HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-07-17; Planning Commission; Resolution 52611
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. 5261
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION
FOR CT 98-05x1 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
CASE NO.: CT 98-05~2HDP 98-03x2
WHEREAS, ADJ Holdings, LLC A California Limited Liability Company,
“Developer”/”Owner,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding
property described as s
EXTENSION
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 oMicial plat
thereof
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of July, 2002, 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.
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
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby ADOPTS the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit
"ND" dated June 6, 2002, and "PII" dated May 30, 2002, attached hereto and
made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findinm:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A. It has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration CT 98-05x2
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 I1 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 17th day of July, 2002, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez,
Heineman, White, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Segall
ABSTAIN: None
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST: .
MICHAEL J. HXZMMLER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5261 -2-
- City of Carlsbad
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddressLocation: Northeast corner of Black Rail Road and Poinsettia Lane.
Project Description: A one-year extension of Tentative Map 98-05 and Hillside
Development Permit 98-03 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 20 days of date
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Van Lynch in the Planning Department at
(760) 602-4613.
DATED: JUNE 6,2002
CASE NO: CT 98-05~2/HDP 98-03x2
CASE NAME: DEJONG PROPERTY
PUBLISH DATE: JUNE 6,2002
MICHAEL J. HaZMmER
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
CASE NO: CT 98-05~2/HDP 98-03x2
DATE: May 30,2002
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: deJona Propertv
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: May 29.2002
5. PROJECT DESCRJPTION: A one-year tentative map extension for a 28 lot residential and two
lot open mace subdivision. The uroiect site is 33.4 acres located at the northeast comer of Black
Rail Road and 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.
Land Use and Planning TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 water Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
IXI
0
0
0
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 (MER 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MER 93-01),
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
'~ Planner ignature Dat! s' fo/ot
2 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.
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 EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of
Ovemding 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.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
e 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.
e An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should
be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18; #2: Pgs 111-74 - I11
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18; #2 Pgs 111-74 - I11 -
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18; #2 I11 -74
- 87)
(#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18; #2 Pgs 111-74 - I11 -87)
(#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18; #2 Pgs I11 -74 - I11 -87)
87)
- I11 -87)
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
populationprojections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 -
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
5.5-6)
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2: Pgs 111-112 -
Seismic ground shaking? ((#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2:
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ((#l:Pgs
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2:
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions !?om excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2: Pgs
Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2: Pgs III-112
Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
III- 1 18 ; #6)
P~s 111-112 - 111-118; #6)
5.1-1 - 5.1.15; #2: Pgs 111-112 - 111-118; #6)
5.1-15;#2: Pgs 111-1 12 - 111-118; #6)
Pgs 111-1 12 - 111-1 18; #6)
5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2: Pgs 111-112 - I11 -118; #6)
111-1 12 - 111-1 18; #6)
- I11 -1 18; #6)
5.1-15; #2 P~s I11 -112 - I11 -118; #6)
Potentially Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than
Significant Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No [mpact
[x]
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
[x]
IXI
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
5 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-
Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1; #7)
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1; #7)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11; #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 5.2-1 - 5.2-11; #7)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
Impacts to groundwater quality? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5. 2-
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? ((#l:Pgs
11; #7)
body? ((#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1; #7)
((#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5. 2-11; #7)
11; #7)
5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1
Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
Create objectionable odors? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
1 - 5.3-12)
- 5.3-12)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #2: Pgs
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (#l:Pgs
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #2: Pgs 111-58 - 111-69)
111-58 - 111-69)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #2: PgS 111-58 - 111-69)
5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #2: PgS 111-58 - 111-69)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #2: Pgs 111-58 - 111-69)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #2: Pgs 111-58 - 111-69)
6
Potentially
Impact
significant
0
0
0
17
0
17
0
0
0
IXI
0
0
0
151
0
17
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0
0
c7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
El
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -
5.7.22; #2: Pgs 111-58 - 111-69)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in
impacts to:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24; #2: Pgs III-
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#1 :Pgs
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest,
coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24; #2: Pgs
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1
37 - 111-57; #3)
5.4-1 - 5.4-24; #2: Pgs 111-37 - 111-57; #3)
111-37 - 111-57; #3)
(#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24; #2: Pgs 111-37 - 111-58; #3)
- 5.4-24; #2: Pgs 111-37 - 111-57; #3)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
(#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
1 - 5.13-9)
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -
The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5; #2: Pgs 111-97 -
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5; #2: Pgs III-
Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
5.10.1-5)
111- 105)
97 - 111-105)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9-
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-
15; #2: Pgs 111-88 - 111-96; #5)
1 - 5.9-15; #2: Pgs 111-88 - 111-96; #5)
7
Potentially
Significant Impact
0
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than Significant Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No Impact
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
Ix1
Ixl
IXI
IXI
El
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
Ixl
Ixl
Ixl
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than No
Significant Impact Impact
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6)
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4)
o 0 0 0
0
C) Schools? (#l:PgS 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (#l,
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
5.12.8-7)
0 0 0 0
0
XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & n 0 - 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) U
b) Communications systems? (#l; pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) n 0 0 OH om c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
e) Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
f) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
5.12.3-7)
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
OH om Elm om
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5; #2: Pgs
5.11-1 - 5.11-5; #2: Pgs 111-119 - 111-151)
5.11-1 - 5.11-5; #2: Pgs 111-119 - 111-151)
111-119 - 111-151)
0 0
0
0
om om 0
0 om
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10;#2:
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs 5.8-
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses with the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10; #2: Pgs
10; #2: Pgs 111-106 - 111-107)
10; #2: Pgs 111-70 - 111-73)
Pgs 111-70 - 111-73)
1 - 5.8-10; #2: PgS 111-70 - 111-73)
111-70 - 111-73)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 om
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
8 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks
or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 - 0 0 om
5.12.8-7)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#1 :Pgs 5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7) 0 Elm
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the 0 0 om 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 fkture
projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
0 0 OEI
0 0 om
9 Rev. 03/28/96
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 (MER
93-01) . The MEIR is cited as source #1 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 MER 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 (PER)
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. 03/28/96
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 and extended the
development permits for one year on June 6, 2001. The project site is approximately 33.4 acres
in size and is located at the northeast corner of Black Rail Road and hture Poinsettia Lane. The
project consists of 28 residential lots with a minimum lot area of 7,500 square feet and two open
space lots which contain a total of 22.68 acres. The site contains coastal sage scrub, southem
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 1 1 1082
11 Rev. 03/28/96
11. 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 hrther
environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
VI. a) TransportatiodCirculation
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 fieeway 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
12 Rev. 03/28/96
alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian
linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when
adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway
onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been
incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. The
project will generate 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.
111. EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008,
(760) 602-4600.
1. “Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan
Update” (MER 93-01), 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. 03/28/96