HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-12-02; Planning Commission; Resolution 4432@ 0
1 I1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4432
2
3
4
5
6
7
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
MENT OF AN 11 UNIT AIRSPACE CONDOMINIUM
PROJECT LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF ROMERIA
STREET BETWEEN LA COSTA AVENLTE AND GIBRALTER
STREET IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6.
CASE NAME: CT 98-08/CP 98-06
CASE NO.: MEADOW VIEW TOWNHOMES
NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW THE DEVELOP-
8 I1 WHEREAS, Shiu-Kuen Fan, “ Developer”, has filed a verified applica
9
10 the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Shiu-Kuen Fan, “Owner”, described
11
12
13
14
Lots 387 and 388 of La Costa South Unit 5, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according
to Map thereof No. 6600 filed in the office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, March 10,1970.
(“the Property”); and
15
16
18
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all tl 17
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by s
19
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 2nd day of Decemb
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered a1
relating to the Negative Declaration.
20
21
22
23
24
Commission as follows:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
25
26
27
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the
Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative according to Exhibit “N
October 28, 1998 , and “PII” dated October 13, 1998, attached hereto 2
a part hereof, based on the following findings: l 28
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
FindinPs:
1. The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures 01
alternatives identified in the MEIR 93-01 which are appropriate to this project h
incorporated into this Project.
2. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analy
considered the Negative Declaration dated October 28, 1998, the environmental
therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to APPROV
project. Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, the Planning Con
finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effe
environment and thereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration.
3. The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration reflects the ind
judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad.
4. The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Negative Declaration, :
prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Qua
the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the
Carlsbad.
Conditions:
1. Approval is granted subject to the approval of CT 98-08 and CP 98-06 and subj
conditions contained in Resolution 4434 for CT 98-08 and Resolution 4433 fol
06.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
I
~ PC RES0 NO. 4432 -2-
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 e
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2nd day of December, 199
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners Compas, Heineman, 3
Savary, and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Monroy
9 ABSTAIN:
10
11
12
13 CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
14
15 ATTEST:
16
17
l8 I/ Planning Director
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 11 PC RES0 NO. 4432 -3-
0 0
- City of Carlsbac
NEGATIVE DECLAIUTION
Project Address/Location: East side of Romeria Street between La Costa Avenue su
Gibralter Street.
Project Description: Regrading of two infill lots totaling .735 acres in the RD-M ZOI:
and the construction of an eleven unit three-story airspa
condominium with the requisite driveways, parking, and recreatic
areas located in the RD-M zone.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described proje
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act a~
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 tl
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in tl
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Plannil
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public a
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of da
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning Department
(760) 438-1 161, extension 4477.
DATED: October 28, 1998
CASE NO: CT 98-08/CP 98-06
CASE NAME: Meadowview Townhomes
PUBLISH DATE: October 28,1998 lhAJL.&+4UL
MICHAEL J. HCkZMInER
Planning Director
2075 La Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-1 161 - FAX (760) 438-08
0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CT 98-08/CP 98-
DATE: October 13, 19!
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Meadowview Townhomes
2. APPLICANT: Shiu-Kuen Fan
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: P.O. Box 2202, La Jolla, CA 9203 8
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: May 12.1998
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Regrading of two infill lots totaling .735 acres and construction 1
an eleven unit three-story airspace condominium project with the requisite driveways, parkin
and recreation areas.
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.
0 Land Use and Planning [XI Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics
0 Water c7 Hazards Cultural Resources
w Air Quality Noise 0 Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
1) 0
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
[XI I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on tl
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on t!
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigatic
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATI\
DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ;
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
c] I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlil
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigatic
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. F
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effec
that remain to be addressed.
0 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 potential
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant
applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier E11
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed projec
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
A
lD-/y-yg
Planner Signature c' Date
\da&+%' h ro!z 3pi $3 .-,
Planning DirectorfSSignatge Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the Ci
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significa
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the followil
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and hum;
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negati.
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 a
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following ea(
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced infomatic
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 tl
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adoptc
general standards and policies.
e “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporatic
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect fiom “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 tk
effect to a less than significant level.
e “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that a
effect is significant.
e Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significa
effect on the environment, but 4 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 Mitigate
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upc
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to c
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the pric
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 require
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EI:
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement c
3 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
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.
If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, a
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In tl
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporate
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
e An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and includir
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect h;
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, a
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less th:
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 n
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, 1
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.
ENVIRONMENTAL
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant impac Impact Unless Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
(#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
CI 0 [XI
0 cl 0 [XI
0 0 0 [XI
0 0 0 [XI
0 0 0 [XI
4 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 -
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
5.5-6)
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
b) Seismic ground shaking? ((#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#1 :Pgs
((#l:PgS 5.1-1 - 5.1.15)
5.1-15)
5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2)
g) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#1 :Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
11) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
d) 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)
body? ((#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
0 0 0
0
0 0
0 0 0
0
17
0
0
0
0
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impac
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless Impact
0 0 [XI
0 cl w
0 0 [XI
0 0 0
cl
cl cl
0 cl 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 w 0 [XI 0 [XI
0 [x]
0 [XI 0 IXI
0 [x] 0 [x] 0 [XI
0 [XI
0 Ixl
0 Ixl
0 Ixl
0 [XI w
5 Rev. 03/28/96
0 a
ENVIRONMENTAL
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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
((#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
11)
5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1)
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
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 -
proposal result in:
5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#I :PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
5.7.22)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
IXI 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
[x1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LessThan No
Significant lmpac Impact
17 [XI
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 0
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 0
0 IXI
0 [XI
0 IXI
0 Ix)
0 IXI
0 IXI
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
in impacts to:
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, 0 0 0
animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) 0 0 0
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) 0 0
IXI
[XI
[XI
6 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
ENVIRONMENTAL
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Potentially
Significant
Impact
d) Wetland habitat (eg marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1
(#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) 0
- 5.4-24) cl
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
cl
cl
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 orradiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
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, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
0
0
0
0
0
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9-
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9- 15) o
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) o cl 0 C) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1,
PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) 0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
cl
0
0
0 o
0 o
0 0 0
No
lrnpa'
€4
(xi
w
[XI
[XI
Ix1
[XI
Ix1
IXI
Ix1
El
[XI
[XI
[XI
[XI El
7 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
ENVIRONMENTAL Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Significant Significant Significant lmpac
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
5,/2,8-7) 0 0 0 ixI
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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
b) Communications systems? (#l; pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
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? (#1 :Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
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? (# 1 :Pgs 5.1 1 - 1 - 5.1 1-5)
5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5)
5.11-1 - 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)
10)
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)
0
0 o
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0 0 El
0 0 Ixi 0 0 Ixi
0 0 IXI 0 0 IXI cl 0 [x1 0 0 [xi
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0 w
cl w
I7 [XI
0 !XI
0 Ix1
0 [XI w
0 KI
0 [XI
0 El
8 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
ENVIRONMENTAL
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impac Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the 0 UN
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? CJ 0 0 [x]
(“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?
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis of this proposed 11 unit condominium project has been completed through tk
General Plan Update (GPA 94-01) and related Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR 9:
01) . The MEIR is cited as source #1 in the preceding checklist. This proposal is consistent wii
the applicable portions of the General Plan and within the scope of MEIR 93-0 1. There will \.
no additional significant impacts due to this development that were not analyzed in the ME1
and no new or additional mitigation measures or alternatives are required. This project i
therefore, within the scope of the prior MEIR and no new environmental document nor Pub1
Resources Code 21081 findings are required. All feasible mitigation measures identified j
MEIR 93-01 which are appropriate to the project have been incorporated into the project.
0 0 0 IXI
9 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
This project is located on Romeria Street, between La Costa Avenue and the La Costa g(
course in the RD-M zone The project site consists of two vacant, infill lots totali
approximately .735 acres which have been previously graded into terraced lots separated by a
high slope. Existing infrastructure and public utilities are adequate to serve the project. T.
project consists of the airspace subdivision of 11 two-story condominium units. Proposc
grading would consist of 2,800 cubic yards of cut, 470 cubic yards of fill. and 2,3 10 cubic yar
of export required to prepare the site for the gradually terraced project. Public stre
improvements and utilities currently serve the project site. The proposed density is consiste
with the applicable General Plan Residential High (RH) density land use designation (15 - :
ddacre) which would allow for the development of a maximum of 13 detached single family
multiple family units. The project site, which is currently vacant, is situated between mu1
family projects to the north and south thereby ensuring compatiblity.
11. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
A. Environmental Impact Discussion
Air Quality
The implementation of projects that are consistent with and within the scope of the updated 195
General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle mill
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reacti7
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are tl
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since tl
San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considerc
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in tl
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 varie
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisio:
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measur
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demm
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 ar
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into tl
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
a 0
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is markc
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, tl
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-0 1, by Ci
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for 2
quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subseque
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, 1
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at t:
Planning Department.
Transportation/Circulation
The implementation of projects that are consistent with and within the scope of the updated 195
General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate
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 freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsb:
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersectiol
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
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measur
to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develc
alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestria
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 Highwa
onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. Tk
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either bee
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 tl
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefor
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because ti
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, includc
a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement C
Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulatio
impacts is required.
111. EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City (
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 9200’
(760) 438- 1 16 1, extension 4477.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
I
r e 0
‘b
1. Final Master Environmental ImDact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Upde
(MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
2. “Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation- Proposed 1 1 Unit Condominimum Project Lo
387 & 388 of La Costa South Unit No. 5, City of Carlsbad, California” dated July 1
1998.
12 Rev. 03/28/96