HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-01-17; Planning Commission; Resolution 48971
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. 4897
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM TO GRADE AND SUBDIVIDE 5.0 ACRES INTO
16 LOTS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE
EAST SIDE OF BLACK RAIL ROAD, SOUTH OF
POINSETTIA LANE AND NORTH OF AVIARA PARKWAY
IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 20.
CASE NAME: TABATA
CASE NO.: ZC 00-04/ LCPA 00-04/ CT 00-13/ CDP 00-36
WHEREAS, Canterina, LLC, “Developer,” and “Owner,” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
The north half of the northwest quarter of the northwest
quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 27, Township 12
south, Range 4 west, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according
to the official plat thereof
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program was prepared in conjunction
with said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of January 2001,
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 testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program.
f
;
f
‘
lf
11
1;
13
1‘
15
1t
1:
l$
15
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A)
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program according to
Exhibit “ND” dated November 27, 2000, and “PII” dated November 16, 2000,
attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A.
B.
C.
D.
It has reviewed, analyzed and considered Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the environmental impacts
therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to
Recommending Approval of the project; and
The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental
Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad, and
Based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
. .
.
.
. .
PC RESO NO. 4897 -2-
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
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th day of January 2001, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Heineman,
L’Heureux, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Nielsen
ABSTAIN:
A
- JEFFRE N. SEGALL. CArusBm PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. H\dZMILfiR
Planning Director
1 PC RESO NO. 4897 -3-
city of
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: The project site is located adjacent and east of Black Rail Road and 1500
feet south of future Poinsettia Lane, Carl&ad, California, and is identified by Assessors Parcel Number 215-040-04-00.
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 5.0 acre parcel of land. Also
proposed is a Tentative tract map to create 16 residential lots 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, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad CA 92008. 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) 602-4613.
DATED: NOVEMBER 27.2000
CASE NO: ZC OO-04/LCPA OO-04iCT 00.13/GDP 00.36
CASE NAME: TABATA PROPERTY
PUBLISH DATE: NOVEMBER 27,200O
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad, CA 92008.7314 l (760) 602.4600 l FAX (760) 602-8559 - www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us @
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: ZC 00.04/LCPA OO-04/CT OO-13/GDP 00-36
DATE: November 16.2000
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
CASE NAME: Tabata Property
APPLICANT: Brehn-Aviara Group. L.L.C.
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5770 Oberlin Drive, San Diego CA
92121.858-404-9721
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: July 3.2000
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment and Zone Change to
change the land use de&nation 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 C-Q). on a 5.0 acre
parcel of land. Also proposed is a tentative tract map to create 16 residential lots and a Coastal
Development Permit. The proiect site is located adjacent and east of Black Rail Road and 1500
feet south of future Poinsettia Lane and is identified by Assessors Parcel Number 215-040-04-00.
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.
q Land Use and Planning E?d Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing q Biological Resources q Utilities & Service Systems
q Geological Problems q Energy & Mineral Resources q Aesthetics
q Water q Hazards q Cultural Resources
q Air Quality q Noise q Recreation
ia Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03128196
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
q
q
q
El
q
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 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.
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.
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-Ol),
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
//-2/-O 0
Date
Planning Direct&k Sign&re
\I II 00
Date
Rev. 03/28/96
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 identities 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 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.
“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.
“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.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but a 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).
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.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
--
. 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.
. 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 II 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
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I.
a)
b)
Cl
d)
e)
II.
a)
b)
Cl
III.
a)
b)
Cl
4
4
cl
9)
II)
i)
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-l 5.6-18; #2: Pgs III-74 III
87)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18; #2: Pgs III-74 - III -87)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18; #2: Pgs III -74 -III -87)
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses)? (#l: Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18; #2: Pgs III-74 III
87) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l 5.6-18; #2: III
74 III -87)
POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
Cumulatively exceed ofticial regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6; #2: IV-l)
Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastmcture)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l -
5.5-6; #2: IV-l)
Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l 5.5-6)
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l 5.1-15; #2: Pgs III-112
III- 118; #3)
Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l 5.1-15; #2:
Pgs III-112 111.118; #3)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
((#l:Pgs 5.1-l 5.1.15; #2: Pgs III-1 12 - 111-118; #3)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l
5.1.15;#2: Pgs III-112 - 111.118; #3)
Landslides or mudflows’! (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15; #2:
Pgs III-1 12 - III-1 18; #3)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or till? (#l:Pgs
5.1-l - 5.1-15; #2: Pgs III-1 12 III -118; #3)
Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-t 5.1-15; #2: Pgs
111-l 12 III-1 18; #3)
Expansivesoils?(#t:Pgs5.1-1 - 5.1.lS;#2:PgsIII-112
-III-118;#3)
Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l
5.1-15; #2:Pgs III -112 -III -118; #3)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
Less Than significam
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
NO
hllpiXt
E4
El
[XI
EJ
lxl
IXI
[XI
El
izl
lz
IXI
[XI
ix
El
[XI
El
[XI
5 Rev. 03/2X/96
-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
IV.
4
b)
4
4
e)
9
g)
h)
0
V.
=I
b)
Cl
4
VI.
=I
b)
Cl
d)
e)
WATER. Would the proposal result in:
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l 5.2.
11; #6)
Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l 5. 2-11; #5)
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperatire, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5. 2-l 1; #5)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l 5. 2-I 1; #5)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l 5.2-11; #5)
Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, OI through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations OI
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l 5.2-11; #5)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
((#l:Pgs 5.2-l 5. 2-11; #5)
Impacts to groundwater quality? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5. 2.
11;#5)
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
5.2-l 5.2-l 1)
AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation’? (#l:Pgs 5.3.
1 - 5.3-12; #2: Pgs 28-36)
Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#1 :Pgs 5.3-l
- 5.3-12; #2: Pgs 28.36)
Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l 5.3-12; 112: Pgs
28-36)
Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12; #2:
Pgs 28-36)
TP.ANSPORTATIONiClRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
5.7-l - 5.7.22; #2: Pgs III-58 111-69)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l 5.7.22; #2: Pgs
III-58 - 111.69)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses’?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l 5.7.22; #2: Pgs III-58 111.69)
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l 5.7.22; #2: Pgs III-58 111.69)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists’?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22; #2: Pgs III-58 - 111.69)
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
!z
q
q
q
lz
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
cl
q
cl
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
6 Rev. 03/28/96
Potentially
Significant Impact
Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
NO
Impact
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
9
g)
VII.
=I
4
e)
VIII.
=)
b)
Cl
IX.
=)
b)
Cl
4
e)
X.
=)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus timouts, bicycle racks)‘?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l 5.7.22; #2: Pgs III-58 111.69)
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l
5.7.22; #2: Pgs III-58 111-69)
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including hut not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l 5.4-24; #2: Pgs
III-37 111-57;)
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l 5.4-24; #2: Pgs Ill-37 111-57;)
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)‘? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l 5.4-24; #2:
Pgs III-37 - 111.57;)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 5.4-24; #2: Pgs III-37 111.58;)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l
- 5.4-24; #2: Pgs III-37 - 111.57;)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 5.13-9)
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)
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-l 5.13-9)
HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals orradiation)?(#l:Pgs 5.10.1-I 5.10.1-5)
Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-I -
s.io.i-5j
The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards‘! (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-I - 5.10.1-5; #2: Pgs III-97
111-105; #5)
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#l:Pzs 5.10.1-I 5.10.1-5: #2: Pes
III-97 111-105; d5) -
Increase tire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l 5.10.1-5)
NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-l 5.9.
15; #2: Pgs III-88 111-96)
7
Potentially
Significant
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Rev. 03/28/96
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
NO
Impact
Ed
[XI
[XI
IXI
IXI
lzl
IXI
[XI
[XI
El
El
El
.Lxl
•l
[x1
IXI
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b)
XI.
=)
b)
Cl
4
e)
XII.
=I
b)
Cl
4
e)
9
!3)
XIII.
=I
b)
Cl
XIV.
4
b)
Cl
d)
e)
Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9.
1 5.9-15; #2: Pgs III-88 111.96)
PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new 01 altered
govemment services in any of the following areas:
Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-l - 5.12.5-6)
Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-I - 5.12.6-4)
Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 5.12.7-5)
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (#l,
pgs 5.12.1-l 5.12.8-7)
Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l -
5.12.8-7)
UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
Communications systems? (#l; pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-l 5.12.3-7)
Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-l 5.12.3-7)
Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-I 5.12.4-3)
Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-l -
5.12.3-7)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway’? (#I :Pgs
5.11-l 5.11.5;#2: PgsIIl-119-111-151)
Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
5.11-1 -5.11.5;#2: PgslII-119 -111-151)
Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-l 5.11-5; #2: Pgs
111-119-111-151)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8.
10; #2: Pgs III-106 - 111.107)
Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l 5.8.
10; #2: Pgs III-70 - 111.73)
Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l 5.8-10; #2:
Pgs III-70 - 111-73)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs
5.8-I - 5.8-10; #2: Pgs III-70 111.73)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l 5.8-10; #2: Pgs
III-70 - 111-73)
8
Potentially
Significant
Impact
q
El
El
q
q
El
E
El
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
Potentially
Significant UIlkSS Mitigation
Incorporated q
El q q
q
q
El
El
H
q
q
q
tzl
q
q
q
q
Less Than
Significant
Impact
q
El
8
q
q
H
H
El
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
NO
Impact
Rev. 03128196
-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
xv.
a)
b)
XVI.
4
b)
Cl
RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-l
5.12.8-7)
Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l :Pgs
5.12.8-l 5.12.8-7)
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
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?
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)?
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Potentially
Significant Impact
q
q
q
E?d
q
Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
q
q
IXI
q
q
Less Than
Significant Impact
q
q
0
q
q
NO Impact
[XI
El
q
q
[XI
9 Rev. 03128196
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis of this proposed single-family residential project has been completed through the
General Plan Update (GPA 94-01) and related Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR 93-
01). The MEIR is cited as source #l 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. All feasible mitigation measures identified in MEIR 93-01
which are appropriate to the project have been incorporated into this project.
An MEIR may not be used to review projects if it was certified more than five years prior to the
tiling of an application for a later project except under certain circumstances. The City is
currently reviewing the 1994 MEIR to determine whether it is still adequate to review subsequent
projects. Although the MEIR was certified more than five years ago, the City’s preliminary
review of its adequacy finds that no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the
circumstances under which the MEIR was certified. The only potential changed circumstance,
the intersection failure at Palomar Airport Rd. and El Camino Real, is in the process of being
mitigated to below a level of significance. Additionally, there is no new available information,
which was not known and could not have been known at the time the MEIR was certified.
Therefore, the MEIR remains adequate to review later projects. All feasible mitigation measures
identified by the MEIR which are appropriate to this project have been incorporated into the
project.
The project site is located in an area which is subject to the requirements of the Zone 20 Specific
Plan approved by the City Council in 1994. A program EIR was certified for the Zone 20
Specific Plan. The Zone 20 Program EIR identified, analyzed, and recommended mitigation to
reduce potentially significant impacts to insignificant levels. The Zone 20 Program EIR (PEIR)
analyzed potential impacts to agriculture, air quality, biology, circulation, land use, noise,
pesticide residue, paleontology, public facilities financing, soils/geology, and visual aesthetics
that could result from the development of the Specific Plan area. The Program EIR is intended to
be used in the review of subsequent projects within Zone 20. The project incorporates the
required Zone 20 Program EIR mitigation measures, and through the analysis of the required
additional biological, geotechnical, hydrology, and noise analysis a determination has been made
that no additional significant impacts beyond those identified and mitigated by the Program EIR
will result from this project. The following environmental evaluation briefly explains the basis
for this determination along with identifying the source documents which support the
environmental determination. The Zone 20 Program EIR and additional technical studies are
cited as source documents for this environmental evaluation.
10 Rev. 03128196
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project site is 5.0 acres in size and is located on the east side of Black Rail Road and 1,500
feet south of future Poinsettia Lane. The project consists of 16 single-family lots with a
minimum lot area of 7,500 square feet developed on two cul-de-sac public streets. The site
contains no significant habitats as it has been used for agricultural purposes and now lies fallow.
The topography onsite consists of a ridge that trends north and south in the center of the property.
The high point is 381.6 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) and drops to 348 feet AMSL to the
west and 358 feet AMSL to the east. The project will require an export of 22,700 cubic yards of
export soil material.
The entire 5.0 site is designated as Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM O-4 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-l-Q)
to correspond to the existing general plan land use designations. In addition to approval of the
tentative map application a coastal development permit is being requested.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
A. Environmental Impact Discussion
V. a) Air Quality
The implementation of 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 build-out 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 build-out, 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
11 Rev. 03/28/96
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 projects within
the scope of 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) Transportation/Circulation
The implementation of projects that fall within the scope of and are included in the updated 1994
General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to
accommodate build-out 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 build-out.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan build-out,
numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include:
1) 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.
The project will generate 370 average daily trips. Conditions of project approval will include
constructing a portion of Black Rail Road along the project frontage.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at build-out 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 projects that fall within the scope of the General Plan’s
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation
impacts is required.
VII. a, c. & e) Biological Resources
The Zone 20 Program EIR identified the mitigation requirement that future site specific
biological survey studies that focus on the impacts created by individual subsequent development
projects be prepared. The additional biological studies are required to consider the baseline data
and biological open space recommendations of the Zone 20 Program EIR and provide more
12 Rev. 03/28/96
detailed and current resource surveys. The site specific biological survey is required to identify
mitigation for any project specific impacts.
The project site has been used for agricultural purposes and is devoid of endangered, threatened
or rare species, The surrounding properties have also been used for agricultural purposes and are
devoid of significant vegetation. The properties to the north and east have been graded for
residential lots, This project would not impact wildlife dispersal or migration corridors.
IX.
2)
c) and d) Hazards
Agricultural chemicals have previously been used on the site according to the Zone 20
Program EIR. Because of this prior use there is the potential for soil contamination
resulting from the varying degrees of degradation, prevalence in the environment, and
toxicity of the agricultural chemicals which may have been used. A Limited Soil
Sampling and Agricultural Chemical Evaluation was conducted on the site and
determined that the overall potential for significant agricultural hazardous material or
contamination onsite was insignificant and no additional testing or mitigation measures
as described in the Zone 20 Specific Plan EIR are warranted.
X. b) Noise
All projects located within 500 feet of existing/future Poinsettia Lane or within the
McClellan-Palomar Airport Influence Area are required to analyze the projected noise
impacts. Because the property is approximately 1500 feet south of future Poinsettia Lane
and located south of the McClellan-Palomar Airport Influence Area, a noise study was
not prepared for the project. The property is within a three-mile radius of the airport.
The following noise mitigation measures are required for the project:
1) Prior to the recordation of the first final tract map or the issuance of building permits,
whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property
is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating from McClellan-Palomar
Airport, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and the City Attorney
(see Noise Form #2 on tile in the Planning Department).
XIV. a) Cultural Resources Paleontology
According to the Zone 20 Program EIR the geologic formations present within the Zone 20
Specific Plan Area have the potential to contain significant fossils. There is a high potential for
the discovery of fossils during future grading and construction activities. The following
mitigation measures shall be implemented during future grading of the site to reduce potentially
significant impacts on the region’s paleontological resources to an acceptable level:
A. 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
13 Rev. 03/28/96
-.
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;
B. 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 tine screens. The paleontologist shall make
periodic reports to the Planning Director during the grading process;
C. 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;
D. 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;
E. 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.
b) Cultural Resources - Archaeology
A. The Zone 20 EIR does not identify any archaeological sites on the property.
14 Rev. 03128196
III. EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on tile in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad CA 92008, (760) 602-
4613.
1. “Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan
Update” (MEIR 93-Ol), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
2. “Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Zone 20 Specific Plan” (EIR 90-
03), dated June 1992, Brian F. Mooney Associates.
3. “Soil and Geologic Reconnaissance, Tabata, Carlsbad, California, dated June 2000,
Geocon, Inc.
1.
2.
“Limited Soil Sampling and Agricultural Chemical Evaluation - 5-acre Former Tabata
Property Carlsbad, Californian”, dated November 10,2000, Geocon Inc.
“Hydrology Study for Tabata Property Tentative Map” (Job No.OO-1003) June 30, 2000,
O’Day Consultants.
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
1.
2.
3.
The applicant shall notify, in a manner satisfactory to the City Attorney, all tenants/users
of new development that these areas are subject to dust, pesticides, and odors associated
with adjacent agricultural operations, and that the tenants/users occupy these areas at their
own risk.
Prior to the recordation of the first final tract map or the issuance of building permits,
whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property
is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating from McClellan-Palomar
Airport, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and the City Attorney
(see Noise Form #2 on tile in the Planning Department).
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. 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;
15 Rev. 03128196
- -
B. 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;
C. 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;
D. 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.
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
See attached
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.
// 2-/. 00
Date
16 Rev. 03/28196
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGA’TION MONITORING CHECKLIST: kge 1 of 2
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGA’TION MONITORING CHECKLIST: hge 2 of 2