HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-03-15; Planning Commission; Resolution 47270 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. 4727
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION
MONITORJNG AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO DEVELOP
SOUTH SIDE OF CHINQUAPIN AVENUE BETWEEN
GARFIELD STREET AND THE AT&SF RAILROAD IN
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD BEACH ESTATES
CASE NO.: CT 99-01 /SDP 99-02 PUD99-01 /CP 00-01
AN 11-UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT LOCATED ON THE
/CDP 99-02
WHEREAS, Merit Group, Inc., “Developer’’, has filed a verified applicat:
with the City of Carlsbad regarding properties owned by H. David Buckmaster and Patricia
Buckmaster (tenants in common) and by Carlsbad Beach Group Investors LLC, “Owner
described as
The southwesterly 63 feet of Lot 6 and all of Lot 7, Block T, of
Palisades Unit No. 2, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California, according to Map 1803, filed August
25,1924 1
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction \?
said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 15th day of March, 2000, h
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimc
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff,
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all facl
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Plant:
Commission as follows:
0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Plannj
Commission hereby APPROVES the Mitigated Negative Declaration a
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, according to Exhibit "N
dated January 31,2000, and "PII" dated December 14,1999, attached hereto 2
made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
FindinFs:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered Mitigated Negative Declarat
Ol/CDP 99-02, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project i
any comments thereon prior to APPROVING the project; and
CARLSBAD BEACH ESTATES, CT 99-01/SDP 99-02/PUD 99-01/CP '
b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance u
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guideli
and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City
Carlsbad; and
d. based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidel
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
...
...
II "* 20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
)I PC RES0 NO. 4727 -2-
e 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
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planni
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of March, 2000, by 1
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Heineman, L’Heureux,
Nielsen, Segall, Trigas, and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. &Z&LER
Planning Director
1
PC RES0 NO. 4727 -3-
1 '1
0 0
- City of Carlsbad
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddresdLocation: south side of Chinquapin Avenue between Garfield Street and the
AT&SF Railway Line
Project Description: a residential development to contain 3 new single-family detached
structures on individual lots (1 with an attached 2"d dwelling unit),
1 existing single-family detached structure on an individual lot,
and 6 single-family attached condominium units on a single
common lot
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Elaine Blackbum in the Planning Department
at (760) 438-1 161, extension 4471.
DATED: JANUARY 31,2000
CASE NO: CT 99-01/SDP 99-02RUD 99-01/CDP 99-02
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD BEACH ESTATES
PUBLISH DATE: JANUARY 3 1,2000
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 - (760) 602-4600 - FAX (760) 602-8559
I
0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CT 99-01/SDP 99-02PUD 99-01/CDP 99-02
DATE: December 14, 1999
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Carlsbad Beach Estates
2. APPLICANT: Merit Group, Inc.
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2171 El Camino Real #202, Oceanside,
CA, 92054, (760) 721-6499
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: January 4. 1999
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: a residential development to contain 3 new single-family detached
structures on individual lots (1 with an attached 2”d dwelling unit), 1 existing single-family
detached structure on an individual lot, and 6 single-family attached condominium units on a
single common lot.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning IXI TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services
Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems [7 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
Air Quality Noise 0 Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03128196
I e e
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
[7 I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An is required,
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore,
a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
" /-35+iw
Plarder SignZure t -- v Date
Planning Director'sSi'gnadd I Date I
2 Rev. 03128196
I
0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
e A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
0 “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
e “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
e “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
e Based on an “EIA-Part 11” if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect
on the environment, but & 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
I
0 0
e If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated”
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
e An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
I
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? (#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)
0
I7
0
0
(#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
11. 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 -
5.5-6)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
0
0
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Faultrupture? (#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? (#l:Pgs
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? (#l:Pgs
o
0
0
5.1-1 - 5.1.15)
5.1-15) 0
5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
g) Subsidence of the 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? (#1 :Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15) 0
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)
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
0 1 1)
5
0
Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 o
I7 0
0 0 0
Less Than No
Significant Impact Impact
ow
ON
ON
ON
ow
nw
0151
DM
ow OIXI ow
OM ow OM
OH OH ow
om
OB ow
Rev. 03128196
0
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..2-11) 0
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through 0
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?
(#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
body? (#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 0
1 1) 0
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs 0
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
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?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
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)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
5.7.22)
[XI
0
0
0
[XI
0
0
0
0
0
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
animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) 0
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) 0
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
6
e Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation Incomorated 0
0
0
0
0
0
o
I7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than No
Significant Impact Impact
OH
OH
DEI
ow
OM
OB
on
om
OH
OH
on ow
ow
OH
OH ow
OH
ow
OH ow
Rev. 03/28/96
a * Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially
Significant Significant
Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1
(#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
- 5.4-24) 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)
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 fie hazard in areas with flammable brush,
5.10.1-5)
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
healthhazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
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)
1 - 5.9-15)
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)
c) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( )
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
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)
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 o
[I] 0 I7 o 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0
0
Less Than No
Significant Impact Impact
OH ow
OBI ow
OIXI
ow
ow
ow ow ow
o[XI n[XI
0 0 0 0 0
IXI IXI
[XI [XI w
om
Rev. 03128196
0 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation Incorporated
b) Communications systems? ( )
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 ow
0 0 ow 0 0 ow 0 0 ow
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) 0 0 ow
5.12.3-7) 17 0 OH
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5)
5.11-1 -5.11-5)
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
5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
10)
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.
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?
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I7 o I7
0
0
0
0
[XI w
[XI
[XI
[XI w w
lz
w
IXI
lxl
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 Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated I7 0 ow
om
9 Rev. 03128196
I e 0
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
0 e
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Site
The project site is an irregular shaped property consisting of 3 existing adjacent lots. The total
site size is approximately 1.1 13 gross acres. Topographically the site slopes downward from the
west to the east and to the south. The site contains one existing single-family residential
structure which is occupied by the developer and will remain in its current condition for the time
being and one single-family structure which will be demolished. The site is an in-fill site
surrounding by urbanized development. The site contains no sensitive resources or vegetation.
The majority of the project site is within the Mello I1 segment of the Local Coastal Program.
The southwestern edge of the site may be within the Coastal Commission appeal area (i.e.,
within 300’ of a tidal wetland). To be conservative, staff has assumed that the edge of the
property & within that appeal area and that any City decision regarding the project approval
could be appealed to the Coastal Commission.
The area surrounding the project site is developed with a variety of residential uses, including
single-family detached, single-family attached condominiums, and apartments.
Proi ect
The applicant is proposing to build 10 new dwelling units (9 single-family units and 1 attached
second dwelling unit) and to retain one existing single-family detached unit. Three of the new
single-family units would be detached structures on individual lots. The remaining six new
single-family units would be attached condominiums (for air-space ownership). All of the
proposed structures have two stories. The project includes both common and private recreations
areas and a central trash collection facility.
In general, the differences in elevations between existing grades and proposed pad elevations range
from -2 feet to +4 feet. The proposed building pads follow the natural topography of the site and
the differences are required to create level pads for construction. However, the project does not
include any major slopes along property lines of adjacent properties or within the project property.
The proposed grading includes 281 cubic yards (cy) of cut, 2,824 cy of fill and 2,543 cy of
import. A grading permit will be required. No off-site grading is proposed. The geotechnical
report prepared for the project indicates that there are no major grading or soils related issues with
the proposed project.
11. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
A. Non-Relevant Items
I. Land Use and Planning
The proposed project will not conflict with the General Plan or zoning of the site. The site has a
split General Plan designation of RMH (Residential Medium to High density) and RH
(Residential High density). The site is zoned RD-M (Residential Density - Multiple). These
designations allow the proposed type and amount of development. The project will not conflict
with any environmental plans or policies. The site contains no sensitive habitat of any kind and
is not subject to any special environmental plans or regulations. The proposed use will not be
11 Rev. 03128196
, I
0 0
incompatible with surrounding uses in the vicinity. The proposed project will contain single-
family detached and single-family attached residential units. Development in the surrounding
area consists of single-family detached and attached units, and a multi-family attached
(condominium) project across the street. The project will not affect agricultural resources or
operations or create incompatibility with regard to agriculture. The project site is an in-fill site
surrounded by residential development. Neither the project site, nor the surrounding area,
contain any agricultural uses. Neither are they designated as important farmlands. The project
will not disrupt the physical arrangement of any community. The site is currently undeveloped.
The proposed development will be compatible with the surrounding similar developments.
11. Population and Housing
The project site is designated for, and therefore expected to be developed with, residential units.
These units are a part of the anticipated build-out of the City. The project would not require a
significant extension of major services or infrastructure. The project would not displace existing
housing. The project site is currently undeveloped. Therefore, the project would not result in
potentially significant impacts to population and housing.
111. Geologic Problems
A preliminary soils investigation was conducted for the proposed project. The soils report
prepared for the project indicates that there are no major grading or soils related issues associated
with the proposed project and that the project site is appropriate for the proposed development,
subject to the recommendations in the study. Since no fault crosses the subject site, the risk of
ground rupture is remote. Grading activities for the proposed project would be subject to the
City's adopted grading regulations and the Landscape Guidelines Manual, which would include
requirements for implementation of all necessary erosion control methods. Grading for the
proposed project includes 281 cubic yards (cy) of cut, 2,824 cy of fill and 2,543 cy of import.
No off-site grading is proposed. The project site has low erosion potential. In general, the
differences in elevations between existing grades and proposed pad elevations range fi-om -2 feet to
+4 feet. The proposed building pads follow the natural topography of the site and the differences
are required to create level pads for construction. The project does & include major slopes along
property lines of adjacent properties. The site does not contain any unique geologic or physical
features.
IV. Water
Creation of impervious surfaces does result in potential changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns and/or the ratelamount of surface runoff. However, the proposed project would be
conditioned to comply with all applicable City regulations governing such changes, including
any applicable NPDES requirements. These requirements would ensure that no significant
impacts result from the project. The project would not result in exposure of any people to flood
hazards. It also would not result in changes in the amount of surface water in any water body
and would not result in any changes in currents or the course or direction of water movements
(other than minor drainage pattern changes on-site). Sewer lines to this project will gravity flow
to existing sewer mains in Chinquapin Avenue. No potentially significant impacts to water are
anticipated from the project.
VI. TransportatiodCirculation
The proposed project would generate 94 average daily vehicle trips and would contribute
incrementally to traffic and congestion on existing and planned roadways in the project vicinity.
The street system for the proposed project will be required to comply with all applicable City
regulations and standards to ensure that no safety hazards result from the design. The project
will also be required to provide adequate emergency access as required by the City Engineering
12 Rev. 03/28/96
I f
0 0
and Fire Departments. The proposed project would require provision of approximately 25
parking spaces (in a combination of open and enclosed spaces), all of which would be provided
on site. The proposed circulation system would address vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian needs.
The street system would be designed to meet all City requirements, including the provision of
bicycle lanes as required, and the provision of sidewalks and other pedestrian pathways as
needed.
VII. Biological Resources
The project will not have any potentially significant negative impacts on biological resources.
The site is an undeveloped in-fill site in an urbanized area. The site contains no endangered,
threatened, or rare species of plants or animals, not wetlands, and no designated communities,
and does not serve as a migration corridor.
VIII. Energy and Mineral Resources
The proposed project would not conflict with any adopted energy conservation plan. Carlsbad
(including the project site) has no non-renewable energy resources (e.g., natural gas, oil, coal).
Energy would be consumed at the project site in two phases. The first phase would be during
construction. The second phase would be after the project is completed and is being occupied.
Energy consumed during construction is considered to be short-term and is, therefore, not a
significant impact. Energy consumed after occupancy of the project would not have a significant
impact as building construction must comply with Title 24 of the California Administrative
Code, which sets forth energy conservation requirements for new construction. Measures related
to reducing the demand for automobile fuel would be addressed under the sections dealing with
air quality and traffic.
IX. Hazards
The proposed use (a residential complex) is not the type of use which would be likely to result in
a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances or which would create any health hazard.
The project also would not interfere with emergency response/evacuation plans. The circulation
system of the project will be required to meet all applicable City requirements to ensure that
emergency vehicles can serve the project site and surrounding areas. The project will be required
to comply with the City’s Landscape Guidelines Manual (including provision of required fire
suppression zones) to ensure that any risk of fire is minimized. Therefore, the project would not
result in any potentially significant hazards.
X. Noise
The proposed use (residential units) will not generate significant noise which would be
disturbing to surrounding similar uses. Due to the presence of the nearby railway line, the
applicant was required to have a noise study prepared to determine if the future residents of the
proposed project would be subjected to potentially significant noise impacts from the railway
activity. The study determined that the noise levels on the project site will not exceed 50 dBA
CNEL. Thus, the future residents will not be subject to potentially significant noise impacts.
XI. Public Services
The proposed project would be conditioned to comply with all requirements of the applicable
Local Facilities Management Zone plan, which will ensure that there are no significant impacts
to fire/police protection or other government services or maintenance of public facilities.
Impacts to public schools will be significant, but payment of statutory fees will mitigate these
impacts to a less than significant level.
13 Rev. 03/28/96
f
0 0
XII. Utilities and Services Systems
The proposed project would be conditioned to comply with all requirements of the applicable
Local Facilities Management Plan (per the City’s Growth Management regulations).
Compliance with these requirements will ensure that all necessary utilities and services can be
provided, resulting in no potentially significant impacts to utilities and service systems.
XIII. Aesthetics
The project site is not located near any scenic roadway or scenic vista point. The proposed
project (a residential development) is designed to comply with the applicable City regulations
governing building height and structure placement. In addition any necessary on-site lighting
will be required to be directed such that it does not create unwelcome light or glare on
neighboring properties. Thus, the project will not create any potentially significant aesthetic
impacts.
XIV. Cultural Resources
The project site does not contain any known paleontological, archaeological, or historical
resources and is not known to have served as a site for any religious, sacred or ethnic/cultural
uses. It is an in-fill site surrounded by an urbanized area. Therefore, no potentially significant
impacts to cultural resources are anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
XV. Recreational
The project site does not currently serve as a recreation site/facility. Therefore, the project would
not reduce existing recreation opportunities. The proposed project would create 11 new dwelling
units , thereby increasing the demand for recreational opportunities. This additional demand
would be satisfied by three means. First, the project would include a common recreation facility
(a volleyball court) on-site for use by the residents. Second, the project would provide private
15’x15’ yards for each dwelling unit. Third, the project would be conditioned to pay a park-in-
lieu fee as required by the Local Facilities Management Plan. Therefore, the project would not
result in potentially significant recreation impacts.
B. Environmental Impact Discussion
V. Air Ouality
In 1994 the City prepared and certified an EIR which analyzed the impacts which will result
from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concludes that
continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have
cumulative significant impacts in the form of increased gas and electric power consumption and
vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon
monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates.
These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego
Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air
emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to build-out
as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air
quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan build-out, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
14 Rev. 03/28/96
I
0 0
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City
Council Resolution No, 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air
quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects covered
by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MEIR This
document is available at the Planning Department.
VI. TransportatiodCirculation
In 1994 the City prepared and certified a Master EIR which analyzed the impacts which would
result from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concluded
that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will result in
increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate build-out
traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional
through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all
freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the
implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the
City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at build-out.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan build-out,
numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include:
1) measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to
develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks,
pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation
strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or
State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to
control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either
been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at build-out 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 projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR.
This project is within the scope of that MEIR This document is available at the Planning
Department.
In addition, the City has received its annual Growth Management Traffic Monitoring Report.
The Report has recorded an unanticipated intersection “level of service” (LOS) failure at Palomar
Airport Road (PAR) and El Camino Real (ECR) during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. A
mitigation measure has been identified which, if implemented, will bring the peak hours LOS
into the acceptable range. The mitigation measure involves construction of two dual right turn
lanes (northbound to eastbound and westbound to northbound). This project has agreed to a
condition to pay its fair share of the intersection “short-term improvements’’ thereby
15 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
guaranteeing mitigation to a level of insignificance.
16 Rev. 03128196
0 0
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 4471.
1. Final Master Environmental Imoact Reoort for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
17 Rev. 03128196
e 0
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
Attached
18 Rev. 03128196
0 0
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
f12~/6200~ d.U\\
Date Signature
19 Rev. 03128196
c\1
cn (3)
?
a a Q
4 7
03 cn
n 3
c\1
cn cn
&
?
n n 5
? 7
cn cn
I- o
clj E W m 2 3 Z Y -
LL
CI) W !-
CI) W
I 0
2
4
3 9
4
m n
nf
lij 2 6 z t; Y 2 a
ENVIRONMENTAL MlTl & ION MONITORING CHECKLIST: a! ge lmf 1
cj
n
6
..
W
W z
-I 5 0 k n Z 0 o
.. W !- a
2
2
3
a
zz2-
.E+ E (UTI1
.- +ma, €+ 2
3 .o a
& .G z Egg
uo
03Q
.L 0 ;
g €5 +
.- s '5 g0
([IS .E .s a, 5 .e E L3g p II '7
9s
kJ2 .g a .E - .- ,O
rn2 E s " "a
-0 a, .=
o *s
em
om5 .- E$- s pi
LQ
([I 0 u- b O2 Ea G 8ajE ._r 0 a, USE % g .- 3.EZA
m.s([Iq 2 gP- 3 .- .= a 8% sz a)-uhl E 9g s ~2 Q.O
0 €3 .smoa a Om .- ms .e m a-0 sa,
-moo E5a0 $a,, $.E a 0 -c 2 $$F
gam$ .? E %Y
a, 2 E.o -
'5 a,;;;$
- 9 -g .PO $E E",
c at= a.E=
Q'E 3
- 0
OL
Q+ L
+x c 000
'E -0 x .- s 5:
5 ([I=
s30
0-5 c I1 s s.0 3
.= co
I-ZSrn
z u)
m $ n
S 0 .- c 8.s gb aE >a,
E -
r
CK ou)
3m
(00 z
gE
az
s Kg
.E .- c Q,
m
L
c t5g
02mg .- h j- 3 '5 + 5% n ([IS .G g 2 .G 13)
F 9s 8
s I- .%". 2 = 2 *a, a3 on
+ha, = hS cz m mLazam o
$E o: ?&-.O.G
a0 +d =Ea+ 0% c 2z.s 5 0 32 2.2 .-E .c'jq
Pa LE &m h" ma,
a, $- E'S
5l-q 03.22.s m-.ol--,
=I -za2€a,
.- .-
W
Lam
oa+c+l s4-l
Qc o go scz g.- cQ
2 +-52 & E*g'Lj- LZ O
2
"XS -+ Q: OE t;;
c
.- !=Q ua1.E g
L a,&So%nL
.- c 0 0 aZ2m+4 .- 0 2 $ a,$.2 $';zS
E ca, = 5a,3EF 2 $Eq 05 g g-j? $$.EZ.G* L $42 _o :a 0 ELGO v) v) a, urn8 $.E L QSU a, a, L mgCnDv)rnoc$
$Emmrn+mta, 93 a,22gg
.- 0 -= ON o+.z $u =$eJ2, z as -
n Emu'jmm
l-$?L..v,n fn.E.E mz
7
L e,
0 5
d L - as Sb
- 5g-
.- E:
KE L
$g
g .G Eu m 52 g Z+%
2: F
2 23 $5 zg p:g -$$g
%E, PLY
no
c .E?
wrn
m 'ij mm
0
.-
.- a-0 rn ._ - '3 Em,
33?a
II .- b 8s rn o-$
KuZ
K ._
.- +a=
a c
'0- L.G am
L - m
3 V r m Q m m c
.-
.- L .- 3
0 K
E e
n
L
e,
m K 0 Q rn
-
2 5
$2
s 2- is * "-5 g
g %n 2
c e,
._ L 1
.. 3 E .
c mQU, 5.G a m
L c II
c 0 +" Q.2
.P 'F u) 3
0 -. K
CI - I!? e, .?
ut-2