Loading...
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