HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-02-21; Planning Commission; Resolution 4910I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMVIISSION RESOLU’IYON NO. 4910
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO
SUBDIVIDE 5.04 ACRES INTO 12 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND
I OPEN SPACE LOT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED EAST OF BLACK RAIL ROAD BETWEEN
POINSETTIA LANE AND AVIARA PARKWAY IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 20.
CASE NAME: BUERGER SUBDIVISION
CASE NO.: ZC 99.05/LCPA 99.03/CT 99.lO/HDP 99-08
CDP 99-17
WHEREAS, William and Anita Buerger, “Developer,“/“Owner,” have
filed a vcritkd application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property, described as
Parcel 1: The northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of
the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 27,
Township 12 Sooth, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Base and
Meridian, in the County of San Diego, State of California,
according to United States Government Survey, approved
April 21, 1890.
Parcel 2: The northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of
the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 27,
Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Base and
Meridian, in the County of San Diego, State of California,
according to the United States Government Survey approved
April 21, 1890.
Parcel 3: An easement for road and public utility purposes
over, under, upon and across the westerly 30 feet of the south
half of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of the
northeast quarter of Section 27, Township 12 South, Range 4
West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the County of
San Diego, State of California, according to United States
Government survey approved April 21,189O.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prcparcd in conjunction with said
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 21st day of February, hold a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IO
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
I9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analysing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments rcccivcd, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Negative Declaration
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL ofthe Negative Declaration
according to Exhibit “ND” dated December 12, 2000 and “PII” dated November
29, 2000, attached hereto and made a part hcrcof, based on the following findings:
Findings:
I. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A. it has reviewed, analyred and considered the Negative Declaration, the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments
thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
B. the Negative Declaration 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 Carlshad; and
C. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlshad: and
D. based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Conditions:
I. This approval is granted subject to the approval of ZC 99-05, LCPA 99-03, CT 99-10,
HDP 99-08, and CDP 99-17 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 4911, 4912, 4913, 4914, and 4915 for those other
approvals.
PC RESO NO. 4910 -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
2x
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the Zlst day of February, 2001. by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Heineman,
Nielsen, and TI-igs
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner L’Heurcux
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: I
Planning Directot
PC RESO NO. 4910
- Carlsbad City of
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: The project site is located in the southv.rest quadrant. south of
Poinsettia Lane north of Aviara Parhzay on Black Rail Road within the boundaries of the Zone
20 Specific Plan.
Project Description: A proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment and zone change to
change the zone designation for the site from Limited Control (L-C) to One-Family Residential.
(7,500 square foot minimum lot size), Qualified Overlay Zone (R-l-Q)> and Open Space (OS) on
a 5.04 acre parcel. Also proposed is a Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit and
Coastal Development Permit to subdivide and grade 12 single-family lots and one open space lot.
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, a
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on tile in the
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 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 Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at
(760) 602-4622.
DATED: DECEMBER 12,200O
CASE NO: ZC 99-OYLCPA 99.03/CT 99-1 O/HDP 99-OXKDP 99- 17
CASE NAME: BUERGER SUBDIVISION
PUBLISH DATE: DECEMBER 12,200O
,635 Faraday Avenue * Carlsbad. CA 92008-7314. (760) 602.4600 - FAX (760) 602-8559 - www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
EN\1RO3NEXTAL I\lPACT ASSESS\lE%-T FOR\1 - P-ART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNISG DEP.4RTMENT)
CASE NO: ZC 99.05;LCP.4 99.03:CT 99-10 ‘HDP 99-08 ,CDP 9% I -
DATE: No\-eniber 29. 2000
BACKGROUIUI)
CASE NAME: Buewer SubdivIsion
APPLICA!!T: William and Anita Buerger
ADDRESS AND PHOhZ NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 3668 Cvprus Wav. Oceanside. CA
92056
3.
5.
DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMInED: April 6, 1999
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A urouosed Local Coastal Proeram Amendment and zone chance to
g than e the zone desi
(7.500 suuare foot minmum lot size). Oualified Overlav Zone (R-l-0). and Open Space (OS) on
a 5.04 acre parcel. Also proposed is a Tentative Tract Mm Hillside Developmenr Permit and
Coastal Development Permit to subdivide and grade 12 single-family lots and one open space lot.
The proiect site is located in the southwest quadrant, south of Poinsettia Lane, north of Avian
Parkwav on Black Rail Road within the boundaries of the Zone 20 Specific Plan.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below \vould 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 Ed Transportatio~/Circulation 0 Public Services
q Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities gL Semite Systems
q Geological Problems 0 Energy 8r Mineral Resources cl Aesthetics
0 Water
q Air Quality
q Hazards q Cultural Resources
0 Noise cl Recreation
q Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03i28196
DETERMIK4TION.
(7-o be complewd by the Lead ;\pency)
cl
q
El
Ed
q
1 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. .4 MITIC.4TED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment. and an
ENVIROhMENTAL 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(n) 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 avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Negative Declaration, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore. a Notice of
Prior Compliance has been prepared.
la -3-00
Date
2 Rev. 03:2X/96
ENVIRONMEIiTAL IMrACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES. Chapter 3. .4rticle 5. Section 15063 requires mat the Cith
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 follovv~in:
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 ElR 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 & 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 E,IR 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.
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.
Rev. 03/2X/96
. If there are one or more potentially significant effects. the City ma!- avoid preparin: a~:
EIR if there are mltlgation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant. and
those mitigation measures are aLgreed to by the developer prior to public re\.iew In this
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated”
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
. An EIR & 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 Eh;VIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
4 Rev.03128196
Issues (and Supponln~ Informauon Sources)~
I. LAND LISE AND PLANNING. X;ould the proposal:,
=I
bl
cj
d)
e)
Conflict with general plan designation or zonq?
(Source e(s): (+I:Pgs 5.6-l 5.6-18; #2: Pzs III-74 -
87)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over tie
PrOJEt’! (*l:Pss 5.6-l 5.6-18: #2: Pgs 111.74. 87)
Be mcompatibie with ensnng land USC in the vicmit$?
($l:Pgs 5.6-l 5.6-18: #2: Pys III il.87)
Affect agricultural resources OT operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands; 01 tipacts from incompatible
land uses’? (kl:Pgs 5.6-I 5.6-18: #2: Pes 74 - 87)
Disrupt or divide the physical arran_eement of an
established community (including a low-income or
mmority communiv)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l 5.6-18: $2: Pgs
74 -87)
II. POPULATIOX AND HOUSKG. Would the proposal:
=I
b)
Cl
Cumulatively exceed oftiaal regional or local
population projections’? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l 5.5-6: )
Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through pro~rcts in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastNcture)? (%l:Pgs 5.5-l -
5.5-6)
Displace existing housing. especially affordable
housing’? (*l:Pgs 5.5-l 5.5-g)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the mouosal result in or
=)
b)
C)
d)
Cl
fi
. expose people to potential impacts involving:
FauItruptureV(ii1:Pgsj.l.I -5.1.15;#2: PgsIII- 112
- 118: #3)
Seismic ground shaking’? (Pl:Pss 5.1-l 5.1-15: P2:
Pgs111~112~11&:#3)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs
i.1-I-5.1.15:112:PgsIII-112~116; #3)
Seiche, tsunami, 01 volcanic hazard’? (Xl:Pgs 5.1-l
5.1-15)
Landslides 01 mudflows’? (iil:Pgs 5.1-l 5.1-15: #2:
PgsIII- 112- 118:#3)
Erosion, changes in topography OT unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or till? (Pl:P_es
j.1.1 5.1-15; X2: PgS III- 112 118: #3)
Subsidence ofthe land? (#l:Pg 5.1-l 5.1-15; #2: Pgs
112~llx:#31
Expansive s&? (Xl:Pg 5.1-l 5.1-15; #2: Pgs III -
112-118:P3)
Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-I
5.1-15: #3)
I\‘. X’ATER. Would the proposal result in
a) Changes in absorption rates. drainage patterns, OT the
rate and amouni of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l 5..2-
11 )
5
q q
0 q
q q
q q
q q
Cl q
q cl
IJ q
q
cl
q
q
q
q
q
q
cl
q
q
cl
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
1.w Thx \ II
jlglfian: ,::1pii:
impm
E3
El
q
q
Cl
q
q
q
u
cl 1x1
q ixl
0 15
q lx
q !x
q LB
q Ed
q El
q EJ
q Ed
Rev. 03.‘28/96
Issues (and Supporting Infon..atlon Sourcesi.
6)
h)
i)
Exposure of people or propert) to water related hazards
such as flooding? I’l:Pfs 5.2-l -X2-11)
Discharge into surface waters “I other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature. dissolved
oxygen “T turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l 5,.2-l 1)
Changes in the amount of surface u-arer in any watei
body’(+l:Pps 5.2-l 5.,2-l 1)
Changes in currenrs. or the course or direcnon of water
movemmts? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l 5.,2-l 1)
Changrs in the quanti~ of goud waters, either
through dnect additions or withdrawals. or through
mtercept,“n of an aquifer by cuts or excavanons or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capabilit$? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l 5..2-11)
Altered direction “r rate of flow of groundwater’?
(#l:Pgs 5.2-l 5..2-11)
Impacts t” groundwater quality? (#l:Pg 5.2-l 5..2-
11) Substantial reduction in the amount of moundwater
othewise available for pubbc water suppl;es’? (tl:Pgs
5.2-l 5.,2-l 1)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
extstmg or proJected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3.
1 5.3-12)
b) Expose sensitive receptors t” pollutants’? (#l:Pg 5.3-l
5.3-12)
c) Alter air movement. mmstll~e. or temperahtre. “I cause
any chang in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l 5.3-12)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l 5.3-12)
\‘I. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULAi-IOh’ Would the
E)
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips “I traffic congestion’? (#l:Pgs
5.7-l - 5.7.22; #2:Pgs III -58 69)
Hazards to safety from de@ features (e.g. sharp
curves “I dangerous intersections) “I incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)‘? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l 5.7.22: X2: Pgs
III-58 - 69)
Inadequate emergency access “I access t” nearby uses’?
(iil:Pgs 5.7-l 5.7.22: #2: Pgs III - 58. 69)
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l 5.7.22)
Hazards “I barriers for pedestrians “I bicyclists’!
(Xl:Pgs 5.7-l 5.7.22; #2: Pgs III 58 69 )
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
nansponatmn (e.g. bus tnrn”uts. bicycle racks)?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l 5.7.22; ??2: Pes III 58 69)
Rail, waterborne “I air traffic impacts? (iil:Pgs 5.7-l
5.7.22)
POI~lltl3ll~
SIguficm
impacr
q
q
q
q
q
q
cl
cl
Ed
q
cl
q
E3
q
Cl
q
q
q
0
PoienrKll\
Sl~mficmr
Cnlrss
\impx,*n
incorporarsd q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
cl
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
Lw Thin \I,
S~emt~lcml IW)>X i”,pK!
q q ,
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
Rev. 03128196
\‘Il. BIOLOGICAL RESOLXCES. would the proposal result
I” mpacrs to:
a) Endaneered. threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants. fish. insecrs.
animals. and birds? i;l:Pfs 5.4-I 5.1-24: $2: Pgs III
37 57: ri5)
b) Locaily designated speaes (e.g. heritage trees)‘?
(iil:Pg 5.4-l 5.4-24)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest. coastal habitat. etc.)? i:l:Pgs 5.4-l 5.4-24: ‘2:
Pzs III - 37 -5 7: #5)
d) \?etland habitat (e.g. marsh. riparian and vernal pool)‘?
i*l:Pgs 5.4-l 5.4-24: r?: Pgs III - 37 - 57: -5)
c) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors’? (#l:Pgs 5.4-I
5.4-24: P_es III 37 -57)
VIII. ENERGY AND MINER4L RESOLJKES. Would the
proposal’?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans’?
(Xl:Pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.1-5 &5.13-l - 5.13-9)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:P_cs 5.12.1-l -5.12.1-5 8r 5.13.
1 5.13-93
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
theresidents ofthe State? (XL:Pgs 5.12.1-l 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-l - 5.13-9)
I>;. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
b)
Cl
4
e)
A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including. but not lImited ro: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-I 5.10.1-S)
Possible interference with an emergency response plan
01 emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-I
5.10.1-5)
The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards’?(#l:Pgs 5.10.1-I -5.10.1-j: #2: PgslII-97-
105: #4)
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#l:Pg~ 5.10.1-l 5.10.1-5; #4)
Increase iire hazard in areas with flammable brush.
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 8.10.1-1 5.10.1-5)
x. NOISE. Would the proposal result in
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:PgS 5.9-l 5.9-
15; X2: Pgs III 88 96)
b) Exposure ofpeople to severe noise levels’? (#l:Pgs 5.9.
1 - 5.9-15; #2: P&y III 88 96)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. W-ould 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-l 5.12.5-6)
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-l - 5.12.6-4)
C) Schools? (#l:Pg~ 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
cl
Cl
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
cl
cl
0
q
q
q
El
q q rzd
q q --. El
q q LB
q q Es
q q Lx3
q q Ed
q q ixi
0 q lsI
q q •l
Cl cl IXI
0 q ISI
cl q lz
q q El
q q Ix1
q 0 15
q q El
El HEi
Rev. 03/2X/96
di Maintenance ofput.~ facilities. in&dins roads?
ci Other governmental senxes’? (-1:Pgs 5.12.1-l
512.8-7)
XII. IITILITIES AKD SER\TCES SYSTEMS. M’ould the
=I
b)
Cl
d)
5)
0
a
XIII.
a)
b)
Cl
XIV.
=I
b)
C)
d)
e)
proposal result in a need for new systems OT supplies,
or substantial alterations to the followng utilities:
Power or natural gas? (iiI:Pgs 5.12.1-l 5.12.1-5 K.
5.13-I - 5.13-9)
Communications systems?
Local 01 regional water treatment or disniburion
faciiities? (:l:Pgs 5.12.2-I 5.12.3-i)
Sewer or septic ranks’? (i-1:Pgs 5.12.3-I 5.12.3-i: $2:
PgsIIl- 110- 111)
Storm water dramage? (#I:Pg 5.2-8; *2 Pgs III 110
111)
Solid waste disposal? (#I:Pgs 5.12.4-l 5.12.4-3)
Local or regional water supplier? (iil:Pgs 5.12.2-I
5.12.3-7)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista 01 scenic highway’? (i;l:Pgs
5.11-l -5.11.5;XZ: PgsIII~119. 151)
Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#I:Pgs
5.11-l -5.11-5;#2: pgsIII~119~ 151)
Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.1 I-1 5.1 l-5)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontologica1 resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8.
10; X2: Pgs III 106- 107)
Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l 5.8.
10; #2: Pgs III - 70 - 73)
Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-I j&IO; #2:
Pgs III - 70 - 73)
Have the potential ro cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs 5.8.
I 5.8-10; #2: Pgs III - 70 - 73)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (Pl:Pgs 5.8-I 5.8-10; #2: Pgs
III - 70 - 73)
XYRECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-l
5.12.8-7)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs
5.12.8-l - 5.12.8-7)
El E
q
El cl
q
q q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
H
q
q
H
q
Cl
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
El
cl
q
q q
Cl
q
q
q
q
q
q
0
q
q
8 Rev. 03128196
h)
Cl
XVII.
MAiiDATORY FbDISGS OF SIGSIFICASCE.
Does the pro@ have the potential to dc?radc ths
qualit) of the environment. substannally reduce rhc
habitat of a fish or wildhfe specks. cause a fish or
wildlife populauon to drop belox self-sustnming levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or ammal communit).
reduce the number or restricr the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate imponant
examples of the major periods of California histor) or
prehistq’?
Does the project have nnpacts that are indlvidualiy
limited. bur cumulatively considerable’?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a projecr are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects.
the effects of other cunent projects, and the effects of
probable future projecrs)‘!
Does the project have environmental effecrs which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings.
either directly or mdirectiy?
EARLIER ANALYSES,
q q q
III 17 q
0 q q
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 #I 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. The project site is
also located within the boundaries of the Zone 20 Specific Plan approved by the City Council in
1994. Program EIR 90-03, which was certified for the Zone 20 Specific Plan in 1991, 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,
soils/geology, and visual aesthetics that could result from development of the specific plan area.
The PElR is intended to be used in the review of subsequent projects within Zone 20. The
project incorporates the Zone 20 PEIR mitigation measures, and through the analysis of the
required additional geotechnical, hydrology, and pesticide residue analyses. a determination has
been made that no additional significant impacts beyond those identified and mitigated by the
PEIR will result from this project. The following environmental evaluation briefly explains the
basis for this determination. The Zone 20 PEIR and additional technical studies are cited as
source documents.
9 Rev. 03128196
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
.4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENT.4L SETTING
The project site is 5.04 acres (4.02 net acres) in size and is located between Aviara Parkway and
Poinsettia Lane, on the east side of Black Rail Road,The entire property has been disturbed due
to past horticultural operations. The site is currently vacant except for wo remaining structures
(office and shed). The project consists of the subdivision and grading of 12 standard single-
family lots (minimum 7,500 square feet) and 1 open space lot. No homes are proposed on the
lots at this time. Approximately 25,400 cubic yards of grading are proposed with 5.400 cubic
yards of import needed to create building pads.
The site is designated by the General Plan for Residential Low Medium (RLM O-4 D&AC)
density land use and zoned Limited Control (L-C). A zone change and local coastal program
amendment are proposed to rezone the site to One-Family Residential. 7.500 square foot
minimum lot size, Qualified Overlay Zone (R-l-Q) to correspond to the existing RLM General
Plan designation. The project also requires approval of a tentative tract map, hillside
development permit and coastal development permit.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING:
The project includes a zone change and Local Coastal Program Amendment to change the zoning
of the property from Limited Control (L-C) to One Family Residential/Qualified Overlay Zone
(R-1-Q). The change is consistent with the underlying Residential Low Medium (RLM) density
General Plan and Mello II LCP land use designation allowing 0 - 4 dwelling units per
unconstrained acre thereby creating no conflicts with existing land use plans.
V. AIR QUALITY:
In 1994 the City prepared and certified an EIR which analyzed the impacts which will result
from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concludes that
continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have
cumulative significant impacts in the form of 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
10 Rev.03:28/96
design of the project or are included as conditions ofproject appro,,al
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the projccr is
located within a ‘non-attainment basin”. therefore. the “initial Study” checklist is marked
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent vvith the General Plan. therrforc. the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01. hy.
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
covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that hlElR
This document is available at the Planning Department.
VI. CIRCULATION:
In 1994 the City prepared and certified a Master EIR which analyzed the impacts which would
result from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concluded
that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will result in
increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments wiil be adequate to accommodate build-out
traflic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted bv regional
through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all
freeway interchange areas and major intersections alon, u 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.
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 covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR.
This project is within the scope of that MEIR This document is available at the Planning
Department.
A MEIR may not be used to review projects if it was certified more than tivc years prior to the
filing of an application for a later project. 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
11 Rev. 03/28!96
been known at the timt the MEIR was certified. Therefore. tile MEIR remains adcqurc to
review later projects.
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 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad. California. 9200s.
(760) 602-4600.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Reuort for the City of Cnrlsbad 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 (PEIR 90-03)
dated June 1992. Brian F. Mooney Associates.
3. “Geotechnical Investigation for Buerger Property, Carlsbad, California”. prepared b!
Geocon, dated November 20, 1998 and follow-up letter dated July 15. 1999.
4. “Limited Soil Sampling and Analysis Report - Buerger Property. Carlsbad. California”.
prepared by Geocon, dated August. 1998, and “Buerger Property Carlsbad. California
Waste Classification”, prepared by Geocon, dated September 18, 1998.
5. Letter dated June 21, 1999 from Paul Walsh, Biologist, Dudek & Associates. Inc.
12 Rev. 03/28/96