HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-05-07; Planning Commission; Resolution 40871
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 a
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4087
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT
PLAN, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, VARIANCE
AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT
TWO NEW CONDOMINIUM UNITS ON A .16 ACRE SITE
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF OCEAN
STREET, SOUTH OF CYPRESS AVENUE IN THE COASTAL
ZONE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: SEA BISQUIT
CASE NO. : SDP 96- 16/HDP 97-02N 96-0 1 /CDP 96-04
WHEREAS, Patrick McGuire, “Developer”, has filed a verified applicatior
the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Patrick McGuire, “Owner”, described a:
Lot 3 and 4 of Block A of Map No. 2 of the Hayes Land
Company (incorporated) addition in Carlsbad, according to
Map thereof No. 1221 filed in the Office of the County Clerk
November 3,1909
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of May 1997, f
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testi
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by stafi
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all fi
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Plal
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the PIX
Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative according to Exhibit “ND”
March 14, 1997, and “PII” dated March 10, 1997, attached hereto and m
part hereof, based on the following findings:
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
I
0 0
Findincs: -
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyze1
considered the Negative Declaration dated, March 14, 1997, the environmental il:
therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to approvir
project. Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, the Planning Comm
finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect
environment and thereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration.
2. The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration dated March 14,
reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carls
3. The Planning Commission finds that:
a. the project is a subsequent activity as described in CEQA Guidelj
15 168(c)(2) under MEIR 943-01; and
b. the project is consistent with MEIR 93-01; and
c. there was a MEIR certified in connection with the prior update of the
Carlsbad General Plan; and
d. the project has no new significant environmental effect not analyzed as signi
in the prior MEIR; and
e. none of the circumstances requiring Subsequent or a Supplemental EIR
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15 162 or 15 163 exist.
4. The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures or p
alternatives identified in MEIR 93-01 which are appropriate to this project have
incorporated into this project.
5. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project
have a significant impact on the environment.
6. The site has been previously disturbed and contains no native vegetation.
7. There are no sensitive resources located on the site so as to be significantly imp
by this project.
8. As determined in the geologic study prepared for the site, the project will hay
adverse effect on the stability of the coastal slopes west of the building site.
9. That the project has been designed with a low-scale building facade on Ocean S
and the structure has been sited to preserve the required side yard setbacks v
will, to the extent feasible, preserve views of the ocean from the street.
PC RES0 NO. 4087 -2-
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
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Pla
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of May 1997, 1:
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioner Compas, Heineman, Monroy, Noble and Sava.
NOES: Chairperson Nielsen and Commissioner Welshons
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
, , . ._.., . . . . , ,". :- ' ' I ..
,/"@T
,4 / &/ ...*
"'G ,f pfl
$TI?
,+' i ,r."x *&fXL. B x --""2",.d
RoBg~ NIELSErcS
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
W MICHAEL J. HOLZMIL~~R
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 4087 -3-
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddressLocation: 2609 Ocean Street, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State
of California
Project Description: Request to construct two new condominium units on a 0.16 acre
parcel. The buildings would be two stories with a basement and
mezzanine, with a maximum building height of 32 feet.
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 1 6 1, extension 4447.
DATED: MARCH 14,1997
CASE NO: CP 96-0 l/SDP 96- 16/HDP 97-02N 96-0 1 /CDP 96- 19
CASE NAME: SEA BISQUIT
PUBLISH DATE: MARCd 14,1997
MICHAEL J. mZM&LER
Planning Director
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-1 161 - FAX (61 9) 438-0894
e e
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CP 96-0 l/SDP 96- 16MDP 97-02N 96-0 1 /CDP 96- 19
DATE: March 10, 1997
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: SEA BISOUIT
2. APPLICANT: Patrick McGuire
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2725 Jefferson Street, Suite 7, Carlsbad,
..
CA 92008; (619) 729-5014.
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: December 3 1, 1996
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Remest to construct two new condominium units on a .16 acre site
[an existing unit on the site would be demolished). The property is located south of Cypress
Avenue, on the west side of Ocean Street. in the R-3 zone. in the Beach Area Overlay Zone. and
in Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
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 Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services
[I1 Population and Housing Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems [7 Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics
0 Water 0 Hazards Cultural Resources
[XI Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03128f96
0
DETERMINATION. 0
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
IX1 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.
/1 b-” A- -0eSc . 3 /‘I 13 9-7
Planner Signature Date
3 3lILtlcIT
Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
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.
e 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.
e “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.
e “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.
e “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
e Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but &l 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).
e 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.
e 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
0 e
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 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
e
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): 0
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 cl
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?
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
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 0 0 0
0 0 0
0
0
0
0
5
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
Less Than No
Significan Impact t Impact
0 [XI
0 El
0 IXI 0 ixI
0 Ix1
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI 0 [XI 0 El 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 IXI
0 [XI 0 [XI 0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 Ix1
0 [XI
Rev. 03/28/96
0 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?
0
0
0 0
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0 0
Less Than No
Significan Impact t Impact
0 [XI
0 w
0 [XI 0 [XI UN
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? [xi 0 0 0
~ ~~ b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 0 0 [XI c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate?
d) Create objectionable odors?
0 0 0 Ixl
0 0 0 [XI
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)?
[XI 0
0 0 0 0
0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0 0 0 Ixl
o w 0 [xi 0 Ixl 0 IXI
0 [XI
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?
0 0 0 [x1
0 0 0 IXI 0 0 o w b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0. 0 0 [xi 0 0 0 Ixl
6 Rev. 03/28/96
a
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
inefficient manner?
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?
proposal?
0 0
0
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
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
CI
0
0
0
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
- a) Increases in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
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?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services?
0 0 0 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
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
e) Storm water drainage?
f) Solid waste disposal?
g) Local or regional water supplies?
facilities?
7
0
0 0 0 0
0
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0 0 0
CI
0
0 0 0 0
LessThan No
Significan Impact t Impact
0 [XI 0 El
0 El
0 [XI
El
17 El
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI Ixi
0 0 0 0
w
[x]
(XI ix1 w
0 [x1 w o w o w 0 El 0 [x1 0 IXI
Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significan Impact Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway?
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect?
c) Create light or glare?
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
b) Disturb archaeological resources?
c) Affect historical resources?
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
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 IXI 0 0 0 w 0 0 w
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
cl 0 0 0 0 0 17 0
0 o
0 0
cl cl
0 0
0 cl
0 0
[x1 w w
[x1 w
w
€4
w
w
Ixl
8 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
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 identifj 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 a
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project consists of the construction of two new condominium units on a .16 acre
parcel. The building would be two stories with a basement and mezzanine with a maximum
building height of 32 feet. The applicant has requested variances for a reduced front yard,
increased building height to a maximum of 32-feet, and reduced parking stall dimensions. The
property is located at 2609 Ocean Street, which is on the west side of ocean Street, south of
Cypress Avenue, in the northwest quadrant of the City. The site is currently developed with one
unit, paving and landscaping on the site. The property slopes down from east to west. Properties
tu 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 within the
appeal area of the Coastal Zone.
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING
As designed, the proposed project is consistent with the 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 17.70 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 vacant 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. The project does contain steep slopes
(slopes in excess of 25%) and the development has been designed in compliance with the
hillside development ordinance. Approximately 500 cubic yards of grading is proposed
with this project.
A soils and geologic reconnaissance was prepared for the site, “Report of Soil
Investigation and Geologic Reconnaissance,” C.W. La Monte Company. December 18,
-, 1996 which concluded that the site was underlain by loose surficial soils and medium
dense terrace deposits consisting of medium-dense, horizontally-bedded, medium-grained
sands. The report found that due to the prior installation of rock-revetment, the long term
recession of the back-beach area has been significantly reduced. The study further
10 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
concluded that if the rock-revetment is properly maintained throughout the project life,
that the project should have a useable life-span of at least 75 years and that the proposed
development would have no adverse effect on the stability of the coastal slope west of the
building site.
4. WATER
No significant impacts to water resources have been identified for this fully developed
site. The proposed project will not significantly impact ground water, change the amount
of surface water in any water body nor expose people or property to significant water
related hazards.
5. AIR OUALITY:
..
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
11 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
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 1nterstate.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, ornamental landscaping and sandy beach.
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. An existing rip
rap wall is constructed on the western most portion of the site, protecting the property
from damage due to ocean waves. No construction is proposed within 25 feet of the
existing wall.
12 Rev. 03/28/96
. 0 0
10. NOISE
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.
13. AESTHETICS
As designed with balconies and patios located within the required “stringline,” adequate
building articulation, and good use of landscaping, the proposed new units will not affect
a scenic vista nor have a negative effect on the neighborhood. The applicant has
requested variances for additional height to a maximum of 32-feet on the west side of the
project, tandem parking with reduced parking stall dimensions, and reduced front yard
setback. The requested variances are consistent with previous variance approvals on
Ocean Street and will be compatible with the surrounding development. The additional
height requested is only on the west side (rear portion) of the develop which is similar to
variances approved on nearby Ocean Street properties.
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES
No cultural resources have been identified on this fully developed site.
1 5. 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