HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-01-17; Planning Commission; Resolution 48911
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 RESOLUTlON NO. 4891
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND ADDENDUM FOR A ZONE CHANGE
AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT TO
CHANGE THE ZONING OF THREE LOTS LOCATED ON
THE EAST SIDE OF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD BETWEEN
TAMARACK AVENUE AND REDWOOD AVENUE IN
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD BOULEVARD/TAMARACK
ZONE CHANGE
CASE NO.: ZCA 99-08/LCPA 00-01
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has tiled a verified application regarding
property owned by the Charles B. Ledgerwood Trust and property owned by the Mitze H.
Eubanks Trust, “Owners,” described as
Lots 1 and 2 in Block ‘G’ of Palisades in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map
thereof No. 1747, Bled in the Office of the Recorder of said
San Diego County, February 5, 1923. (property owned by
Charles B. Ledgerwood Trust)
Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 3713, Bled in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County on April 21, 1975 as tile/Page
No. 75092233 of Official Records. (property owned by Mitze
H. Eubanks Trust)
(“the Properties”); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration and Addendum were prepared in
conjunction with said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of January, 2001,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, which was subsequently continued to
the 17th day of January, 2001, to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimtky
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
1
2
3
4
5
6
I
8
9
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Negative Declaration and Addendum.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A)
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative
Declaration and Addendum according to Exhibit “ND” dated June 8, 2000, and
“PII” dated June 1, 2000, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the
following findings:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A.
B.
C.
D.
It has reviewed, analyzed and considered Negative Declaration and Addendum
for CARLSBAD BOULEVARD/TAMARACK ZONE CHANGE - ZC 99-
08/LCPA 00-01, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project
and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the
project; and
The Negative Declaration and Addendum have been prepared in accordance
with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State
Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad;
and
It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
Based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PC RESO NO. 4891 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th day of January 2001, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compaq Heineman,
L’Heureux, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Nielsen
ABSTAIN:
s$iz5&&
CAPUBb PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4891 -3.
J 3
City of Carlsbad
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: 3862 and 3878 Carlsbad Boulevard, between Tamarack and
Redwood Avenues (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 204-253-13, 14,
and 20).
Project Description: Change the City and Local Coastal Program zoning designations of
three contiguous properties from neighborhood and general
commercial (C-l and C-2, respectively) to multiple-family
residential (R-3). The Beach Area Overlay Zone would also be
applied to each property. As proposed, the zoning designations
would be consistent with the General Plan and Local Coastal
Program Land Use Plan designations. No development is planned
or anticipated as part of this project.
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 fhe 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, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. 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 Scott Donnell in the Planning Department at
(760) 602-4618.
DATED: JUNE 8.2000
CASE NO: ZC 99-08/LCPA 00-01
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD BLVD/TAMARACK ZONE CHANGE
PUBLISH DATE: JUNE 8,200O
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 0 (760) 602-4600 - FAX (760) 602-8559 @
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: ZC 99-08 and LCPA 00-01
DATE: June 1,200O
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
CASE NAME: Carlsbad Boulevard/Tamarack Zone Change
APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad. c/o Planning Deuartment
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1635 Faradav Avenue, Carlsbad. CA 92008-73 14: (760) 602-4600
4.
5.
DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: N/A - Citv uroiect
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Change the City and Local Coastal Program zoning designations of
three contiguous properties, two developed and one vacant, from neighborhood and general
commercial to multiple-family residential. The properties are located at 3862 and 3878 Carlsbad
Boulevard and are between Tamarack and Redwood Avenues. As proposed, the zoning
designations would be consistent with the General Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use
Plan designations. No development is planned or anticipated as part of this project.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Land Use and Planning El Transportation/Circulation cl Public Services
0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources q Utilities & Service Systems
q Geological Problems q Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 Water
0 Air Quality
cl Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
0 Noise cl Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
El
0
cl
0
q
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.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
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. A Mitigated
Negative 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 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 enviromnental impact
report pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant
to that earlier environmental impact report, including revisions or mitigation measures
that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has
been prepared.
Planner Signature
Q)- I--00
Date
Date
Rev. 03/28/96
-’
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.
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.
“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.
“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.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
Based on an “EIA-Part II”, 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).
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.
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.O3/28/96
. 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.
. 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 II 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
-3
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
I. LAND USE AND PLANNNG. Would the proposal:
4
b)
C)
4
e)
Conflict with general plan designation 01 zoning?
(Source #(s): #1: Pgs 5.6-l 5.6-18. See also
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation section)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans 01
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#1: Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6.18. #2: Pgs 24-55)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#1: Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.4-2, 5.13-I - 5.13-g)
Disrupt OI divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income OI
minority community)? (SC.2 Discussion of
Environmental Evaluntion section)
Il. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
4
b)
C)
Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5.6,5.6.10)
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-l -
5.5-6. See also Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation section.)
Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6 See also Discussion of
Environmental Evaluation section.)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in 01
4
4
9
4
e)
f)
expose people to potential impacts involving:
Faultrupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15)
Seismicgroundshaking?(#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs
5.1-I -51.15)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l -
5.1-15)
Landslides ormudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
5.1-l - 5.1-15)
g) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-I - 5.1-15)
h) Expansivesoils?(#l:Pgs5.1-1 -5.1-15)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l
5.1-15)
Significat
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
El q
q
El
q
El
Potentially Significant
UIlkSS
Mitigation Incorporated
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
B q
q
El
El q
Less Than Signiticanl
ItTlpCt
q
q
q
q
q
q
0
q
q
El
q
El
q
El
NO
Impact
!!zl
IXI
q
IXI
tz
El
lxl
[XI
Ei El
Ix]
R
El
I8
Rev. 03128196
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a)
b)
C)
4
e)
0
g)
h)
0
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-
11. See also Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
S%tiOL)
Exposure of people OI property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5,.2-l 1)
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration ,of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.,2-l 1. See also
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation section.)
changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l 5.2-11)
Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts OI excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.,2-l 1)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-
‘1) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otlmwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
5.2-l - 5..2-11)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
4
b)
4
4
Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
1 - 5.3 -12. See also Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation section.)
Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l
- 5.3-12)
Alter air movement, moisture, OI temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l 5.3-12)
VI. TRANSPORTATlON/ClRCULATlON. Would the
4
b)
C)
d)
e)
0
8)
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (See
Discussion ofEnvironmental Evaluation section)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp
curves OI dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(#I:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
lnsuff~cient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l 5.7.22)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(#l:Pas 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Rail, waterborne or a; traftic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l -
5.7.22)
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
17
0
q
q
q
El
IXI
El
IXI
!x
El
ta
[XI
iB
!x
[XI
6 Rev. 03128196
q q IXI
q q El
q q IXI
q q El
q q IXI
q q lxl
q q [XI
q q El
q q [XI
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
=I
b)
4
4
4
VIII.
4
b)
Cl
in impacts to:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l 5.4-24)
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-I - 5.4-24)
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l
- 5.4-24)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.1-5)
Use non-renewable resources in a vast.&1 and
ineff~cientmanner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l -5.12.1-5)
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
ICSOUIC~ that would be of future value to the region and
the residents ofthe State? (#l:Pgs 5.13-l - 5.13-g)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
=)
b)
4
d)
e)
A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals OI radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.2-l 5.10.2-g)
Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.2-l -
5.10.1-9,5.12.5-l-5.12.5-5,5.12.6-1-5.12.6-4)
The creation of any health hazard OI potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.2-l - 5.10.2-g)
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.2-l - 5.10.2-g)
Increase fue hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.4-2, 5.12.5-l - 5.12.5-6, )
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-l - 5.9-
15. See also Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
S&iO”)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-
1 _ 5.9-15. See also Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation section)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the mooosal have an effect . a
=I
b)
C)
4
e)
upon, or result in a need for new or altered govemment
services in any of the following areas:
Fire protection?(#l:Pgs 5.12.5-I - 5.12.5-6)
Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-l - 5.12.6-4)
Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 -5.12.7-s)
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (See
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation section)
Other governmental services? (See Discussion of
Environmental Evaluation section)
q
q
q
q
cl
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
H q q
q
El 531 q q El q q (XI
q q [XI
7 Rev. 03128196
q q [XI
q q El
q q Ix1
q q El
q q El
q q
q q
q q
Ix3
[XI
q
q q [XI
q q q
q q El
q q El
q q •l
q q [XI
q q IXI
XILUTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
=)
b)
C)
d)
e)
0
d
XIII.
=I
b)
4
XIV.
=I
b)
4
4
4
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
Powerornatural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.1-5)
comrill”licatio”s systems? (See Discussion of
Environmental Evaluation section.)
Local or regional water treatment 01 distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-I - 5.12.2-6)
Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-l 5.12.3-7)
Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2.1 - 5.2-11)
Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-l - 5.12.4-3)
Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-l
5.12.2-6)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
5.1 l-l - 5.1 l-5. See also Discussion ofEnvironmental
Evaluation section.)
Have a demonstrated neg.&x aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
5.11-l - 5.11-5)
Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.10.3-l - 5.10.3-2)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Dishnb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l 5%
‘0) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5%
‘0) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10 and
Appendix H. See also Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation section.)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs
5.8-l - 5.8-10)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 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-l -
5.12.8-7)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs
5.12.8-l - 5.12.8-7)
q q
q
B
B
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q q
q
B q q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q q
q
q q
B
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
0
El !z
Ed
El IXI
H
El
Ea
El
IXI
[XI
!x
El
El
[XI
El
8 Rev. 03128196
XVI.
4
b)
4
XVII.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
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? Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” “leans 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)? Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adver’se effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
q [XI
q q utxl
q q q tzl
EARLIER ANALYSES USED/SOURCES CITED IN CHECKLIST.
The Final Master Environmental Impact Report (Source #l in the checklist) for the 1994
General Plan Update has been used in the analysis of this project since, pursuant to the
tiering process, it has already adequately analyzed all potential environmental effects.
Relevant CEQA sections on use of previous environmental documents can be found in
Guidelines Sections 15063(c)(3)(D) and 15152.
In addition, the Citv of Carlsbad Local Coastal Promam (Source #2) was also used to
respond to the question on whether the project would conflict with applicable
environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project
(question I b. of the checklist).
Specific details on each document follow. They are on file in the City of Carlsbad
Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008, (760)
602-4600.
1.
2.
Final Master Environmental Imoact Report for the City of Carlsbad
General Plan Update (MEIR 93-Ol), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad
Planning Department.
Citv of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, approved by City Council on
July 16, 1996 (Ordinances NS 364 and 365), and certified by the Coastal
Commission on October 9, 1996.
9 Rev. 03128196
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
1. Environmental Setting and Site Description
The project site consists of three contiguous and level lots totaling approximately one-
half an acre. The site is located on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard between
Tamarack Avenue and Redwood Avenue. On the northernmost of the three lots, which
borders Redwood Avenue, is a single-family residence used as a home and btisiness. The
business, known as Ledgerwood Seeds or Mr. Seed, is a small retail seed store that has
operated at this location for years. Store customers must park in the street as no on-site
parking exists. The second of three lots is vacant but features a small garden. Both lots
are approximately 5,200 square feet each, have common ownership (and are referenced
herein as the “Ledgerwood properties”), and are addressed 3862 Carlsbad Boulevard
(Assessor’s Parcel Ntibers 204-253-13 and 14).
On the third lot, which parallels Tamarack Avenue, is the Seaside Bistro (formerly the
Sandbar Caft?) and parking lot (APN 204-253-20) at 3878 Carlsbad Boulevard. The
project site is surrounded by established residential development to the north, south, and
east. To the west of the property is Carlsbad Boulevard and, beyond, Carlsbad State
Beach and the Pacific Ocean.
2. Project Description
A rezone of each property is proposed. City zoning of the Ledgerwood properties would
change from C-l (Neighborhood Commercial) to R-3 (Multiple Family Residential).
City zoning of the Seaside Bistro property would change from C-2 (General Commercial)
to R-3. Furthermore, the project would also apply the Beach Area Overlay Zone to each
property. The project site is within the boundaries of the Overlay Zone, and the Overlay
Zone applies to any residentially zoned property within its boundaries.
The project site is within the Mello II segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program.
The Local Coastal Program zoning for all three properties would also change from C-2 to
R-3. The designation changes would achieve consistency with the General Plan and
Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan land use designations of RH (Residential High
Density). All City and Local Coastal Program zoning and land use designations have the
same meaning.
Based on the approximately one-half acre project site and Growth Management Control
Point of 19 du/ac for the RH designation, a maximum 8-l 0 residential units could be built
on the entire project site. The proposed R-3 zoning allows both single family and
multiple family residential uses. However, since no development is proposed or
associated with this City-initiated zone change project, it is not known if the existing uses
will remain on the project site
A vicinity map identifying the project site’s location, existing and proposed zoning, and
the zoning of surrounding properties is attached.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
3. Environmental Analysis (Discussion of Checklist)
I. a), b), and e) Land Use and Planning
The proposed zone change from commercial to multiple-family residential would be
consistent with the project site’s existing General Plan land use designation of high
density residential (RH). To a large extent, the General Plan has already analyzed
impacts associated with the high density residential use of the property.
The project site is bounded by three streets and is a small part of a residential
neighborhood. The proposed change in zoning from commercial to residential, and the
uses allowed by the proposed zoning, would not disrupt the well-established land use and
circulation network of the surrounding area and would be consistent with all adjacent
zoning, General Plan, and Local Coastal Program land use designations. Please refer to
Chapter 5.6 of the Final Master EIR for additional information and a land use map. It
would also improve the compatibility of mture uses on the project site with those on
nearby residential properties.
II. b) and c) Housing and Population
The project site is developed with a commercial use and a single-family home used as
both a residence and business and is surrounded by a well-established residential
neighborhood.
IV. a) and c) w
Although already developed, construction of new improvements on the project site may
alter current drainage patterns, absorption rates and/or the rate/amount of surface runoff.
However, any proposed development would be conditioned to comply with all applicable
City regulations, including any appropriate National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit requirements.
V. a) Air Oualitv
The primary contributor to air pollution in Carlsbad is motor vehicle emissions. The
residential uses allowed by the proposed zoning would generate less traffic than the
restaurant currently on the project site (see Transportation/Circulation discussion below);
therefore, the proposed zoning will contribute to improved air quality.
Future development of the project site, if it occurs, may produce short-term/temporary
impacts during grading and/or construction. Air quality impacts due to construction
would likely be minor, consider the site’s small size, flat topography, and the existence of
infrastructure already in place. Standard dust control measures would be utilized.
11 Rev.O3/28/96
VI. a) Transportation/Circulation
The proposed residential zoning would allow uses that produce less traffic than the
current commercial uses on the project site. Considering the existing Seaside Bistro use
only, staff estimates the restaurant produces approximately 400 to over 700 average daily
trips. Staff calculates development of the project site with 10 multi-family dwelling units
would produce 80 average daily trips (condominiums) and 60 average daily trips
(apartments). Ten multi-family dwelling units is a realistic maximum based on the
proposed zoning and existing General Plan designation and growth management control
point. Furthermore, in most cases, residential uses produce significantly less traffic than
commercial uses.
All estimates are based on the “estimated weekday vehicle tip generation rate
(driveway)” developed by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) in
July 1998. The City of Carlsbad utilizes these estimates to determine traffic impacts. To
determine the Seaside Bistro’s traffic impacts, city staff employed the trip generation rate
for both a “quality” and a “sit-down, high turnover restaurant,” considered to be 100 or
160 average daily trips/l,000 square feet of building, respectively. Trip generation rates
for fast food eateries with and without drive-through are substantially higher. Staff
determined the Seaside Bistro’s building size as 4,000 to 4,400 square feet, based on
County Assessor’s and City Planning Department records.
X. a)andb) Noise
Noise levels from Tamarack Avenue and Carlsbad Boulevard traffic may impact
residential development allowed by the proposed zoning on the project site. Section 5.9.4
of the Final Master EIR states “traffic noise will increase as the City approaches buildout.
These noise impacts can be reduced with proper design and mitigation.”
The Final Master ElR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce noise impacts
to a less than significant level. Among them, mitigation measure 5.9.5.7 requires
submittal of a noise study for all discretionary applications proposing more than four
single family units or any number of multi-family units that are located within the 60
dBA noise contour. The project site is within this noise contour. There is significant,
older residential development along parts of Carlsbad Boulevard within the 60 dBA noise
contour.
From a noise standpoint, the residential neighborhood around the project site likely would
benefit from the proposed zone change. Potentially incompatible aspects of commercial
uses, such as noise from business traffic and operations during the day and at night,
would not be a factor under the proposed residential zoning. Additionally, considering
the proposed zoning and project site’s size and proximity to busy streets, it is likely that a
comprehensive redevelopment of the project site would be with multi-family units as
opposed to single-family units. As noted in the preceding paragraph, any multi-family
development would be subject to a noise study and resulting incorporation of any
necessary noise mitigation measures.
All applicable and appropriate General Plan noise mitigation measures will be
incorporated either into the design of improvements that may be built on the project site
or as conditions of approval of future development.
12 Rev. 03/28/96
XI. d) and e) Public Services
Other than as identified in Chapter 5.12, “Utilities and Pubic Services,” of the Master
EIR, no additional impacts to public services or facilities, including maintenance, are
described. The project site is in a developed area adequately served by all public services
and facilities. The proposed project will not result in significant new demands on those
services. The project will be conditioned to comply with the City’s Growth Management
regulations, which require that all necessary services be provided concurrent with
development. Therefore, there will be no potentially significant impact to public
services.
XII. b) Utilities and Service Svstems
No impact to communications systems is identified in the Master EIR. The project site is
in a well-established area with all necessary infrastructure, including telephone and cable
services, in place. Therefore, there will be no potentially significant impact to
communication systems.
13 Rev.O3/28/96
3 3
XIII. a) Aesthetics
The project site is along a designated scenic corridor, Carlsbad Boulevard. It is already
developed with buildings. However, mture improvements will be required to comply
with all applicable standards to ensure no significant impacts to this scenic roadway and
generally no negative aesthetic effect. Among these standards are the provisions of the
Beach Area Overlay Zone (BAOZ), which affects the subject property. The intent and
purpose of the BAOZ is, in part, to ensure neighborhood compatibility and protection of
the aesthetic quality of the beach area. Additionally, since the neighborhood around the
project site is residential, the proposed zone change from commercial to residential will
also contribute to compatibility among buildings and uses.
XIV. c) Cultural Resources
It should be noted that Appendix H of the Final Master EIR is a cultural resources survey
prepared for the City of Carlsbad in 1990. The survey identifies the residence on the
project site at 3862 Carlsbad Boulevard as an historic structure because of its age (now
approximately 70 years) and Spanish architecture. However, the City has not adopted or
endorsed this or any other cultural resource survey or list. Furthermore, compliance with
the City’s historic preservation ordinance is strictly voluntary. The proposed zone change
will neither affect the building nor its potential designation as an historic structure.
14 Rev.O3/28/96
ADDENDUM TO THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR ZC 99-08 & LCPA 00-01
- CARLSBAD BOULEVARD/TAMARACK ZONE CHANGE
The original environmental analysis of this project considered the impacts of
rezoning both the ‘Ledgerwood Parcels’ and the ‘Seaside Bistro Parcel’ from
commercial to residential. This addendum has been prepared to document that
the current proposed Planning Commission recommendation is to consider
rezoning only the Ledger-wood Parcels as described in the environmental impact
assessment form - part II. The current proposed Planning Commission
recommendation regarding the Seaside Bistro Parcel is to recommend the City
Council consider allowing it to remain commercial and direct staff to process
appropriate land use changes to allow a commercial designation. These future
actions will be subject to separate environmental review. Thus, no action is
proposed at this time to amend the zoning of the Seaside Bistro Parcel.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4891, the resolution recommending
approval of the Negative Declaration, has been amended to reference this
addendum.
c
SITE SITE
CITY ZONING CITY ZONING LCP ZONING LCP ZONING EXISTING EXISTING C-l: LEDGERWOOD C-l: LEDGERWOOD C-2: LEDGERWOOD C-2: LEDGERWOOD
C-2: SEASIDE BISTRO C-2: SEASIDE BISTRO
PROPOSED R-3, BEACH AREA PRf R-3, BEACH AREA
OVERLAY ZONE: ALL OVERLAY ZONE: ALL PARCELS PARCELS
CARLSBAD BLVD/TAMARACK AVE
ZONE CHANGE
ZC 99-08/LCPA 00-01