HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-05-06; Planning Commission; Resolution 42620 Q
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4262
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM LOCATED ON THE WEST
SIDE OF OCEAN STREET BETWEEN CYPRESS AVENUE
AND BEECH AVENUE IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: OCEAN STREET CONDOMINIUMS-
CASE NO.: SDP 97-17/SUP 97-08/HDP 97-14/CDP 97-
NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW A TWO-UNIT
PALISOUL/BLAIR RESIDENCE
36/CP 97-05N 97-03/AV 97-07
WHEREAS, Cindy Blair, “Developer”, has filed a verified application
City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Philip R. Palisoul and Pamela F. 1
husband and wife, as joint tenants, and Martin L. Blair and Cynthia S. Blair, husb
wife, as joint tenants, “Owner”, described as
Lots 15 and 16 in block “A” Hayes Land Co. Addition to
Carlsbad Map No. 2, City of Carlsbad
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 6th day of May 199;
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all tl
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by s
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered a:
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the
Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according t
I
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 e
"ND" dated February 26, 1998, and "PII" dated January 16, 1998,
hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analy
considered the Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts therein identifiec
project and any comments thereon prior to APPROVING the project. Based on
Part I1 and comments thereon, the Planning Commission finds that the1
substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environr
thereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration.
2. The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration reflects the indl
judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad.
...
...
...
...
. ..
...
...
...
...
...
.I.
..~
...
. ..
...
...
PC RES0 NO. 4262 -2-
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
e e
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the 1
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 6th day of May 1998
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners Compas, Heineman, R/
and Savary
NOES: Commissioners Nielsen and Welshons
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
I ATTEST:
II c . 16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MICHAEL J.MLZMIYLER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 4262 -3-
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddresdLocation: West side of Ocean Street between Del Mar Avenue and Beec
Avenue
Project Description: A two-unit blufftop residential condominium project
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described projec
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act an
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review,
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on tt
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in tk
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Plannin
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public a~
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of da1
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Elaine Blackburn in the Planning Departme]
at (760) 438-1 161, extension 4471.
DATED: FEBRUARY 26,1998
CASE NO: SDP 97-17/SUP 97-08/HDP 97-14/CDP 97-36/CP 97-05N 97-03/AV
97-07
CASE NAME: OCEAN STREET CONDOMINIUMS-PALISOUL/BLAIR RFiSIDENCl
PUBLISH DATE: FEBRUARY 26,1998
k
)\MA
MICHAEL J. HOMMImR
Planning Director
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 - (760) 438-11 61 - FAX (760) 438-089
e 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: SDP 97-17/SUP 97-08lHDP 97-14/CDP 97-36/CP 97-05/V 97-03/AV 97-0
DATE: JANUARY 16. 199
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Ocean Street CondominiumsPalisoul-Blair Residence
2. APPLICANT: Cindy Blair
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 655 India #32 1, San Diepo. CA, 921 0
(619) 223-2400
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: August 29, 1997
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: a two-unit blufftop residential condominium project
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this projec
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impa’
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning [XI Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services
Population and Housing c] Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics
0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
[XI Air Quality Noise 0 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
e DETERMINATION. e
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
[XI I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on th
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on th
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigatio
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIV
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and a
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
c] I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but i
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlic
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigatia
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An is requirec
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
[7 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on tl:
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potential1
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Master Environment;
Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voide
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-01
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed projec
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
.& ;;la - yg-
Date
I&& I "/Z3/6 B Planning Director's Sigature Date I&& I "/Z3/6 B Planning Director's Sigature Date
2 Rev. 03128196
e a ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the Cit
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significa1
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the followin
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and huma
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information t
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negatik
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
a A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that m
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following eac
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced informatic
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. ,
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, (
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
e “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that tk
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopt€
general standards and policies.
e “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporatic
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and tk
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce tl:
effect to a less than significant level.
e “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that E
effect is significant.
e Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significal
effect on the environment, but a potentially significant effects (a) have been analyze
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicab
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigatc
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upc
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to (
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the pril
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no addition
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
e When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily requirt
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier El
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
e A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence th
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03128196
* a
e If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing a
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, an
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In th:
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 includin
but not limited to the following circumstances: (I) the potentially significant effect h
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, an
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less tha
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact h:
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduc
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is nc
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, (
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significa
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of tl
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attentic
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determine
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?
(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? (# 1 :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
cl
0
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) o
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area 0
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 -
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
5.5-6)
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? (# 1 :Pgs
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
e) Landslides or mudflows? (# 1 :Pgs 5.1 - 1 - 5.1 - 15)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#1 :Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1.15)
5.1-15)
5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
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? (#I :Pgs 5.1-1 -
51-15)
0 0
0
0 0
0
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runofr! (#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 - 5..2-11) 0
0
11)
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
Less Than No
Significan Impact t Impact
0 w
0 [XI
0 [XI
17 [XI
0 w
0 w
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI 0 [XI 0 w
0 [XI
cl [XI 0 w
0 w 0 IXI 0 [XI
o w
o w
Rev. 03128196
0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
body? (#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
(#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
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? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
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 (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
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 -
5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
5.7.22)
0
0
0
CI
cl
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
e Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
0
0
El
0
cl
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
cl
0
0
cl
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
0
cl
0
0
No
Impact
[XI
[XI
€3
[XI
w w w
w
w
[XI
[XI
w
IXI
w
[XI w w
[XI
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
6 Rev. 03/28/96
0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Impact
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (#1 :Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#1 :Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#1 :Pgs 5.4- 1
(#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
(# 1 :PgS 5.4- 1 - 5.4-24)
- 5.4-24)
0
0
0
0
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5
proposal?
(#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) o
0
1 - 5.13-9)
& 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
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? (#1 :Pgs 5.10.1-1 -
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
5.10.1-5)
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
grass, ortrees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
0
0
0
0
I7
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#1 :Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9-
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-
15) 0
1 - 5.9-15) 0
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6)
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4) il il 0 C) Schools? (#l:PgS 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
7
0
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significan Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless t Impact
0 ci [XI
0 cl w
0 0 El
0 0 [XI
0 0 !XI
0 0 El
0 0 [XI
0 0 [XI
0 0 El
0 0 [XI
cl 0 [XI
0 o [XI
0 cl w
0 0 [XI
0 cl w
0 0 [XI 0 il Ixt 0 0 [XI
Rev. 03128196
0 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( )
e) Other governmental services? (#1 :Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 0
5.12.8-7) 0
XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
b) Communications systems? ( )
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
5.13-1 - 5.13-9) o
c3
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) 0
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significan Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless t Impact
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
e) Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
f) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.12.3-7)
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#1 :Pgs
c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5)
5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5)
5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
10)
1 0)
5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 -
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#1 :Pgs
5.12.8-7)
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 o [XI 0 0 [XI
0 0 [XI
0 o w 0 0 [XI
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
El
o w o w 0 [XI 0 [XI
0 w o w
0 [XI
o w
0 [XI
0 [XI 0 [XI
0 [XI
0 w
0 [XI
8 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
aj 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?
bj Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significan Impact
~-
Impact Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
0 0 CI (XI
0 0 0 IXI
cl 0 (XI
9 Rev. 03128196
e a
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQ,
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negatirv
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify th
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are availabl
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklh
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuar
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed b
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigatio
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated c
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address sitc
specific conditions for the project.
10 Rev. 03128196
0 0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRON&IENTAE EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONACNVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The proposed project consists of the construction of a two-unit residential condominiur
structure on a .16-acre parcel (two smaller parcels being combined into one) on a blufftop sitc
The project site is located on the West side of Ocean Street between Del Mar Avenue and Beec
Avenue. The site is currently undeveloped and is within the Beach Area Overlay Zone and th
appeal area for the Coastal Zone. The site is an infill site surrounded by a variety of single- an
multi-family residential structures. The applicant has requested variances for several aspects (
the proposed project including building height, setbacks, parking configuration, and garag
dimensions.
11. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING
As designed, the proposed project is consistent with the RH (Residential - high density) GenerL
Plan designation. The project is consistent with all environmental plans and policies and wit
the City’s Local Coastal Program. The proposed use is compatible with the single family an
multiple family residential development surrounding the site. There are no agricultural resource
on this site and the project will not disrupt the physical arrangement of the neighborhood.
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING
The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan designation (RH) and zoning (R-3) fo
the project site. The proposed project involves combining two lots (which would be allowed onr
residential use each) into a single lot with two units. The project does not conflict with an:
applicable environmental plans and is not inconsistent with the surrounding development, whicl
includes single- and multi-family residential developments. There are no agricultural resource
or operations on or near the site. The project will not divide an established residentia
community. The site is a small infill site to be developed with a residential use.
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS
No significant geologic impacts have been identified on this site including seismic hazards
erosion, landslides, or unique geologic features. A soils and geotechnical study was prepared fo:
the project site by Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. (May, 1997). This study concluded that tht
site is suitable for the proposed development subject to the recommendations in the report.
4. WATER
11 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0 - No significant impacts to water resources have been identified for this project. The developmen
of the proposed residential units will not significantly impact ground water, change the amoun
of surface water in any water body nor expose people or property to significant water relate1
hazards.
5. AIR QUALITY
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the update
1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle mile
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactiv
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are th
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since th
San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considere
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in th
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 variet
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisior
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measurc
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Deman
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including ma:
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and !
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable an
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into th
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marke
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, tk
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-0 1, by Cii
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for a
quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequel
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, n
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at tk
Planning Department.
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the update
9994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequa
to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severe:
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. The!
generally include all fi-eeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsb;
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersectio~
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, numerol
12 Rev. 03128196
0 e
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measure
to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develol
alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrial
linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies whe:
adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highwq
onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. Thc
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either beer
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 th(
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 i:
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because thc
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 OJ
Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’:
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulatior
impacts is required.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The project site is covered mainly with iceplant and with other non-native plant species. No
endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats have been identified on the site. The site
also does not contain any locally designated species or natural communities or wetland habitats
and does not serve as a migration corridor. The proposed development of this infill site will not
significantly impact any biological resource.
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
The proposed project 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 will not result in increased risk of accidental explosion or
release of hazardous substances. It also will not interfere with any emergency response plans or
evacuation plans. The site is a mid-block infill site which fi-onts onto a public street. The project
will not result in exposure of people to any potential health hazards, including fire hazard.
10. NOISE
No long term noise impacts will result from the presence of this residential structure. Some
temporary noise impacts will occur during construction. However, these impacts will be
temporary in nature. All such construction activities will be required to be conducted pursuant to
the City’s noise regulations and regulations governing construction activities.
13 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
11. PUBLIC SERVICES
The proposed project (2 new residential units) will not result in the need for new government:
services. The proposed project involves an infill site for which all necessary public services a1
readily available. The project will be conditioned to comply with all applicable requirements c
the Local Facilities Management Plan for the area to ensure that all such services are available.
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS
The proposed project (2 new residential units) will not result in the need for new utilities an
services systems. The proposed project involves an infill site for which all necessary publj
utilities and services systems are readily available. The project will be conditioned to provid
any improvements required to serve the site as identified through the Local Facilitic
Management Plan for the area.
13. AESTHETICS
Development of the site as proposed will not negatively affect any scenic vista or sceni
highway. The proposed project is in accordance with the site’s General Plan residentiz
designation and is designed to be compatible with surrounding development and, therefore, wil
not have any demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. Lighting for the structure will be typical ti
that for other small residential projects and will be directed inward to the project. Therefore
there will be no negative aesthetic impacts from the proposed project.
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES
No cultural resources (archaeological, paleontological, or historical) have been identified on thi:
infill site, and its development will not impact any sacred or religious resources.
15. RECREATIONAL
The proposed two new residential units, which were anticipated by the General Plan, will no
create an increased demand for neighborhood or regional recreational facilities. The project alsc
will not affect existing recreational opportunities since the vacant site does not currently providt
such facilities or opportunities.
14 Rev. 03/28/94
e 1) 111. EARlLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City c
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 9200!
(760) 438-1161, extension 4471.
1. Final Master Environmental ImDact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Updat
(MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
15 Rev. 03128196