Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 99-10; Buerger; Tentative Map (CT) (9)NOTICE OF COMPLETIW Mail to: State Clearinghouse, P. 0. Box 44, Sacramento, CA 95812 - (916) 445-0613 Project Title: Bueraer Subdivision - ZC 99-05/LCPA99-03/CT99-1 O/HDP99-08/CDP99- 17 See NOTE Below: . Lead Agency: CITY OF CARLSBAD Contact Person: Anne Hvsona Street Address: 1635 FARADAY AVENUE Phone: L760) 6024622 City: CARLSBAD Zip: 92008 County: SAN DIEGO PROJECT LOCATION; County: San Diego CityNearest Community: Carlsbad Cross Streets: Aviara Parkway Total Acres: 5.04 acres Assessor's Parcel No.215-040-08 Section: 22 Twp. 12 South Range: 4 west Base: San Bernardino Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #: I-5 Waterways: Pacific Ocedatiauitos Lagoon Airports: McCLELLANPALOMAR Railways: NCTD Schools: Aviara OaksiPacific Rm DOCUMENT TYPE: CEQA: 0 NOP 0 SupplemenVSubsequent NEPA: c] NO1 OTHER: Joint Document 0 Early Cons 0 EIR (Prior SCH No.) 0 EA Final Document (XI Neg Dec 0 Other: 0 Draft EIS 0 Other: 0 Draft EIR 0 FONSI LOCAL ACTION TYPE: 0 General Plan Update 0 Specific plan (XI Rezone Annexation 0 General Plan Amendment 0 Master Plan 0 Prezone Redevelopment 0 General Plan Element Planned Unit Development c] Use Permit @ coastal Permit 0 Community plan 0 Site plan IXI Land Division (Subdivision, Other: Hillside DeveloDment Parcel Map, Tract Map, etc.) Permit; Local Coastal Program Amendment (rezone) .................................................... .................................................................. ...........-... ".-..-__.."." ".." ....... DEVELOPMENT TYPE: (XI Residential: Units 12 Acres 5.04 Office: Sq. Ft. Acres Employees Commercial: Sq. Ft. Acres Employees 0 Industrial: Sq. Ft. Acres Employees Educational: 0 Recreational: .............................................. "."........ ".." ........... ".." ........... PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED 0 AestheticNisual 0 0 Agricultural Land 0 IXI Air Quality 0 Archaeological/Historical 0 (XI Coastal Zone 0 0 DrainageIAbsorption 0 0 Economic/Jobs 0 Fiscal 0 ............. ".."I .... I .......-..... I .......... " ...... ". .............. IN DOCUMENT: Flood PlaidFlooding ' Forest LandFire Hazard Geological/Seismic Minerals Noise PopulatiodHsg. Balance Public Serviceflacilities RecreatiodParks 0 Water Facilities: Type MGD 0 Transportation: Type 0 Mining: Mineral 0 Power: Type Watts c] Waste Treatment: Type 0 Hazardous Water: Type Other: ..... ................................................................. ............................................................................................................................ 0 SchoolsNniversities 0 Septic Systems 0 Sewer Capacity 0 Soil ErosiodCompactiodGrading 0 Solid Waste 0 ToxicMazardous 0 Vegetation TraffidCirculation 0 Water Quality 0 H20 Supply/Ground H20 0 WetIancVRiparian 0 Wildlife 0 Growth Inducing Land Use 0 Cumulative Effect 0 Other: ......... ......................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... Present Land UselZoninglGeneral Plan Use Vacant (formerly agricultural)/L-CRLM Project Description: A Local Coastal Program Amendment and zone change to change the zone designation from Limited Control (L-C) to One Family ResidentiaUQualified Overlay Zone (R-1-Q). Also proposed is a Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit and Coastal Development Permit to allow the subdivision and grading 12 single family lots and one open space lot on the 5.04 acre previously disturbed parcel(s). The project is located in the southwest quadrant, south of Poinsettia Lane, north of Aviara Parkway on Black Rail Road witbin the boundaries of the Zone 20 Specific Plan. NOTE: Clearinghouse will assign identification numbers for all new projects. If a SCH number already exists for a project (i.e., from a Notice of Preparation or previous draf? document) please fill it in. Revised October 1989 BUERGER ZC 99-05lLCPA 99-03lCT 99-1 01 PUD 99-05lHDP 99-08lCDP 99-1 7 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project AddressLocation: The project site is located in the southwest quadrant, south of Poinsettia Lane north of Aviara Parkway on Black Rail Road within the boundaries of the Zone 20 Specific Plan. Proiect Description: A proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment and zone change to change the zone designation for the site from Limited Control (L-C) to One-Family Residential, (7,500 square foot minimum lot size), Qualified Overlay Zone (R-1-Q), and Open Space (OS) on a 5.04 acre parcel. Also proposed is a Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit and Coastal Development Permit to subdivide and grade 12 single-family lots and one open space lot. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4622. DATED: CASE NO: CASE NAME: PUBLISH DATE: DECEMBER 12,2000 ZC 99-05LCPA 99-03/CT 99-1O/HDP 99-08/CDP 99-1 7 BUERGER SUBDIVISION DECEMBER 12,2000 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 6024600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us @ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: ZC 99-05LCPA 99-03/CT 99- lO/HDP 99-08/CDP 99- 17 DATE: November 29,2000 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Buerger Subdivision 2. APPLICANT: William and Anita Buerger 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 4668 Cvprus Wav, Oceanside, CA 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: April 6.1999 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A uroposed Local Coastal Program Amendment and zone change to change the zone designation for the site from Limited Control (L-C) to One-Family Residential, (7.500 square foot minimum lot size), Oualified Overlay Zone (R-1-O), and Open Space (OS) on a 5.04 acre Darcel. Also DroDosed is a Tentative Tract Map. Hillside Development Permit and Coastal Development Permit to subdivide and grade 12 single-family lots and one open space lot. The uroiect site is located in the southwest quadrant, south of Poinsettia Lane, north of Aviara Parkway on Black Rail Road within the boundaries of the Zone 20 Specific Plan. 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. 0 Land Use and Planning TransportatiodCirculation Public Services 0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics water 0 Hazards Cultural Resources Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 03/28/96 rc 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. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in ths 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. A(n) 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 avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. 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 infanration 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 glJ 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. 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. 0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Ovemding 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 I1 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:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18; #2: Pgs 111-74 - b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18; #2: Pgs III-74- 87) 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; #2: Pgs 74 - 87) 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; #2: Pgs 87) (#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18; #2: PgS I11 74-87) 74 -87) 11. 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 indxectly (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 I11 - 112 Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2: Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#1 :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 from 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 I11 - Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - - 118; #3) PgS I11 - 112 - 118; #3) 5.1-1 - 5.1.15; #2: Pgs III - 112 - 118; #3) 5.1-15) PgSIII-112-118~#3) 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2: Pgs III- 112 - 118; #3) 112-118;#3) 112 - 118; #3) 5.1-15; #3) IV. WATER. Would the proposal resul: in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff! (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2- 11 ) Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I7 17 0 5 I Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation incorporated 0 0 I7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U I7 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact IXI El o I7 0 0 I7 0 (7 0 0 0 17 0 0 Rev. 03/28/96 - Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 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) 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) 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) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2- 11) 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..2-11) 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 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 any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) IXI 0 0 1 - 5.3-12) - 5.3-12) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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? Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) 5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #2:Pg~ 111-58 - 69) 111-58 - 69) (#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #2: Pgs I11 - 58- 69) (#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) (#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #2: Pgs 111 - 58 - 69 ) (#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #2: Pgs I11 - 58 - 69) IXI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 Rev. 03/28/96 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; #2: Pgs I11 - 37 - 57; #5) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24; #2: d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration comdors? (#1 :Pgs 5.4- 1 (#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) Pgs I11 - 37 -5 7; #5) (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24; #2: Pgs I11 - 37 - 57; #5) - 5.4-24; Pgs I11 - 37 -57) 0 0 0 I7 I7 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) 1 - 5.13-9) 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 0 UIXI UIXI 0 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 hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5; #2: Pgs III-97.- d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, 5.10.1-5) 105; +I) health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5; #4) grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) 0 UIXI DIXI 0 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; #2: Pgs I11 - 88 - 96) 1 - 5.9-15; #2: Pgs 111 - 88 - 96) 0 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) C) Schools? (#l:PgS 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5) 0 0 0 0 7 Rev, 03/28/96 Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & Communications systems? Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7; #2: Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8; #2 Pgs 111 - 110 - Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) PgsIII- 110- 111) 111) 5.12.3-7) AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5) 5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5; #2: PgS I11 - 119 - 151) 5.11-1 -5.11-5;#2: PgSIII- 119- 151) CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8- Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8- Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10; #2: Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs 5.8- Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10; #2: Pgs 10; #2: PgS I11 106 - 107) 10; #2: Pgs 111 - 70 - 73) PgS I11 - 70 - 73) 1 - 5.8-10; #2: PgS 111 - 70 - 73) I11 - 70 - 73) XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 - b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-7) 5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7) 8 Rev. 03/28/96 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? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually (“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? 0 0 UIXI -. limited, but cumulatively considerable? UBI 0 0 om XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis of this proposed single-family residential project has been completed through the General Plan Update (GPA 94-01) and related Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR 93- 01). The MER 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 MEIR 93-01 which are appropriate to the project have been incorporated into this project. The project site is also located within the boundaries of the Zone 20 Specific Plan approved by the City Council in 1994. Program EIR 90-03, which was certified for the Zone 20 Specific Plan in 1991, identified, analyzed, and recommended mitigation to reduce potentially significant impacts to insignificant levels. The Zone 20 Program EIR (PEIR) analyzed potential impacts to agriculture, air quality, biology, circulation, land use, noise, pesticide residue, paleontology, public facilities, soilslgeology, and visual aesthetics that could result from development of the specific plan area. The PER is intended to be used in the review of subsequent projects within Zone 20. The project incorporates the Zone 20 PEIR mitigation measures, and through the analysis of the required additional geotechnical, hydrology, and pesticide residue analyses, a determination has been made that no additional significant impacts beyond those identified and mitigated by the PEIR will result from this project. The following environmental evaluation briefly explains the basis for this determination. The Zone 20 PER and additional technical studies are cited as source documents. 9 Rev. 03/28/96 . DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site is 5.04 acres (4.02 net acres) in size and is located between Aviara Parkway and Poinsettia Lane, on the east side of Black Rail RoaGThe entire property has been disturbed due to past horticultural operations. The site is currently vacant except for two remaining structures (office and shed). The project consists of the subdivision and grading of 12 standard single- family lots (minimum 7,500 square feet) and 1 open space lot. No homes are proposed on the lots at this time. Approximately 25,400 cubic yards of grading are proposed with 5,400 cubic yards of import needed to create building pads. The site is designated by the General Plan for Residential Low Medium (RLM - 0-4 DU/AC) density land use and zoned Limited Control (L-C). A zone change and local coastal program amendment are proposed to rezone the site to One-Family Residential, 7,500 square foot minimum lot size, Qualified Overlay Zone (R-1-Q) to correspond to the existing RLM General Plan designation. The project also requires approval of a tentative tract map, hillside development permit and coastal development permit. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS I. LAND USE AND PLANNING: The project includes a zone change and Local Coastal Program Amendment to change the zoning of the property from Limited Control (L-C) to One Family ResidentiaVQualified Overlay Zone (R-1-Q). The change is consistent with the underlying Residential Low Medium (EM) density General Plan and Mello I1 LCP land use designation allowing 0 - 4 dwelling units per unconstrained acre thereby creating no conflicts with existing land use plans. V. AIR QUALITY: In 1994 the City prepared and certified an EIR which analyzed the impacts which will result from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concludes that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts in the form of 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 build-out 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 build-out, 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 10 Rev. 03/28/94 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 covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MEIR This document is available at the Planning Department. VI. CIRCULATION: In 1994 the City prepared and certified a Master EIR which analyzed the impacts which would result from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concluded that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate build-out 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 build-out. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan build-out, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) 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 build-out 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 covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MEIR This document is available at the Planning Department. A MEIR may not be used to review projects if it was certified more than five years prior to the filing of an application for a later project. The City is currently reviewing the 1994 MEIR to determine whether it is still adequate to review subsequent projects. Although the MER was certified more than five years ago, the City’s preliminary review of its adequacy finds that no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MEIR was certified. The only potential changed circumstance, the intersection failure at Palomar Airport Rd. and El Camino Real, is in the process of being mitigated to below a level of significance. Additionally, there is no new available information, which was not known and could not have , 11 Rev. 03/28/96 been known at the time the MER was certified. Therefore, the MEIR remains adequate to review later projects. 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 (MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department. 2. Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Zone 20 Specific Plan (PEIR 90-03) dated June 1992, Brian F. Mooney Associates. 3. “Geotechnical Investigation for Buerger Property, Carlsbad, California”, prepared by Geocon, dated November 20, 1998 and follow-up letter dated July 15, 1999. 4. “Limited Soil Sampling and Analysis Report - Buerger Property, Carlsbad, California”, prepared by Geocon, dated August, 1998, and “Buerger Property Carlsbad, California Waste Classification”, prepared by Geocon, dated September 18, 1998. 5. Letter dated June 21 , 1999 from Paul Walsh, Biologist, Dudek & Associates, Inc. 12 Rev. 03/28/96