HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 99-18; Tallman Property; Coastal Development Permit (CDP) (2)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CDP 99-18/HDP 99-09/ADJ 538
DATE: July 27, 1999
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CASE NAME: TALLMAN PROPERTY
APPLICANT: Jeffrey and Pamela Tallman
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1833 So. Coast Hwv. Oceanside 92054
DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: April 7. 1999
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed lot line adjustment, grading, and construction of a new
single-family residence. APN 156-350-08 and 09
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.
X, Land Use and Planning
Population and Housing
i
Geological Problems
Water
Air Quality
XI Transportation/Circulation
| | Biological Resources
Public Services
Utilities & Service Systems
Energy & Mineral Resources | | Aesthetics
Hazards Cultural Resources
Noise Recreation
| I Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
IXI 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 MITIGATED
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 EIR/Neg Dec
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I I 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 93-01),
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
Planner Signature Date
Planning Director^ 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.
• 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 all 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
Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
• A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
Rev. 03/28/96
• 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.
• 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).
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #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?
(#l:Pgs 5.6-1-5.6-18)
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)
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
D D
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#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 -
5.5-6)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
D
Kl
D
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Faultrupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1-5.1.15)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15)
e) Landslides ormudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
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? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15)
D
D
n
n
•nn x
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
11)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
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)
D
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1-5..2-11)
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?
(#l:Pgs 5.2-1-5..2-11)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
11)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
5.2-1-5..2-11)
Potentially Potentially
Significant Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
n
13
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-
1 - 5.3-12)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1
-5.3-12)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
D
D
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
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?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1-5.7.22)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1-5.7.22)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1-5.7.22)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1-5.7.22)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -
5.7.22)
D
13
n n
13
13
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
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)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1-5.4-24)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
n
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 -5.4-24)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1
- 5.4-24)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? I I
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) _J
b) 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)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral I I
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)
D
D
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 -
5.10.1-5)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1-5.10.1-5)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9-
15)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-
1 -5.9-15)D
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)
c) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1-5.12.8-7)
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
5.12.8-7)
' -"
D
D
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 &
5.13-1-5.13-9)D
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b) Communications systems? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
e) Storm water drainage? (#1 :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 -
5.12.3-7)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
n
n
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
E
XEIEI
El
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (# 1 :Pgs 5.11 -1
-5.11-5)
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
5.11-1-5.11-5)
c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5)D
D n
n
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
10)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
10)
c) Affect historical resources? (#1 :Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs
5.8-1-5.8-10)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
n
n
n
nn
n
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)n n
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
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?
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
D
Rev. 03/28/96
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project proposal consists of a Coastal Development Permit, Hillside Development Permit,
and Adjustment Plat to adjust the boundary lines of two existing parcels and to grade and
construct a new single-family residence on one of the lots. Both sites are zoned R-1-7,500 and
the properties are located on the west side of Pio Pico Drive between Yourell Avenue and Forest
Avenue. Existing Parcel 8 has a General Plan Land Use Designation of RLM (Residential Low-
Medium 3.2 du/ac) and consists of a 0.67 acre lot with frontage on Pio Pico. The property also
has access rights over a 16 foot wide paved driveway easement. The lot is relatively flat, except
for the western triangular portion of the lot which slopes at a gradient of between 4% and 10 %.
The lot has been previously graded and contains no sensitive habitat. Existing Parcel 9 has a
General Plan Land Use Designation of OS (Open Space) and consists of a 3.69 acre site with
frontage on Jefferson Street. The lot consists primarily of slopes ranging from 15 % to 40 % or
greater. There are some isolated areas near the top of slope with grades of less than 15%. The
lot is vegetated with an old olive orchard. No native vegetation exists on the site. The proposed
lot line adjustment will result in the merger of Parcel 9 with the triangular portion of Parcel 8
resulting in Parcel "A". The remaining Parcel 8 will consist of a rectangular shaped lot of 9,500
square feet referred to as Parcel "B". The access rights to the driveway easement will be granted
to Parcel "A" and will be relinquished by parcel "B" as part of the Adjustment Plat. The
resulting configuration will allow for the development of one single-family residence on each lot.
The proposed subdivision will result in a net density of 3.1 dwelling units /acre which is
consistent with the RLM (Low-Medium Density Residential - 3.2 du/ac) General Plan Land Use
Designation. Parcel A and Parcel B contain net lot areas of 0.444 acres and 0.203 acres,
respectively. The proposed lot sizes and configurations comply with the minimum standards of
the R-1-7,500 Zone.
The proposed subdivision is subject to the Hillside Development Ordinance which requires
sensitive hillside grading. A conceptual grading plan has been submitted which indicates 200
cubic yards of cut, 500 cubic yards of fill, and 300 cubic yards of import. Estimated grading
quantities are 2,272 cubic yards per acre and are within the acceptable range of 0-7,999 cu.
yds./acre. The proposed grading design is compatible with the existing hillside topography.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
B. Environmental Impact Discussion
I a. Land Use and Planning
Existing parcel 8 has a Zone Designation of R-1-7,500 and a General Plan Land Use Designation
of RLM (Residential Low-Medium). Parcel 9 has a Zone Designation of R-1-7,500 and a
General Plan Land Use Designation of OS (Open Space). The proposed boundary adjustment
will result in a split General Plan Land Use Designation of RLM/OS for new Parcel "A". In
order to insure preservation of the Official Open Space area contained on the sloping portion of
Parcel "A", the project will be conditioned to record an open space deed restriction over the open
space area. The remaining net developable area of Parcel "A" contains 0.444 acres and is
adequate in size to accommodate the proposed single-family residence.
III f. Geology
The proposal includes the development of a single family residence on the level portion of Parcel
A. In order to provide for positive sewer and drainage towards the street, the building pad will
need to be raised slightly over three feet above natural grade. Grading quantities consist of 200
cubic yards of cut, 500 cubic yards of fill, and 300 cubic yards of import. The estimated grading
quantities of 2,272 cubic yards per acre are within the acceptable range of 0 - 7,999 cubic
yards/acre. The project will be conditioned to provide an erosion control plan in association with
the proposed grading as a means of controlling surface erosion. In addition, because the project
is located within the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program, the project will be
conditioned to prohibit grading during the winter months (October 1st - April 1st).
IV a. Water
Development of Parcel A with a residential structure will increase the amount of runoff due to an
increase of impervious structures (building and paving) proposed on the site. However, this
additional runoff is considered to be less than significant. The project will be required to comply
with all applicable City regulations regarding drainage and runoff, including compliance with
any applicable NPDES regulations/requirements.
V a. Air Quality
The implementation of subsequent 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
12 Rev. 03/28/96
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 subsequent
projects covered by 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 subsequent projects that are consistent with and 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
adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway
onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been
incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at 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 subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation
impacts is required.
The City has received its annual Growth Management Traffic Monitoring Report. The Report
has recorded an unanticipated intersection "level of service" (LOS) failure at Palomar Airport
Road (PAR) and El Camino Real (ECR) during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. This
potentially creates a changed circumstance negating reliance on previous environmental
documentation. Pursuant to §15162 of the CEQA Guidelines a lead agency must prepare a
13 Rev. 03/28/96
"Subsequent" environmental documentation if substantial evidence (i.e., the recorded
intersection failure) determines that a changed circumstance exists. However, case law has
interpreted this section of the CEQA Guidelines to not require the preparation of a "Subsequent
EIR" if mitigation measures are adopted which reduce the identified impacts to a level of
insignificance.
A mitigation measure has been identified which, if implemented, will bring the peak hours LOS
into the acceptable range. The mitigation measure involves construction of two dual right turn
lanes-northbound to eastbound and westbound to northbound. This project has been conditioned
to pay its fair share of the intersection "short-term improvements" thereby, guaranteeing
mitigation to a level of insignificance.
14 Rev. 03/28/96
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) 438-1161, 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.
15 Rev. 03/28/96
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES OF APPLICABLE^)
1. Prior to approval of the Adjustment Plat, the Developer shall prepare and record an open
space deed restriction, subject to the approval of the Planning Director and City Engineer,
for that portion of Parcel A containing constrained lands identified as OS on the General Plan
Land Use Map and identified as "Official Open Space" on the City of Carlsbad Official Open
Space and Conservation Map (dated September 1994).
2. The Developer shall pay his fair share for the "short-term improvements" to the El Camino
Real/ Palomar Airport Road intersection prior to or the issuance of a building permit,
whichever occurs first. The amount shall be determined by the methodology ultimately
selected by Council, including but not limited to, an increase in the city-wide traffic impact
fee; an increased or new Zone 1 LFMP fee; the creation of a fee or assessment district; or
incorporation into a Mello-Roos taxing district
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE^)
Attached.
16 Rev. 03/28/96
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date
- 29-
17 Rev. 03/28/96
PROJECT NAME: TALLMAN PROPERTY
APPROVAL DATE:
FILE NUMBERS: CDP 99-18/HDP 99-09/ADJ 538
CONDITIONAL NEG. DEC.:
The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate
identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this
mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill
3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6).
mz
m
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Type
Monitoring
Department
Shown on
Plans
Verified
Implementatio Remarks
1. Prior to approval of the Adjustment Plat, the Developer shall
prepare and record an open space deed restriction, subject to
the approval of the Planning Director and City Engineer, for
that portion of Parcel A containing constrained lands identified
as OS on the General Plan Land Use Map and identified as
"Official Open Space" on the City of Carlsbad Official Open
Space and Conservation Map (dated September 1994).
Planning
/Engineering
O
5Oz
z
O
O
Xmo
e/
Grading activities shall be limited to the "dry season", April 1 to
October 1. The City Engineer may permit an extension of the
grading season until November 15 if all precautionary
measures regarding erosion, consistent with the City's grading
ordinance, have been put into place by October 1.
Engineering
3. The Developer shall pay his fair share for the "short-term
improvements" to the El Camino Real/ Palomar Airport Road
intersection prior to or the issuance of a building permit,
whichever occurs first. The amount shall be determined by the
methodology ultimately selected by Council, including but not
limited to, an increase in the city-wide traffic impact fee; an
increased or new Zone 1 LFMP fee; the creation of a fee or
assessment district; or incorporation into a Mello-Roos taxing
district.
Engineering
tu(O(D
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular
mitigation measure.
Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be
initialed and dated.
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented,
this column will be initialed and dated.
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other
information.
RD - Appendix P.