The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCT 99-13; Steiner Property; Tentative Map (CT) (29)NOTICE OF COMPLETION Mail to: State Clearinghouse, 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121, Sacramento, CA 95814 - (916) 445-0613 Project Title: Steiner Property - ZC 99-06/LCPA 99-05/CT 99- 1 3/SDP 99- 1 0/CDP 99-26/HDP 99- 1 2 Lead Agency: CITY OF CARLSBAD Contact Person: Van Lynch Street Address: 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE Phone: (760)438-1161. ext.4447 City: CARLSBAD Zip: 92009 County: SAN DIEGO COUNTY See NOTE Below: SCH# PROJECT LOCATION: County: San Diego City/Nearest Community: Carlsbad Cross Streets: El Camino Real and Poinsettia Lane Total Acres: 3.0 Assessor's Parcel No. 215-050-58 Section: 26 Twp. 12S Range: 4W Base: San Bernardino Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #: 1-5 Waterways: Batiquitos Lagoon Airports: McCLELLAN/PALOMAR Railways: NCTD Schools: Aviara Oaks Elementary DOCUMENT TYPE: CEQA: Q NOP [H Early Cons g] Mil. Neg Dec n Draft EIR Supplement/Subsequent EIR (Prior SCH No.) Other: NEPA:NOI EA Draft EIS FONSI OTHER:Joint Document Final Document Other: LOCAL ACTION TYPE: Q General Plan Update I | General Plan Amendment Q] General Plan Element | | Community Plan Specific Plan Master Plan Planned Unit Development Site Plan ^ Rezone || Prezone [~| Use Permit ^ Land Division (Subdivision, Parcel Map, Tract Map, etc.) I | Annexation I | Redevelopment £<] Coastal Permit ^ Other: Hillside Development Permit • DEVELOPMENT TYPE: [[] Residential: Units 9 Acres 3.0 n Office: | | Commercial: | | Industrial: | | Educational: | | Recreational: Sq. Ft. Acres Sq. Ft. Acres Sq. Ft. Acres Employees Employees Employees nnnnnnnWater Facilities: Transportation: Mining: Power: Waste Treatment: Hazardous Water: Other: Type Type Miner Type Type Type MOD al Watts PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN DOCUMENT: Aesthetic/Visual Agricultural Land Air Quality Archaeological/Historical Coastal Zone Drainage/Absorption Economic/Jobs Fiscal [J Flood Plain/Flooding E3 Forest Land/Fire Hazard | | Geological/Seismic | [ Minerals ^ Noise Q] Population/Hsg. Balance | | Public Services/Facilities r~| Recreation/Parks I | Schools/Universities | | Septic Systems | | Sewer Capacity | | Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading Q Solid Waste | | Toxic/Hazardous ^ Traffic/Circulation £<] Vegetation | | Water Quality H2O Supply/Ground H2O Wetland/Riparian Wildlife Growth Inducing Land Use Cumulative Effect Other: _ Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Use Single-family home and fallow agricultural fields/ Limited Control / Residential Medium density (4 to 8 dupa) Project Description: Proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment and Zone Change to change the land use designation from Limited Control (L-C) to One-Family Residential, 7,500 square foot lot size minimum (R-l-7,500), with a Qualified Overlay Zone(-Q), on a 3.0 acre parcel of land. Also proposed is a Tentative Tract Map to create 9 residential lots, a Hillside Development Permit, and a Coastal Development Permit. 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 draft document) please fill it in. . Revised October 1989 City of Carlsbad Planning Department MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Address/Location: Project Description: The project site is located north of future Poinsettia Lane and west of El Camino Real and is identified by Assessors Parcel Number 215-050-58-00. Proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment and Zone Change to change the land use designation from Limited Control (L-C) to One-Family Residential, 7,500 square foot lot size minimum (R-l- 7,500), with a Qualified Overlay Zone(-Q), on a 3.0 acre parcel of land. Also proposed is a Tentative tract map to create 9 residential lots, a Hillside Development Permit, and a Coastal Development Permit. 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, the initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the project "as revised" may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. 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 Van Lynch in the Planning Department at (760) 438-1161, extension 4447. DATED: CASE NO: CASE NAME: NOVEMBERS, 1999 ZC 99-06/LCPA 99-05/CT 99-13/SDP 99-10/CDP 99-26/HDP 99-12 STEINER PROPERTY PUBLISH DATE: NOVEMBER 8, 1999 MICHAEL J. HTJLZM&LER Planning Director 2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (760) 438-1161 • FAX (76O) 438-O894 STEINER PROPERTY PROPERTY LOCATION MAP North Jack Henthorn & Associates • 5375 Avenida Encinas • Suite D • Carlsbad, CA 92008 • PH: (760) 438-4090 FAX: (760) 438-0981 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: ZC 99-06/LCPA 99-05/CT 99-13/SDP 99-10/CDP 99-26/HDP 99-12 DATE: October 6. 1999 BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 4. •5. CASE NAME: STEINER PROPERTY APPLICANT: Western Pacific Housing ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2385 Camino Vida Roble. Suite 107. Carlsbad CA 92009. (760) 929-1600 DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: July 1. 1999 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment and Zone Change to change the land use designation from Limited Control (L-C) to One-Family Residential. 7.500 sguare foot lot size minimum (R-1-7.500). with a Qualified Overlay Zone(-QX on a 3.0 acre parcel of land. Also proposed is a Tentative tract map to create 9 residential lots, a Site Development Plan, a Hillside Development Permit, and a Coastal Development Permit. The project site is located north of future Poinsettia Lane and west of El Camino Real and is identified by Assessors Parcel Number 215-050-58-00 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning | | Population and Housing Geological Problems Water | Air Quality X Transportation/Circulation | | Public Services Biological Resources | | Utilities & Service Systems Energy & Mineral Resources | | Aesthetics XI Hazards | | Cultural Resources X Noise Recreation J Mandatory Findings of Significance Rev. 03/28/96 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) I I I find, that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. XJ 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration 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 Direcmrj s 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 measure's 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). I. 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 Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D n n 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) n n n D III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15, #2) b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15, #2) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -5.1.15, #2) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15,#2) . e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15, #2) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15,#2) g) Subsidence of the land? (# 1 :Pgs 5.1 -1 - 5.1 -15, # 2) h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, # 2) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - . 5.1-15,#2) n n n •n n n • 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 n n 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 Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact 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? (#1 :Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) D n n n 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) n n n n n n 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, # 3, #6) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 -5.4-24, #3) n Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24, # 3) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (#l:Pgs5.4-l -5.4-24, #3) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#1 :Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24, # 3) Potentially Significant Impact D Dn Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact n n n VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 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 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, #4) D 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: Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6)a) b) c) d) e) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.8-7) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)D Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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) 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 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact LJ IE IEKX XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs I I 5.11-1-5.11-5) '—' b) Have or demonstrate a negative aesthetic effect? I I (#l:Pgs 5.11-1-5.11-5) '—' c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1-5.11-5) [ [ 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, # 5) c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10, # 5) 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, # 5) D D 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) 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? D 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 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 site is 3.0 acres in size and is located on the west side of El Camino Real and north of future Poinsettia Lane. The project consist of 9 single-family lots with a minimum lot area of 7,500 square feet. The site relatively flat and currently occupied by a single family residence. The property has been used for agricultural purposes and as such, the habitats on site consist of' disturbed and non-native vegetation types. Elevations range from 250 to 290 feet above mean sea level. The south eastern portion of the property will be dedicated for the Poinsettia Lane, a City of Carlsbad Circulation Element roadway. Adjacent to the south and west is and approved subdivision, CT 97-15 - Lohf Property, which consist of 73 single family lots and three open space lots. To the north is native and disturbed native habitats as identified in the Manzanita Project (SDP 98-19), and to the east is an existing single family residence which will have access provided by the proposed development. Access to the project will be through the Lohf subdivision which is a cul-de-sac design off of future Poinsettia Lane. As of the date of this report, the Lohf subdivision is being graded and improved. The proposed project is basically an extension of the adjacent Lohf subdivision. The entire 3.0 acre site is designated as Residential Low-Medium Density (RM 4-8 DU/AC) on the General Plan Land Use Map. The project site is zoned Limited Control (L-C). A zone change and local coastal program amendment are proposed to designate the site as One-Family Residential, 7,500 square foot minimum lot size, Qualified Development Overlay Zone (R-l-Q) to correspond to the existing general plan land use designations. In addition to approval of the tentative map application, a Site Development Plan, a hillside development permit, and a coastal development permit are being requested. 11 Rev. 03/28/96 II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS B. Environmental Impact Discussion 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 particulate. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all 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. 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 12 Rev. 03/28/96 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 "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. Cultural resources There are potential significant fossil areas of Tertiary and Quaternary Ages within the project site, therefore, the grading operations of the project are conditioned to be monitored by a qualified paleontologist in case of fossil contact. These mitigation measures allow the paleontologist to direct or divert grading operations to facilitate paleontological investigations. Biological resources The adjacent site to the north, Manzanita Partners, has been identified as having environmentally sensitive biological resources in the form of plant and animal species. Although direct impacts will not occur, indirect impacts to the California gnatcatcher due to construction activity may occur. A mitigation measure has been incorporated to survey for the presence of the California gnatcatcher prior to grading operations. Hazards The adjacent property to the north will be left in a native state and as such could cause a potential fire hazard to Lot 3. Since this lot (3) will not have the ability to clear for the required fire 13 Rev. 03/28/96 suppression per the City of Carlsbad Landscape Manual, special construction requirements in the form of ignition resistant construction pursuant to Section 504 of the Urban Wildland Interface Code will be required. Noise Exterior living areas adjacent to El Camino Real and Poinsettia Lane will be exposed to worst case noise levels of 64.3 CNEL at Lots 4 through 9. In order to meet the 60 CNEL exterior noise standard, a noise barrier will be required for exterior living areas adjacent to El Camino Real and Poinsettia Lane. The barrier shall consist of materials and configurations as described in the Exterior Noise Summary Analysis for the Steiner Property, dated June 28, 1999. A detailed indoor noise analysis is required to determine the building upgrades for the homes adjacent to Poinsettia and El Camino Real when detailed architectural plans become available, and prior to building permit issuance. 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. 2. Addendum Geotechnical Study. Steiner Property. Inclusion into Adjacent Lohf Property Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation. City of Carlsbad, CA, Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc. dated April 20, 1999. 3. Biological resources report and impact analysis for the Steiner Property. City of Carlsbad. San Diego County. CA. Dudek and Associates, dated June 1999. 4. Exterior Noise Analysis for the Steiner Property. City of Carlsbad. Mestre Greve Associates, dated June 28, 1999. 5. Steiner Property Cultural Resources Significance Evaluation. Recon, dated July 20, 1999. 6. Biological Resources Report and Impact Assessment. Manzanita Partners Property. Carlsbad CA, Dudek and Associates, dated December 21, 1998. 14 Rev. 03/28/96 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES OF APPLICABLE) The Developer shall pay his fair share for the "short-term improvements" to the' El Camino Real/Palomar Airport Road intersection prior to the issuance of a building permit. 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 21 LFMP fee; the creation of a fee or assessment district; or incorporation into a Mello-Roos taxing district. To mitigate potential paleontological impacts, the developer shall accomplish the following prior to final map approval or issuance of the grading permit: • Prior to any grading of the project site, a paleontologist shall be retained to perform a walkover survey of the site and to review the grading plans to determine if the proposed grading will impact fossil resources. A copy of the paleontologist's report shall be provided to the Planning Director prior to issuance of a grading permit; • A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of the site and to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the fossils present in the geologic strata, it may be necessary to collect matrix samples for laboratory processing through fine screens. The paleontologist shall make periodic reports to the Planning Director during the grading process; • The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an exposed fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage artifacts; • All fossils collected shall be donated to a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum; • Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading activities of the project shall be resolved by the Planning Director and City Engineer. To mitigate potential disturbances to the California gnatcatcher, the grading operations within 100 feet of the adjacent property to the north will be restricted during the gnatcatcher breeding season, or from February 15 to August 30 each year, unless it can be shown through field reconnaissance by a certified biologist that no gnatcatchers are present on the property for two months prior to the start .of grading. To mitigate potential fire hazards, Lot 3 shall be constructed pursuant to Section 504 of the Urban Wildland Interface Code. To mitigate potential noise impacts, Lots 4 through 9 shall have a noise barrier consisting of materials and configurations as described in the Exterior Noise Summary Analysis for the Steiner Property, dated June 28, 1999, and a detailed indoor noise analysis is required to determine the building upgrades for the homes adjacent to Poinsettia and El Camino Real when detailed architectural plans become available, and prior to building permit issuance. ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM OF APPLICABLE) Attached 15 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 16 Rev. 03/28/96 PROJECT NAME: Steiner Property APPROVAL DATE: FILE NUMBERS: ZC 99-06/LCPA 99-05/CT 99-13/SDP 99- 10/CDP99-26/HDP99-12 MITIGATED NEC. DEC.: October 6.1999 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). Mitigation Measure Transportation impact fee Paleontological Survey Gnatcatcher breeding season grading moratorium Fire mitigation Lot 3 Noise mitigation Monitoring Type Project Project Project Project Project Monitoring Department Planning/ Engineering Planning Planning Planning/Fire Planning/ Building Shown on Plans No No No Yes Yes Verified Implementation Remarks rnz O Zs,m I t) oz soz 32 Z OoImo 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. i)(Q(0