HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-12-04; Planning Commission; Resolution 4021*-
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4021
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT
PLAN AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO
DEMOLISH ONE UNIT, REMODEL THE SECOND UNIT ON
THE SITE AND CONSTRUCT TWO NEW UNITS, FOR A
TOTAL OF THREE UNITS, ON A .188 ACRE SITE
GENERALLY LOCATED AT 285 JUNIPER AVENUE IN
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: JAEGER TRI-PLEX
CASE NO.: SDP 96-08/CDP 96-04
WHEREAS, Chester and Eileen Jaeger “Developer,” has filed a ve
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Chester and Eileen Ja
“Owner”, described as:
The southwesterly 65.5 feet of Lot 2 in block “R” of Palisades
No. 2, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California, according to the map thereof No. 1803, filed in the
office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, August 25,
1924. Excepting therefrom the southeasterly 105 feet of Lot 2
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 4th day of December 1
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testin
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff,
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all fac
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Plan
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
...
~ I
0 0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Pla?
Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative according to Exhibit “ND”
November 2,1996, and “PII” dated October 28, 1996, attached hereto and
a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed
considered Negative Declaration dated, November 2, 1996, the environmental im
therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to approvinl
project. Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, the Planning Commi
finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect c
environment and thereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration.
2. The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration dated November 2,
reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carls’
3. The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures or pl
alternatives identified in the MEIR 93-01 which are appropriate to this Subseq
Project have been incorporated into this Subsequent Project.
4, The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project
have a significant impact on the environment.
5. The site has been previously disturbed and contains no native vegetation.
6. There are no sensitive resources located on the site so as to be significantly imp:
by this project.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
~
PC RES0 NO. 4021 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1 8[,#
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I Id
0 0
I PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Pla
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 4th day of December 1996,:
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Heineman, Nielsen, 1
Savary and Welshons
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Monroy
ABSTAIN: None
dl-& ?-
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairpersod
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:/-,
~ { MWAEL . HOLZMI~ER fl Planning lrector aJ
PC RES0 NO. 4021 -3 -
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddressLocation: 285 Juniper Avenue, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State
of California
Project Description: Demolitionof one unit and the remodel of the second unit on the
site, and construction of two new apartment units, for a total of
three units on a 0.188 acre parcel.
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, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are
invited, Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within thirty (30) days
of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Teresa Woods in the Planning
Department at (6 1 9) 43 8- 1 16 1 , extension 4447.
DATED: NOVEMBER 2,1996
CASE NO: SDP 96-08/CDP 96-04
CASE NAME: JAEGAR TRT-PLEX
PUBLISH DATE: NOVEMBER 2,1996
MICHAEL J. HmMILkhR
Planning Director
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (619) 438-1161 - FAX (61 9) 438-0894
0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: SDP 96-08/CDP 96-04
DATE: October 28, 1996
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Jaeger Tri-plex
2. APPLICANT: Ted A. Buchanan
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2632 Luciernaga Street, Carlsbad,
California 92009; (6 19) 43 8-9222
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: August 14,1996
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request to demolish one unit and the remodel of the second unit on
the site, and the construction of two new apartment units for a total of three units on a 0.188 acre
parcel.
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 [XI TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics
[7 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
W Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
[7 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
e DETERMINATION. e
(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.
0 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.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An EIR is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
0 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 EIR pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
/c- rh- wme__-c 16 /%k@ PlGmer Signature Date
IK I .- l0)3& b
Planning Director s Sigkture Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
e ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS e
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.
0 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.
0 “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.
0 “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.
0 “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
0 Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but a 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).
0 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.
0 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
m 0
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 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
0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
(Source #(s): o
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the 0
project?
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (eg impacts 0
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible 0
land uses?
established community (including a low-income or 0
minority community)?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
population projections? o
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area 0
or extension of major infrastructure)?
housing? 0 c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture?
b) Seismic ground shaking?
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?)
e) Landslides or mudflows?
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
g) Subsidence of the land?
h) Expansive soils?
i) Unique geologic or physical features?
0 0 0 0 o
o 0 0
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? 0
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff!
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body?
0
0
0
5
e
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0
0
0
Less Than No
Significan Impact
t Impact
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 !XI 0 IXI
0 Ixl
0 Ixl
0 IXI
0 !XI
0 w 0 IXI 0 0 0 0
IXI !XI Ixl Ixl
0 [x] 0. w 0 El
0 w
0 IXI
0 El
0 Ix1
Rev. 03/28/96
0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant Impact
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements?
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?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality?
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate?
d) Create objectionable odors?
existing or projected air quality violation?
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)?
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?
f, Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
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?
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
0
0
CI 0 0
e Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significan Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless t Impact
0 0 w
0 0 IXI
0 o [XI 0 o w CI 0 w
IXI
0 0
0
[XI 0
0 CI 0 0
0
0
0 CI
0 0
0
El CI
0
0 0
0 0 0 0
a
0 0
0 0
0 0
[XI o [xi
0 [XI
0 Ix1
0 w Ixl 0 !XI 0 [XI
0 Ixl
0 'El
0 Ea o w
0 w IXI
6 Rev. 03/28/96
0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
proposal? o
inefficient manner? 0
resource that would be of future value to the region and 0
the residents of the State?
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)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards?
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees?
0
0
0
0
0
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? n
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? U 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? n
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
U o n
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? n U
e) Other governmental services? U 0
XILUTILITIES 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?
b) Communications systems?
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
0 0
facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
e) Storm'water drainage?
f) Solid waste disposal?
g) Local or regional water supplies?
0 0 0 0
7
0 Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
Less Than No
Significan impact t Impact
0 El 0 [xi
0 El
0 IXI
0 Ixi
El
0 w
0 €3
o w 0 w
0 Ixi 0 El 0 €3 0 El w
0 IXI 0 El o w
0 El 0 Ixi 0 El 0 !XI
Rev. 03/28/96
0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 0 Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significan Impact Impact Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway?
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect?
c) Create light or glare?
17 0 0 !XI 0 0 0 !XI 0 0 0 [XI
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
b) Disturb archaeological resources?
c) Affect historical resources?
0 0 0 [XI 0 0 0 [XI n n n m U U U lLll
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? 0 0 0 Kl d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
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
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?
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I7
0
0
0
0
0
0
cl
[XI
w
€3
[XI
[x]
[XI
8 Rev. 03/28/96
0 XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. 0
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.
9 Rev. 03/28/96
0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 0
The proposed project consists of the demolition of one unit and the remodel of the second unit on
the site, and the construction of two new apartment units for a total of three units on a .188 acres
parcel. The property is located at 285 Juniper Avenue, which is on the south side of Juniper
Avenue, between Garfield Street and the San Diego Northern Railroad right-of-way, in the
northwest quadrant of the City. The site is currently fully developed with two units and a storage
structure, paving and landscaping on the site. The property is relatively flat. Properties to the
north, south, east and west are fully developed with multiple family and single family residential
units. The property is located in the Beach Area Overlay Zone and lies in the Coastal Zone. The
San Diego Northern Railroad right-of-way is located approximately 400 feet to the east.
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING
As designed, the proposed project is consistent with the R-3 zoning and RH (residential
high) General Plan designation. The project is consistent with all environmental plans
and policies and with the City’s Local Coastal Program. The proposed use is compatible
with the single family and multiple family residential development surrounding the site.
There are no agricultural resources on this developed site and the project will not disrupt
the physical arrangement of the neighborhood.
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING
The proposed project at a density of 15.96 dwelling units per acre is consistent with the
City’s Growth Management Program and will not exceed the growth control point of 19
dwelling units per acre established for the site. The proposed project will result in one
additional unit on the property, which will not induce substantial growth in the area, The
project does involve the demolition of one unit on the site, however two new units will be
constructed, thus housing will not be displaced. As only one single family unit is being
demolished, the project is exempt from California Government Code Section 65590
pertaining to low and moderate income housing within the Coastal Zone.
3. GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS
No significant geologic impacts have been identified on this site including seismic
hazards, landslides, erosion, or geologic features. Only very minor grading is-proposed
with this project (less than 50 cubic yards).
4. WATER
No significant impacts to water resources have been identified for this fully developed
site. The proposed project will not impact ground water, change the amount of any
surface water in any water body nor expose people or property to water related hazards.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
0 5. AIR QUALITY: 0
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the
updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption
and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of
carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended
particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well
as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment
basin”, any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore,
continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have
cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a
variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include:
1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with
development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of
Congestion and Transportation Demand 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.
6. 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
11 Rev. 03/28/96
0 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.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
No sensitive biological resources have been identified on this fully developed site. The
site contains structures, paved areas and ornamental landscaping. Therefore, no impact
to sensitive biological resources are anticipated.
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
The proposal does not conflict with adopted energy plans nor use non-renewable
resources in a wasteful manner. No known mineral resources have been identified on the
site.
9. HAZARDS
The proposed residential project would not involve risk of accidental explosion nor
interfere with an emergency response plan. The residential project would not create any
significant health hazards or expose people to potential health hazards.
10. NOISE
The project site is located within 400 feet of the railroad right-of-way. Consistent with
City noise guidelines, a noise study was completed for the project. The study concluded
that the site was subject to noise levels below 60 dBA CNEL, and therefore, was not
subject to additional noise mitigation measures. Some temporary noise impacts would
occur during construction. All construction activities will be required to be conducted
pursuant to the City’s Noise Ordinance.
11/12. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
The proposed project, with one additional unit, will not result in the need for new
governmental services nor the need for new systems or supplies for utilities.
12 Rev. 03/28/96
0 13. AESTHETICS a
As designed with adequate building articulation, good use of landscaping, and a 24-foot
building height, the proposed new units will not affect a scenic vista nor have a negative
effect on the neighborhood.
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES
No cultural resources have been identified on this fully developed site.
15. RECREATION
With one additional unit proposed, which is consistent with the City’s General Plan, the
proposal will not create an increased demand for neighborhood or regional recreational
facilities nor affect existing recreational opportunities.
13 Rev. 03/28/96