Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 97-59; Levy Residence; Coastal Development Permit (CDP) (7)- City of Carlsbad MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Address/Location: The south shore of Buena Vista Lagoon, west of the AT&SF Railroad and north of Mountain View Drive. Project Description: A Coastal Development Permit and a 2"d Dwelling Unit Permit for the development of a 2,713 square foot single family dwelling and detached garage with a 2"d dwelling unit on a level 1.90 acre 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 Mitigated 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 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 Chris DeCerbo in the Planning Department at (760) 438-1 161, extension 4445. DATED: APRIL 6, 1998 CASE NO: CDP 97-59/SDU 98-03 CASE NAME: LEVY RESIDENCE PUBLISH DATE: APRIL 6,1998 iJ& LM& .T MICHAEL J. HOmMILeR Planning Director 2075 La Palrnas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 (760) 438-1 161 FAX (760) 438-0894 @ (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CDP 97-59\SDU 98-03 DATE: 31 1 6/98 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: LEVY RESIDENCE AND SECOND DWELLING UNIT 2. APPLICANT: John Levy. Jr. 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1825 Aston Ave. Carlsbad,CA 92008 (760) 931-9009 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: Februarv 6,1998 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The development of a 2713 square foot single family dwelling and detached garage with second dwelling unit on a level 1.90 acre lot which is located on the south shore of Buena Vista Lagoon. west of the AT&SF Railroad and north of Mountain View Drive. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this 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 Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services Population and Housing Biological Resources Utilities & Service Systems 0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources c] Aesthetics 0 Water c] Hazards c] Cultural Resources Air Quality Noise 0 Recreation 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance Rev. 03/28/96 A DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 0 [XI cl 0 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. 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 Negative Declartion 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 (MEIR 93-0 1) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-0 I), including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. 3-20-79 Planner Signature Date Planning Director’s Signature/ Date 2 Rev. 03/28/96 c 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 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but 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. e An EIR Et 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 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). Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated LessThan No Significant Impact Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) (#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) . 0 0 0 0 0 IXI 0 [XI 0 0 0 0 [XI 0 IXI 0 0 0 IXI 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 indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable 0 o 0 5.5-6) housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) 0 0 cl IXI 0 1x1 0 111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) b) Seismic ground shaking? ((#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#1 :Pgs g) Subsidence ofthe land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - ((#l:PgS 5.1-1 - 5.1.15) 5.1-15) 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) 5.1-15) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 IXI IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: 0 0 a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2- b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - L.2-11, #5) 11) 0 IXI 0 €3 0 0 5 Rev. 03/28/96 - lssues (and Supporting Information Sources). Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1, #4 Pg 2) 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 - 5.2-1 1) 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? ((#I :Pgs body? ((#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 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? (#I :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) 1 - 5.3-12) - 5.3-12) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs b) Hazards to safety from design features (eg. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (#I :Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22, See required mitigation.) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) (#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) (#I :PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) (#I :PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact [XI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [XI 0 0 NO Impact 0 [XI [XI [XI IXI [XI [XI IXI [XI [XI [XI €3 [XI [XI IXI 0 [x1 [XI VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: 6 Rev. 03/28/96 - Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24, #2: Pgs 8- 15) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24, #2: d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#I :Pgs 5.4-1 Pgs 8-15) (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24, #2: Pgs 10-15) - 5.4-24) 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- 1 - 5.13-9) 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) proposal? (#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) c) 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) 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) 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) 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 5.1251 - 5.12.5-6) b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4) Potentially Potentially Significant Significant lmpact Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 IXI 0 0 0 0 0 IXI cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 LessThan No Significant lmpact lmpact 0 0 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 0 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 [XI 0 [XI Rev. 03/28/96 7 7 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0.0 C) Schools? (#l:PgS 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1, e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) 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? (#I; pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) 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) Storm water drainage? (#1 :Pg 5.2-8) 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) 5.12.3-7) AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#1 :Pgs Create light or glare? (#2 Pg 15, #4 Pg 3) 5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5) 5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5) CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: Disturb paleontological resources? (#1 :Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8- 10, #3: Pg 1 ) Disturb archaeological resources? (#1 :Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8- Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10, #3: Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (# 1 :Pgs Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10, #3: Pg 1) 10, #3: Pg 1) pg 1) 5.8-1 - 5.8-10, #3: Pg 1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 0 0 LessThan No Significant Impact Impact 0 [x1 0 Ixi 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: 0 0 0 IXI o 0 0 IXI a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 - b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (# 1 :Pgs 5.12.8-7) 5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7) XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 8 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact 0 a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 0 c) Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact Mitigation Incorporated Unless Impact 0 0 (XI 0 0 Ixl 0 ixI 9 Rev. 03/28/96 XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. With the exception of biological resources and water quality, earlier analysis of this proposed single family residential dwelling unit and second dwelling unit has been completed through the General Plan Update (GPA 94- 01) and related Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR 93-01) . The MEIR is cited as source #I in the preceding checklist. This proposal is consistent with the applicable portions of the General Plan and is considered a Subsequent Project that was described in MEIR 93-01 as within its scope. There are biological impacts due to this development that were not analyzed in the MEIR and accordingly, additional mitigation measures are required. All feasible mitigation measures identified in MEIR 93-01 which are appropriate to this Subsequent Project have also been incorporated into this project. 10 Rev. 03/28/96 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVJRONMENTAL SETTING This project includes the development of a 2713 square foot single family residence with a detached garage and second dwelling unit upon a 1.9 acre lot which is located along the south shore of Buena Vista Lagoon. west of the AT&SF Railroad and north of Mountain View Drive. The project’s grading would be balanced on-site and would consist of 75 cubic yards of cut and fill. The property is relatively flat (12 MSL) and consists of an historical fill which was created when the Buena Vista Lagoon was altered from a tidal regime to a non-tidal deep-water regime. The project site is covered by a disturbed shrub habitat which has colonized the site since the fill was placed in 1972. Fresh water marsh occurs on the northwest and eastern boundaries of the site below the rip-rap line. The site is designated RL (ldulac Growth Control Point) and zoned R-1-30 which would allow for the development of a single family residence and a second dwelling unit. The property is currently vacant and an existing proscriptive lagoon trail is located along its’ western edge. The AT&SF Railroad right-of-way lies to the east of the site, and multi-family housing is located to the south of the project site. 11 Rev. 03/28/96 -.- 11. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS B. Environmental Impact Discussion Air Quality The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to Qr 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 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. 12 Rev. 03/28/96 Biological Resources The project site is covered with a disturbed shrub habitat (Pacific Southwest Biological Services, October 15, 1996). Fresh water marsh (wetlands) occurs on the northwest and eastern boundaries of the site, below the rip-rap line. The eastern area of fresh water marsh has been historically used by the endangered light-footed clapper rail. The proposed project has been designed and conditioned to avoid impacts to all of the off-site wetland habitats and light- footed clapper rail. This has been accomplished through the inclusion of a minimum 100 foot buffer between the mean high water level (wetlands) and all structures, installation of a 6’ tall chain link fence along the wetland buffer area and adjacent wetlands to prevent encroachment by domestic pets, and the construction of a sedimenvde- pollutant basin to prevent eroded soils and urban runoff containing pollutants from entering the wetlands and lagoon. Additionally, the project will be conditioned with the following mitigation measures: 1. 2. 3. 4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit or grading permit (whichever occurs first) the applicant shall record a deed restriction over the entire wetland buffer setback area to restrict the property for open space/wildlife uses only, except for a lateral public access trail as shown on the site plan for CDP 97-59. Prior to the issuance of a building permit or grading permit (whichever occurs first), the property owner shall shall submit evidence satisfactory to the Planning director that an irrevocable offer of dedication of the wetland buffer area has been made to the California Department of Fish and Game. Prior to the issuance of building permits, an exterior lighting plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review. All exterior lighting shall include a combination of low-level lights and shields to minimize the amount of light entering the adjacent wetlands and wetland buffer area. Due to the potential presence of the light-footed clapper rail within the wetlands adjacent to the project site, project construction shall be prohibited during it’s breeding season unless a focused survey for the clapper rail is conducted immediately prior to project construction and determines that no clapper rails were observed during the survey. The project access drive and fence do encroach into the 100 foot wetland buffer area. This encroachment has been preliminarily reviewed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and Game and the California Coastal Commission . The project shall be conditioned to mitigate this encroachment as follows: 1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, non-native plant species shall be removed from the wetland buffer area and the wetland buffer area shall be re-vegetated with a hydro-mulched coastal scrub grass seed mix. Water b). The flood plain in proximity to the project site is at an elevation of between 8.4’ and 9.8’ MSL (Army Corps., 1973; Nolte & Assoc., 1985). The project site which is at an elevation of around 12’ MSL, is not located within. the flood plain. c). A sedimendde-pollutant basin has been incorporated into the project design to mitigate the erosion of soils and runoff of urban pollutants into the lagoon. TransportationICirculation e). To the south of the subject property, there currently exists an easement for public access to a trail which is located along the south shore of Buena Vista Lagoon. The subject lagoon trail extends onto the subject property. In order to ensure the preservation of this lagoon trail and legal public access upon it, the following mitigation measure shall be required: 1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit or grading permit (whichever occurs first) the applicant shall irrevocably offer to dedicate in .perpetuity to the City of Carlsbad a minimum 25 foot wide public access trail easement over the public access trail which is shown on the site plan for CDP 98-03. 13 Rev. 03/28/96 111. 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) 438-1 161, extension 4471. 1. Final Master Environmental Imuact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department. 2. Biological ReDort of Environmental Conditions at a Site adiacent to Buena Vista Lagoon dated October 15, 1996, Pacific Southwest Biological Services. ? 3. Cultural Resources Located at the Buena Vista Lagoon Condominium Project dated April 16, 1980, Regional Environmental Consultants. 4. Letter from the US Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the Conceutual Develoument Plan for the Subject Property, (Januarir 27, 1997), dated February 13, 1997, US Fish and Wildlife Service. 5. Flood Plain Information Buena Vista Creek, dated July 1973, Army Corps of Engineers. 14 Rev. 03/28/96 F LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) .? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit or grading permit (whichever occurs first) the applicant shall record a deed restriction over the entire wetland buffer setback area to restrict the property for open space/wildlife uses only, except for a lateral public access trail as shown on the site plan for CDP 97-59. Prior to the issuance of a building permit or grading permit (whichever occurs first), the property owner shall shall submit evidence satisfactory to the Planning director that an irrevocable offer of dedication of the wetland buffer area has been made to the California Department of Fish and Game. Prior to the issuance of building permits, an exterior lighting plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review. All exterior lighting shall include a combination of low-level lights and shields to minimize the amount of light entering the adjacent wetlands and wetland buffer area. Due to the potential presence of the light-footed clapper rail within the wetlands adjacent to the project site, project construction shall be prohibited during it’s breeding season unless a focused survey for the clapper rail is conducted immediately prior to project construction and determines that no clapper rails were observed during the survey. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, non-native plant species shall be removed from the wetland buffer area and the wetland buffer area shall be re-vegetated with a hydro-mulched coastal scrub grass seed mix. Prior to the issuance of a building permit or grading permit (whichever occurs first) the applicant shall irrevocably offer to dedicate in perpetuity to the City of Carlsbad a minimum 25 foot wide public access trail easement over the public access trail which is shown on the site plan for CDP 98-03. ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) 15 Rev. 03/28/96 PROJECT NAME: Levy Residence and Znd Dwellinn Unit FILE NUMBERS: CDP 97-591SDU 98-03 APPROVAL DATE: CONDITIONAL NEG. DEC.: grading permit. Prior to building or grading permit Prior to building permit Prior to occupancy Prior to building or grading permit 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). Planning Planning Planning Planning Mitigation Measure Record deed restriction over wetland buffer area to restrict as open space and exclusively allow a lagoon public access trail. Applicant submit evidence that an irrevocable offer of dedication of wetland buffer area has been made to CDF&G. Applicant submit exterior lighting plan to minimize lagoon impacts. Applicant remove non-native plants from buffer and revegetate with hydro-mulched coastal scrub grass seed mix. Applicant dedicate in perpetuity a 25 foot wide public access trail I easement within the wetland buffer area. I Remarks Monitoring Monitoring I SE;son I Verified Tvoe I Department Implementation I Planning I Prior to building or I I Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept = Department, or Agendcy, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. information. 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, Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other RD - Appendix P. this column will be initialed and dated. A 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. 16 Rev. 03/28/96