HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-07-01; Planning Commission; Resolution 4331# a 6
d
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO 4331
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO ALLOW
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE AND SECOND DWELLING UNIT OVER A
DETACHED GARAGE LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTH
SHORE OF BUENA VISTA LAGOON, WEST OF THE AT&SF
RAILROAD, NORTH OF MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE IN
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1
CASE NAME: LEVY RESIDENCE
CASE NO.: CDP 97-59
WHEREAS, John C. Levy, “Developer”, has filed a verified application
City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by John C. Levy, “Owner”, described as
Parcel “A” of City of Carlsbad Adjustment Plat #471.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 1st day of July, 199t
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all te
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by st.
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the P
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the P
Commission hereby APPROVES the Mitigated Negative Declaration ac
to Exhibit “ND” dated April 6, 1998, and “PII” dated March 16, 1998 a
hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
- e 0
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 has reviewed, anal!
considered Mitigated Negative Declaration CDP 97-59, the environmental
therein identified for this project and said comments thereon, and the M
Monitoring and Reporting Program, on file in the Planning Department,
APPROVING the project. Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments ther
Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence the project wi
significant effect on the environment and hereby APPROVES the Mitigated
Declaration.
2. The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative De
CDP 97-59 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been pre
accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, t
Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad.
3. The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration CD
reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of C
Conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit or grading permit (whichever occu
the applicant shall record a deed restriction over the entire wetland buffer
area to restrict the property for open space/wildlife uses only, except for a
public access trail as shown on the site plan for CDP 97-59.
2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit or grading permit (whichever
first), the property owner shall submit evidence satisfactory to the P
Director that an irrevocable offer of dedication of the wetland buffer area h
made to the California Department of Fish and Game.
3. Prior to the issuance of building permits, an exterior lighting plan s
submitted to the Planning Director for review. All exterior lighting shall in
combination of low-level lights and shields to minimize the amount of light f
the adjacent wetlands and wetland buffer area.
4. Due to the potential presence of the light-footed clapper rail within the w
adjacent to the project site, project construction shall be prohibited dur
breeding season, March 1 through August 1, unless a focused survey for the
rail is conducted immediately prior to project construction and determines
clapper rails were observed during the survey.
5. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, non-native plant species L
removed from the wetland buffer area and the wetland buffer area shall
vegetated with a hydro-mulched coastal scrub grass seed mix.
PC RES0 NO. 4331 -2-
e e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit or grading permit (whichever occl
the applicant shall irrevocably offer to dedicate in perpetuity to the City of (
a minimum 25 foot wide public access trail easement over the public acc
which is shown on the site plan for CDP 97-59.
7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit or grading permit (whichever occt
the wetlands buffer area shall be staked and flagged in the field by a
surveyor. A minimum of three notices shall be posted within this area ta
that this area is off-limits to construction activity.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of July 1998
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners Compas, Heineman, Iv
Nielsen, Savary, and Welshons
NOES:
i
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
I
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I
- BAILEY NORE, Chairperson
CAESBAD'$LANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 433 1 -3-
e e
- City of Carlsbac
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddresdLocation: The south shore of Buena Vista Lagoon, west of the AT&S:
Railroad and north of Mountain View Drive.
Project Description: A Coastal Development Permit and a 2"d Dwelling Unit Permit fo
the development of a 2,713 square foot single family dwelling an(
detached garage with a Znd dwelling unit on a level 1.90 acre lot.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described projec
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act anc
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, I
Mitigated Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact 01
the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file ir
the Planning Department.
A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in tht
Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from thc
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 3C
days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Chris DeCerbo in the Planning
Department at (760) 438- 1 16 1, extension 4445.
DATED: APRIL 6,1998
CASE NO: CDP 97-59/SDU 98-03
CASE NAME: LEVY RESIDENCE
PUBLISH DATE: APRIL 6,1998 && MICHAEL J. HOmMILmR
Planning Director
-
2075 La Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 - (760) 438-1 161 - FAX (760) 438-0894
e e
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CDP 97-59\SDU 98-0
DATE: 3/16/9
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: LEVY RESIDENCE AND SECOND DWELLING UNIT
2. APPLICANT: John Levy, Jr.
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1825 Aston Ave, Carlsbad,CA 9200
(760) 93 1-9009
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: February 6, 1998
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The development of a 2713 square foot sinde family dwelling an
detached garage with second dwelling unit on a level 1.90 acre lot which is located on the soul
shore of Buena Vista Lagoon, west of the AT&SF Railroad and north of Mountain View Drive.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this projec
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impal
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Land Use and Planning IXI Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services
Population and Housing IXI Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
H Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
I)
DETERMINATION.
0
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will nc
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet ha\
been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and 2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least or
potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicab
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis i
described on attached sheets. A Negative Declartion is required, but it must analyze only the effects th
remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WIL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzc
adequately in an earlier Master Environmental Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicab
standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Revie
(MEIR 93-01), including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed projec
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
& De(& 3 -2o-?B Planner Signature Date
I] - 41 q%3 \
Planning Director’s Signaturu Date
2 Rev. 03128196
e e
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environment:
Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environment.
Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physica
biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with informatic
to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, (
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 supporte
by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply
projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no sour(
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 n
adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies.
0 “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigatic
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 briefl
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.
Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on tk
environment, but @ potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR (
Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigate
pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measurc
that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to (
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environment,
document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is require
(Prior Compliance).
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an E1
if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards ar
the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to th
earlier EIR.
0 A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project I
any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there ar
mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures ar
agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially Significa~
Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may t
prepared.
An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited 1
the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in e
Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures th
reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for tk
significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do nl
reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is not possible 1
determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of
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 undt
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussir
mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
a
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
d) 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)
e) 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)
(#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
0
0
0
0
0
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) o
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area 0
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) 0
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
b) Seismic ground shaking? ((# 1 :Pgs 5.1 - 1 - 5.1 - 15)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#1 :Pgs 5.1-1 -
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#1 :Pgs
((#l:PgS 5.1-1 - 5.1.15)
5.1-15)
5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
g) Subsidence of the land? (# 1 :Pgs 5.1 - 1 - 5.1 - 15)
h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#1 :Pgs 5.1- 1 -
5.1-15)
0 0 0
0
0 0
0 0 0
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff! (#1 :Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11, #5) 0
0
11)
5
e
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
0
0
0 0 0
0
0
Less Than No
Significant Impact Impact
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 w
0 [XI
0 [XI 0 [XI 0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI o w
o w 0 w 0 [XI
[XI
o w
Rev. 03128196
0 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11, #4 Pg 2)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
f) 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)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? ((#l:Pgs
body? ((#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
((#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1)
11)
5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
d) Create objectionable odors? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
cl
1 - 5.3-12)
- 5.3-12) 0
any change in climate? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) 0
0
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
b) 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)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22, See required mitigation.)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -
proposal result in:
5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
5.7.22)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[XI
0
0
0
0
0
0
No
Impact
[XI
[XI
[XI
[XI
IXI
[XI
0 0 IXI
0 0 [XI
0 0 IXI
0 0 [XI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
cl w
0 [XI
o w
0 [XI w cl
0 IXI
0 w
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
6 Rev. 03/28/96
0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
a) 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 8-
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#1 :Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24, #2:
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (# 1 :Pgs 5.4- 1
15)
(#1 :PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
Pgs 8- 15)
(#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24, #2: P~s 10-15)
- 5.4-24)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[XI
0
o
w
0
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
c) 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
proposal?
(#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 0 0
I7 0
0 0
1 - 5.13-9)
& 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) 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)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
5.10.1-5)
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
o
0
o
0
CI
0
0
0
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) (7 (7
1 - 5.9-15) 0
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) 0 0 0
7
Less Than No
Significant Impact Impact
0 0
0 [XI
CI w
0
0 IXI
IXI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 IXI
o w
0 [XI
0 [XI
o w
0 [XI
o w
[XI
Rev. 03/28/96
0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
C) Schools? (#l:PgS 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5) 0 d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1,
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) 0
5.12.8-7) 0
XKUTILITIES 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 &
b) Communications systems? (#l; pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
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 -
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
5.12.3-7)
0
0 0
0 0 0 0
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#1 :Pgs
c) Create light or glare? (#2 Pg 15, #4 Pg 3)
5.11-1 - 5.1 1-5) 0
0
0
5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
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, #3:
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10, #3: Pg 1)
10, #3: Pg 1 )
10, #3: Pg 1)
pg 1)
5.8-1 - 5.8-10, #3: Pg 1)
0
0
0
0
cl
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#1 :Pgs 5.12.8-1 -
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#1 :Pgs
0
0
5.12.8-7)
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
8
e
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0 0
0
0
0 0
0 cl
0 o w
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than No
Significant Impacf Impact
0 w 0 [XI w
0 [XI
0 w 0 [XI
0 [XI 0 [XI 0 El cl [XI
0 [XI o w
0 0
0 El
0 w
o w o w
0 IXI
o w
17 IXI
Rev. 03/28/96
0
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?
9
0
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
0 0 0 [XI
0 0 0 IXI
0 0 o E3
Rev. 03/28/96
0 a
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
With the exception of biological resources and water quality, earlier analysis of this proposed single famil
residential dwelling unit and second dwelling unit has been completed through the General Plan Update (GPA 91
01) and related Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR 93-01) . The MEIR is cited as source #1 in tk
preceding checklist. This proposal is consistent with the applicable portions of the General Plan and is consider€
a Subsequent Project that was described in MEIR 93-01 as within its scope. There are biological impacts due 1
this development that were not analyzed in the MEIR and accordingly, additional mitigation measures are require1
All feasible mitigation measures identified in MEIR 93-01 which are appropriate to this Subsequent Project ha\
also been incorporated into this project.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
This project includes the development of a 2713 square foot single family residence with a detached garage an
second dwelling unit upon a 1.9 acre lot which is located along the south shore of Buena Vista Lagoon, west of th
AT&SF Railroad and north of Mountain View Drive. The project’s grading would be balanced on-site and woul
consist of 75 cubic yards of cut and fill. The property is relatively flat (12 MSL) and consists of an historical fi
which was created when the Buena Vista Lagoon was altered from a tidal regime to a non-tidal deep-water regiml
The project site is covered by a disturbed shrub habitat which has colonized the site since the fill was placed i
1972. Fresh water marsh occurs on the northwest and eastern boundaries of the site below the rip-rap line. The si
is designated RL (ldu/ac Growth Control Point) and zoned R-1-30 which would allow for the development of
single family residence and a second dwelling unit. The property is currently vacant and an existing proscripti1
lagoon trail is located along its’ western edge. The AT&SF Railroad right-of-way lies to the east of the site, ar
multi-family housing is located to the south of the project site.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
11. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
B. Environmental Impact Discussion
Air Quality
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Pla
will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result i
increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspende
particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego A
Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are consider6
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan WI
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 mitigatic
measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersectic
improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through tl
implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternatil
modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and si1
design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable an
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the projec
or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a “nor
attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification (
Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overridin
Considerations” for air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations’’ applies to all subsequel
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environment;
review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department.
TransportationiCirculation
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plz
will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffi
however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which tk
City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersectiol
along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections a1
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 mitigatio
measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the provision (
circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such 2
trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation i
regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate (
State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. Th
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into tl-
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections
buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marke
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of z
EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 91
246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of Overridir
Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR, including this projec
therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required.
12 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
Biological Resources
The project site is covered with a disturbed shrub habitat (Pacific Southwest Biological Services, October 15, 1996
Fresh water marsh (wetlands) occurs on the northwest and eastern boundaries of the site, below the rip-rap line. Tk
eastern area of fresh water marsh has been historically used by the endangered light-footed clapper rail. Tk
proposed project has been designed and conditioned to avoid impacts to all of the off-site wetland habitats and ligh
footed clapper rail. This has been accomplished through the inclusion of a minimum 100 foot buffer between tk
mean high water level (wetlands) and all structures, installation of a 6’ tall chain link fence along the wetland buff;
area and adjacent wetlands to prevent encroachment by domestic pets, and the construction of a sedimentid1
pollutant basin to prevent eroded soils and urban runoff containing pollutants from entering the wetlands ar
lagoon. Additionally, the project will be conditioned with the following mitigation measures:
1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit or grading permit (whichever occurs first) the applicant sh;
record a deed restriction over the entire wetland buffer setback area to restrict the property for opt
spaceiwildlife uses only, except for a lateral public access trail as shown on the site plan for CDP 97-59.
2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit or grading permit (whichever occurs first), the property own
shall shall submit evidence satisfactory to the Planning director that an irrevocable offer of dedication (
the wetland buffer area has been made to the California Department of Fish and Game.
3. Prior to the issuance of building permits, an exterior lighting plan shall be submitted to the Plannin
Director for review. All exterior lighting shall include a combination of low-level lights and shields t
minimize the amount of light entering the adjacent wetlands and wetland buffer area.
4. Due to the potential presence of the light-footed clapper rail within the wetlands adjacent to the project sit(
project construction shall be prohibited during it’s breeding season unless a focused survey for the clappt
rail is conducted immediately prior to project construction and determines that no clapper rails we1
observed during the survey.
The project access drive and fence do encroach into the 100 foot wetland buffer area. This encroachment has bee
preliminarily reviewed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and Game and tk
California Coastal Commission . The project shall be conditioned to mitigate this encroachment as follows:
1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, non-native plant species shall be removed from the wetlan
buffer area and the wetland buffer area shall be re-vegetated with a hydro-mulched coastal scrub grass see
mix.
Water
b). The flood plain in proximity to the project site is at an elevation of between 8.4’ and 9.8’ MSL
(Army Corps., 1973; Nolte & Assoc., 1985). The project site which is at an elevation of around
12’ MSL, is not located within the flood plain.
c). A sedimedde-pollutant basin has been incorporated into the project design to mitigate the erosio
of soils and runoff of urban pollutants into the lagoon.
TransportationiCirculation
e). To the south of the subject property, there currently exists an easement for public access to a tra
which is located along the south shore of Buena Vista Lagoon. The subject lagoon trail extenc
onto the subject property. In order to ensure the preservation of this lagoon trail and legal pub1
access upon it, the following mitigation measure shall be required:
1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit or grading permit (whichever occurs first) the applicant sha
irrevocably offer to dedicate in perpetuity to the City of Carlsbad a minimum 25 foot wide public acce:
trail easement over the public access trail which is shown on the site plan for CDP 98-03.
13 Rev. 03/28/96
e e
s
111. EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Plannin
Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92009, (760) 438-1 161, extension 4471.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01
dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
2. Biological Report of Environmental Conditions at a Site adiacent to Buena Vista Lagoon date
October 15, 1996, Pacific Southwest Biological Services.
3. Cultural Resources Located at the Buena Vista Lagoon Condominium Project dated April 1(
1980, Regional Environmental Consultants.
4. Letter from the US Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the Conceptual Development Plan for the Subie'
Property, (January 27, 1997) , dated February 13, 1997, US Fish and Wildlife Service.
5. Flood Plain Information Buena Vista Creek, dated July 1973, Army Corps of Engineers.
14 Rev. 03/28/96
- 0 e
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit or grading permit (whichever occurs first) the applicant sha
record a deed restriction over the entire wetland buffer setback area to restrict the property for ope
spacelwildlife uses only, except for a lateral public access trail as shown on the site plan for CDP 97-59.
2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit or grading permit (whichever occurs first), the property own1
shall shall submit evidence satisfactory to the Planning director that an irrevocable offer of dedication (
the wetland buffer area has been made to the California Department of Fish and Game.
3. Prior to the issuance of building permits, an exterior lighting plan shall be submitted to the Plannir
Director for review. All exterior lighting shall include a combination of low-level lights and shields
minimize the amount of light entering the adjacent wetlands and wetland buffer area.
4. Due to the potential presence of the light-footed clapper rail within the wetlands adjacent to the project sitc
project construction shall be prohibited during it’s breeding season unless a focused survey for the clapp(
rail is conducted immediately prior to project construction and determines that no clapper rails we1
observed during the survey.
5. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, non-native plant species shall be removed from tk
wetland buffer area and the wetland buffer area shall be re-vegetated with a hydro-mulched coastal scru
grass seed mix.
6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit or grading permit (whichever occurs first) the applicant sha
irrevocably offer to dedicate in perpetuity to the City of Carlsbad a minimum 25 foot wide public acce:
trail easement over the public access trail which is shown on the site plan for CDP 98-03.
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
15 Rev. 03/28/96
"
ENVIRONMENTAL MlTlG b ION MONITORING AND REPORTING Q ROGRAM: Page I of '
m
00 ?
Q)
3 n
9
n n 0 v, w W a 2 3 Z
$
r- Q1
W
LL i
I- C,
3 S 1
n :I (v :I m a, 0 S a,
v) E
2
-I 4 .. W 2 2 + 0
0 E a
e!
cj LU n
cj LU z
$ ;z 51 k [2 ;z (3 0
LU t-
<< t3
,.
"I 6 :> (3 [K [L [L -<
U
C (u
u
- E
._ z
S
(I: I: u:
IT 8
E
- ll (I:
IT C
(P c
._ c
.- .- + E
IT
(I: s
(I C
(I:
._ +
c ;
- $
- E
r
5
a . .
a .- + - - - E Ljc
s 1. .E
ca .- 0 'E Fin 5 II -a $.;
e 0
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AN
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
*
16 Rev. 03128196