due to construction activity may
occur. A mitigation measure has been incorporated to survey for the presence of the California
gnatcatcher prior to grading operations.
Hazards
The adjacent property to the north will be left in a native state and as such could cause a potential
fire hazard to Lot 3. Since this lot (3) will not have the ability to clear for the required fire
13 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
suppression per the City of Carlsbad Landscape Manual, special construction requirements in the
form of ignition resistant construction pursuant to Section 504 of the Urban Wildland Interface
Code will be required.
Noise
Exterior living areas adjacent to El Camino Real and Poinsettia Lane will be exposed to worst
case noise levels of 64.3 CNEL at Lots 4 through 9. In order to meet the 60 CNEL exterior noise
standard, a noise barrier will be required for exterior living areas adjacent to El Camino Real and
Poinsettia Lane. The barrier shall consist of materials and configurations as described in the
Exterior Noise Summary Analysis for the Steiner Property, dated June 28, 1999. A detailed
indoor noise analysis is required to determine the building upgrades for the homes adjacent to
Poinsettia and El Camino Real when detailed architectural plans become available, and prior to
building permit issuance.
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
(MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
2. Addendum Geotechnical Study, Steiner Property, Inclusion into Adiacent Lohf Property
Preliminarv Geotechnical Investigation, City of Carlsbad, CA, Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc.
dated April 20,1999.
3. Biological resources report and impact analysis for the Steiner Property, City of Carlsbad,
San Diego County, CA, Dudek and Associates, dated June 1999.
4. Exterior Noise Analysis for the Steiner Property. City of Carlsbad, Mestre Greve Associates,
dated June 28, 1999.
5. Steiner Property Cultural Resources Simificance Evaluation, Recon, dated July 20, 1999.
6. Biological Resources Report and Impact Assessment, Manzanita Partners Property, Carlsbad
CA, Dudek and Associates, dated December 21, 1998.
14 Rev. 03128196
8 0
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
The Developer shall pay his fair share for the “short-term improvements” to the El Camino
Real/Palomar Airport Road intersection prior to the issuance of a building permit. 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 21 LFMP
fee; the creation of a fee or assessment district; or incorporation into a Mello-Roos taxing district.
To mitigate potential paleontological impacts, the developer shall accomplish the following prior
to final map approval or issuance of the grading permit:
0 Prior to any grading of the project site, a paleontologist shall be retained to perform a
walkover survey of the site and to review the grading plans to determine if the proposed grading will impact fossil resources. A copy of the paleontologist’s report shall be provided to the Planning Director prior to issuance of a grading permit;
A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of the site and to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the fossils present in the geologic strata, it may be necessary to collect matrix samples for laboratory processing through fine screens. The paleontologist shall make periodic reports to the
Planning Director during the grading process;
0 The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an
exposed fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage artifacts;
0 All fossils collected shall be donated to a public, non-profit institution with a research
interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum;
0 Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading activities of the
project shall be resolved by the Planning Director and City Engineer.
To mitigate potential disturbances to the California gnatcatcher, the grading operations within
100 feet of the adjacent property to the north will be restricted during the gnatcatcher breeding
season, or from February 15 to August 30 each year, unless it can be shown through field
reconnaissance by a certified biologist that no gnatcatchers are present on the property for two
months prior to the start of grading.
To mitigate potential fire hazards, Lot 3 shall be constructed pursuant to Section 504 of the
Urban Wildland Interface Code.
To mitigate potential noise impacts, Lots 4 through 9 shall have a noise barrier consisting of
materials and configurations as described in the Exterior Noise Summary Analysis for the Steiner
Property, dated June 28, 1999, and a detailed indoor noise analysis is required to determine the
building upgrades for the homes adjacent to Poinsettia and El Camino Real when detailed
architectural plans become available, and prior to building permit issuance.
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
Attached
15 Rev. 03128196
0
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.
Date /’ I
16 Rev. 03128196
ENVIRONMENTAL MIT; a! TlON MONITORING CHECKLIS a ge 1 of I
I Q) Q,
a n
h
9
?
x 7
Q,
I-
v)
Q, Q,
a a 3 \
CD
Q) Q)N
?
oh
a irjn
v-
NQ)
E$ !x
y9
3Q) za n
-0 LLr
>
a z
a 2
L Q, c
Q, .-
5 w 2
Z
I-
a
Y 6 Df a
Q) Q, Q, 7
(D
Q Q,
0
L
8 +
..
0;
n 6
n
(3 != 2
W
W z
W 2
w I- 3 s s?
-I
a n Q
c .- a, v)G agm
.g+ x .- m E E5 E
SSv)
& 82 POg 0 .& + .s 2 a,
ma,
0
+zQ 0mcn .$ g 2
&e c ‘5 .E .o 5%2?
I .P $ 0” Y-ES - cuc L > 03 gmrJ Q? 2 aP F
og 6 gs:
OUO ‘E .- 6 E
s -a v, oE,x
(J .PO
a,cna, 5Fg
gam
UGZ J2 ao FEZ
E ” -0” 8422
.- g a, gcE a, ma, ’2 Q
v) c .- .- E 2 .Pu
3WK cn.G m a,%s E - .-
a
LC + .-
U
SUE .- a, k
00
s -=
cu
s P’ .- 02-8 % mI’n .gs E ES8
22 Q$ $ .E Ll ET9 z
$Ei
.5. s E
LC
.-
-a!=
cc
5 E F 2,
m.5 a,
= a, .G Y-s (IJ
r: a,” a, c .F
I-3 E
0 .- +
-
(9
‘c a3 0
c\1
K 0
0 a, v)
a, -0
7
.- -
s cn a,
3 2
E: 2
0
Ll 3
.- -
c5
%
7 0
L a,
0 5
d L 222 $8 - EP- E:
CE a, ss
$5
2s E
.g 5 g
2% m 3 z .G
SB In ._ 0-$j
3
.-
v) ‘S mm .s .E
;m a, .& E ‘8
Z-5 .- m
._ mu v)
smzi
so II .- t
u
UT= ; $2
- E?<; E g.? E! II : -?cos 8- L.I
sar LG
m 4
L - m
3 V r m Q
._
m
0, c
0
S
.- L
1 .-
2 e L
- a,
In K 0 Q In
n
2 s 0 b 2:
i:
Zujgz
$911
IC 0 5 $;
._ -0 - m-
..x€. wor2
5.G a, m m
‘K m:g 0
0 j c
on E
- II 5 5 ma.c E
an U) c
a, ‘E EEO WFI
.- +