The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1999-06-02; Planning Commission; Resolution 45650 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4565 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO DOMOLISH AN OLDER EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF OCEAN STREET, NORTH OF PACIFIC AVENUE IN THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE CITY IN LOCAL, FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1 CASE NAME: DAY RESIDENCE CASE NO.: CDP 99-04 WHEREAS, Ron and Mary Day, “Owner” and “Developer”, have verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as Lot 4 of Granville Park, in the City of Carlsbad, in the County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1782, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, February 21,1924. (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a CEQA document was prepared in conjunction with said prc and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 2nd day of June, 199’ duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all tc and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by s considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered a1 relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the 1 Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 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 e 0 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according tc “ND” dated April 20, 1999, and “PII” dated April 12, 1999, attached hc made a part hereof, based on the following finding: Findinm: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analq 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 environn thereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration. 2. The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration reflects the indc judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2nd day of June, 1995 following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Heineman, L’Heure~ Nielsen, Segall, Trigas, and Welshons NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: COURTNEY E. HE&MAN, Chairperson CAFUSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: 4 Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 4565 -2- e 0 - City of Carlsbac NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Address/Location: 2479 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, CA 92009/West side of Ocean Stree just north of Pacific Avenue. Project Description: Request to demolish an older existing single family residential an construct a new single family residence on a previously disturbe infill blufftop lot. The structure will be 5,588 square feet in size. 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 anc 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 th environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in th 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 art invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of datt of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Greg Fisher in the Planning Department a (760) 438-1 161, extension 4328. DATED: April 20,1999 CASE NO: CDP 99-04 CASE NAME: Day Residence PUBLISH DATE: April 20,1999 Planning Director 2075 La Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-1 161 - FAX (760) 438-089 e 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CDP 99-0L DATE: 4/12/95 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: DAY RESIDENCE 2. APPLICANT: WAYNE DAVIS 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NLTMBER OF APPLICANT: 344 7* AVENUE, SAN DIEGO, CA 92101, (760) -619-232-5990 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: JANUARY 1 1.1999 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Demolish an older existing single family residence and construct : new single family detached residence totaling 5,588 square feet of living area on a previouslT disturbed sloping .23 acre blufftozl lot which is located on the west side of Ocean Street ius north of Pacific Avenue on Assessor’s Parcel No. 203-021-04. 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 Impac Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning IXI TransportatiodCirculation n Public Services 17 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources c] Utilities & Service Systems c] Geological Problems Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics 0 water [x] Air Quality 0 Hazards Noise Cultural Resources Recreation 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 03/28/96 e 0 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) [x] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on thc environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. - u 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 mitigatiol measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVI DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ar ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but a least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlie: document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigatior measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Negativc Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on thc environment, there WILL NOT be a siwficant effect in this case because all potentiall! significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Master Environmenta Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voidec or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-01): including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. Planner Signature Date Planning Director’s Signature Date 2 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the CitJ conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significan effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the followini pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and humar factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with infomation tc use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negatiw 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 arc adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following eack 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, 01 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. 0 “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporatior of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to 2 “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and thc City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce thc effect to a less than significant level. e “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. 0 Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but a potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). 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 a If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing ar EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, anc those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In thir case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated’ may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. 0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and includinl but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect hac 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 thar significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact ha5 not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reducc the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is no possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, 01 determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significan effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of tht form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attentior. should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 4 Rev. 03/28/96 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING.' Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or (Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) 0 policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the 0 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 (#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) 0 to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible 0 landuses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) established community (including a low-income or I7 minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) 0 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 5.5-6) housing? (#l:PgS 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) 17 111. a) b) c) d) e) 9 g) h) i) GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: Faultrupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) Seismic ground shaking? ((#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs Subsidence ofthe land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 0 17 ((#l:PgS 5.1-1 - 5.1.15) 0 5.1-15) 0 0 0 0 0 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) 5.1-15) 17 IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2- b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 0 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) 0 11) 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 I7 0 Less Than No Significan Impact t Impact om OH nw OH OH OH OH OH ow ow nw OH OH UH OH OH om ow OBI om Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact 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 - 5.2-1 1) 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- 1 1) 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) 5.2-1 - 5.2-11) 0 0 0 0 0 0 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- 0 1 - 5.3-12) - 5.3-12) 0 b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) any change in climate? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) 0 0 VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs proposal result in. 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) 17 b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (eg. 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)? (#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) 0 0 0 0 0 g) Rail, waterborne or ah traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) 0 VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats result in impacts to: (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, 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 forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) 0 6 e Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 I7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 17 0 o 0 0 0 Less Than No Significan Impact t Impact 05 05 05 OH OB OB U[xI OIXI OH 05 05 OH OM UN 05 OH OB OH OH OH Rev. 03/28/96 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 (#I :Pgs 5.4- I - 5.4-24) 0 - 5.4-24) VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and proposal? (#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) o inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13- 0 1 - 5.13-9) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and 0 the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 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, 0 chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 0 hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) 0 health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) I7 grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) 0 5.10.1-5) 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, 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) 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) 0 0 0 C) Schools? (#l:PgS 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1, e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) 0 5.12.8-7) XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 0 7 a Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated o 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 LessThan No Significan Impact t Impact n5l nm om Elm OH OH OH om ow OH om om om ow ow nw UH OH Rev. 03/28/96 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact 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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 0 0 0 facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) 0 5.12.3-7) 0 XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5) 5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5) 5.11-1 - 5.11-5) 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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-7) 5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7) 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? a Potentially Less Than No Significant Significan Impact Mitigation Incorporated Unless t Impact 0 o[xI 0 ON 0 OB 0 ow LIB 0 UN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I7 0 0 om ow ow ow ow OM ow ow ON ow ow 8 Rev. 03/28/96 - 0 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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? Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significan Impact Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated OtxI 0 0 ON 9 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQL process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negativc declaration. Section 125063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identi@ the following 01 attached sheets: A. Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available fo review. B. Impacts adequately addressed. Identifl which effects from the above checklist wen within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicablt legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measure! based on the earlier analysis. C. Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with MitigatioI Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined fkon the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for thc project. 10 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The proposed project consists of the demolition of an existing single family residence and tht construction of a new single family residence on a .23 acre parcel on a blufftop site, Tht property is located at 2479 Ocean Street, which is on the west side of Ocean Street, just north o Pacific Avenue, in the northwest quadrant of the City. The site is currently developed with a older single family residence, paving and landscaping on the site. The project site is an in-fil coastal blufftop site that slopes downward fi-om east to west. The property is situated within th( Beach Area Overlay Zone and the appeal area of the Coastal Zone. Properties to the north, soutl and east are hlly developed with single family and multi-family residential units. The applican has received approval for an administrative variance (AV 99-01) to reduce the fi-ont yard setbacl on this lot from 20 feet to 15 feet. 11. ENVIRONMENTAL, ANALYSIS 1. LAND USE AND PL-G As designed, the proposed project is consistent with the RMH ( Residential - Medium High density) 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 site and the project will not disrupt the physical arrangement of the neighborhood. 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING The proposed project at a density of 4.35 dwelling units per acre is consistent with the City’s Growth Management Program and will not exceed the growth control point of 1 1.5 dwelling units per acre established for the site. The proposed project involves the demolition of one unit with the replacement of another unit on the site, therefore, it will not induce substantial growth in the area nor will the housing be displaced as the result of the demolition. The project will not divide an established residential community. The site is an infill site which is zoned R-3 to be developed with a residential use. 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS No significant geologic impacts have been identified on the site including seimic hazards, erosion, landslides, or unique geologic features. A soils and geotechnical study was prepared for the project site by C.W. La Monte Co. (January, 1999). This study concluded that the site is suitable for the proposed development subject to the recommendations in the report. The study further concluded 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. The project does contain steep slopes (slopes in excess of 25%) and the development has been designed in compliance with the City’s Hillside Development Ordinance. 11 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 4. WATER No significant impacts to water resources have been identified for this project. The developme1 of the proposed residential structure will not significantly impact ground water, change th amount of surface water in any water body nor expose people or property to significant watt related hazards. 5. AIR OUALITV 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 thl major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since thc San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considerec cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in thc 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) provision; for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measure: to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demanc Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mas5 transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5: participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable ana 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 ths project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCUL,ATION The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all fieeway 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 12 Rev. 03/28/96 I 0 0 to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develor alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestriar linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies wher adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highwaq 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 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 thc 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 The project site is covered mainly with a structure, paved areas, ornamental landscaping 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 01 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 MINEW RESOURCES The proposed project does not conflict with adopted energy plans nor use-nonrenewable 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 or 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 whch fronts onto a public street. The project will not result in exposure of people to any potential health hazards, including fire hazard. An existing sea 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 approximately 40 feet of the existing wall. 10. NOISE No long term noise impacts will result fiom the presence of this residential structure. Some temporary noise impacts will occur during construction. However, theses 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 - 0 e 11. PUBLIC SERVICES The proposed project (1 new residential unit) will not result in the need for new govemmenta services. The proposed project involves an infill site for which all necessary public services arc readily available. The project will be conditioned to comply with all applicable requirements o the Local Facilities Management Plan for the area to ensure that all such services are available. 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS This proposed project (1 new residential unit) will not result in the need for new utilities anc services systems. The proposed project involves an infill site for which all necessary public utilities and services systems are readily available. The project will be conditioned to providc any improvements required to serve the site as identified through the Local Facilities Management Plan for the area. 13. AESTHETICS Development of the site as proposed will not negatively affect any scenic vista or scenic highway. The proposed project is in accordance with the site’s General Plan residential designation and is designed to be compatible with surrounding development and, therefore, will not have any demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. Lighting for the structure will be typical to that for other small residential projects and will be directed inward to the project. Therefore: there will be no negative aesthetic impacts fiom the proposed project. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES No cultural resources (archaeological, paleontological, or historical) have been identified on this infill site, and its development will not impact any sacred or religious resources. 15. RECREATIONAL The proposed residential unit, which was anticipated by the General Plan, will not create an increased demand for neighborhood or regional recreational facilities. 111. EARLIER ANALYSES USED The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92009, (760) 438-1 161, extension 4328. 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department. 14 Rev. 03/28/96