HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-06-06; Planning Commission; Resolution 49851
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. 4985
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION
FOR CT 98-05 LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
THE INTERSECTION OF POINSETTIA LANE AND BLACK
RAIL ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE
20.
CASE NAME: DEJONG PROPERTY TENTATIVE MAP
EXTENSION
CASE NO.: CT 98-05x1
WHEREAS, Arie deJong, Jr. Family Trust, “Developer and “Owner,” has filed
a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
Being that portion of Lot 2 of Section 22, Township 12 south,
Range 4 west, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the City
of Carlsbad, State of California according to official plat
thereof
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 6th day of June 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 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 ADOPTS the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit
“ND” dated May 1, 2001, and “PII” dated April 25, 2001, attached hereto and
made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
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
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A. It has reviewed, analyzed and considered Negative Declaration CT 98-05x1 the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments
thereon prior to APPROVING 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 Carlsbad; and
C. It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; 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.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 6th day of June 2001, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Heineman, L’Heureux,
Nielsen, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Compas
ABSTAIN:
a
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J.MLZ&LER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4985 -2-
City of Carlsbad
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: Northeast comer of Black Rail Road and future Poinsettia Lane.
Project Description: One year extension of Tentative Tract Map 98-05 and Coastal
Development Permit 98-26 for a 28 unit residential subdivision.
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 file 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 Van Lynch in the Planning Department at
(760) 602- 4613.
DATED: MAY 4,200l
CASE NO: CT 98-05Xl/CDP 98-26X1
CASE NAME: DEJONG PROPERTY
PUBLISH DATE: MAY 4,200l
MICHAEL J.HOLZ!&ILLER
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue l Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 l (760) 602-4600 l FAX (760) 602-8559 l www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us @
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
CASE NO: CT 9%05xl/CDP 98-26x1
DATE: April 25,200l
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: deJong; Residential Project
2. APPLICANT: Arie de Jong;, Jr. Family Trust
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 622 E. Mission Road, San Marcos, CA
92069; (760) 744-3222
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: April 25.2001
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A one-year tentative map extension for a 28 residential lot and 2
open space lot subdivision. The nroiect site is 33.4 acres located at the northeast comer of Black
Rail Road and future Poinsettia Lane.
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 w Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing III Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 Water 0 Hazards cl Cultural Resources
q Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
lxl
q
0
III
0
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. An 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.
&J &qg---- 4-Z6-/
Plann~ Signature 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 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.
0 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.
l “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.
0 “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
l Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but &l potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
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.
0 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
l 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 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.
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
4
b)
c)
4
e>
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)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a>
b)
c)
Cumulatively exceed official 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 projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l -
5.5-6)
Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
4
b)
c)
4
e)
f-l
8)
h)
0
expose people to potential impacts involving:
Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2: Pgs III-112 -
III-1 18; #6)
Seismic ground shaking? ((#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2:
Pgs III-112 - 111-118; #6)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
((#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1.15; #2: Pgs III-112 - 111-118; #6)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5. l-l -
5.1-15;#2: Pgs III-112 - 111-118; #6)
Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2:
Pgs III-1 12 - III-1 18; #6)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2: Pgs III-112 - III -118; #6)
Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2: Pgs
III-112 - 111-118; #6)
Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2: Pgs III-112
- III -118; #6)
Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15; #2 Pgs III -112 - III -118; #6)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
5 Rev. 03128196
Potentially
Significant Impact
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
lxl
Ix]
lxl
Ia
la
IXI
IXI
Ia
lxl
lxl
lxl
El
IXI
lxl
Ix1
lxl
Ia
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
a>
b)
c)
4
e>
f)
!a
h)
i>
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-
11; #7)
Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5. 2-l 1; #7)
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-l 1; #7)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-11; #7)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-l 1; #7)
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-l - 5.2-11; #7)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-11; #7)
Impacts to groundwater quality? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5. 2-
11; #7)
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? ((#I :Pgs
5.2-1 - 5.2-l 1)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
4
b)
c)
4
Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
1 - 5.3-12)
Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l :Pgs 5.3-l
- 5.3-12)
Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
Create objectionable odors? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
4
b)
c)
4
e)
f)
8)
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)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, 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)
Potentially Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
El
lxl
lxl
lxl
IXI
IXI
lz
lxl
IXI
0
IXI
El
IXI
0
IXI
El
[XI
lxl
Ia
lxl
6 Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
4
b)
cl
4
4
VIII.
4
b)
c>
in impacts to:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24; #2: Pgs III-
37 - 111-57; #3)
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24; #2: Pgs III-37 - 111-57; #3)
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; #3)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24; #2: Pgs III-37 - 111-58; #3)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l :Pgs 5.4- 1
- 5.4-24; #2: Pgs III-37 - 111-57; #3)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 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
& 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
4
b)
c)
d)
4
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-l - 5.10.1-5)
Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l -
5.10.1-5)
The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5; #2: Pgs III-97 -
111-105)
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5; #2: Pgs
III-97 - III- 105)
Increase tire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 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; #2: Pgs III-88 - 111-96; #5)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-
1 - 5.9-15; #2: Pgs III-88 - 111-96; #5)
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)
Potentially Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
lxl
lxl
Ix]
lxl
lxl
lxl
IXI
txl
Ix]
El
lxl
IXI
Ix1
lxl
IXI
lxl
7 Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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? (#l,
pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.8-7)
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
5.12.8-7)
XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
4
b) c>
4 e> f) s>
XIII.
4
b)
cl
XIV.
a>
b)
c>
d)
e>
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-l - 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 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.12.3-7)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
5.11-1 - 5.11-5; #2: Pgs III-119 - 111-151)
Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
5.1 l-l - 5.11-5; #2: Pgs III-119 - 111-151)
Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.1 l-l - 5.11-5; #2: Pgs
III-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-l - 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)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 -
5.12.8-7)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
Potentially Significani
Impact
Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation tncornorated
0 0 lxl 0 0 lxl 0 q ta 0 q Ix]
III
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 IXI
0 Ia
q IXI
q IXI
0 Ix]
0 IXI
0 Ia
q lxl
q El
0 lxl
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
8 Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation Incorporated
0 0 0 IXI
0 0
q lxl
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.
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 proposed project is for the one-year extension of the approved tentative tract map and coastal
development permit. The City approved the project on May 11, 1999. The project site is
approximately 33.4 acres in size and is located at the northeast comer of Black Rail Road and
future Poinsettia Lane. The project consists of 28 residential lots with a minimum lot area of
7,500 square feet and 2 open space lots which contain a total of 22.68 acres. The site contains
coastal sage scrub, southern maritime chaparral, scrub oak chaparral, coast live oak and areas that
have been used for agriculture. The site elevation decreases from a high of approximately 350
feet in the southwestern comer to a low of 204 feet in the canyon located in the central portion of
the north end of the site. The project also included some offsite grading for Poinsettia Lane
parallel to the southern boundary line of the site. No development has occurred at this time.
There have been no changes to the property conditions or other circumstances since the original
project was approved, and no potentially significant impacts have been identified which were not
identified previously. Therefore, no new mitigation measures are required. Please refer to the
original mitigated negative declaration for a full discussion of the environmental impacts and
mitigation measures.
Previous State Clearing House Number - 98 111082
11 Rev. 03128196
II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
B. 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 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 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 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
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 280 average daily trips. Conditions of project approval will include
constructing a portion of Poinsettia Lane and Black Rail Road along the project frontages. The
project will generate 280 average daily trips. Conditions of project approval will include
constructing a portion of Poinsettia Lane and Black Rail Road along the project frontages.
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 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.
III. 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-l 161, extension 4446.
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. deJong Mitigated Negative Declaration, dated May 5, 1999 and Environmental Impact
Assessment Part II and mitigation monitoring and reporting program (CT 98-05), dated
November 30, 1998, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
13 Rev. 03128196