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