HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-11-07; Planning Commission; Resolution 50671
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. 5067
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION
OF A FOUR-UNIT CONDOMINIUM GENERALLY LOCATED
ON THE EAST SIDE OF COVE DRIVE, SOUTH OF PARR
DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: VILLAS AT THE COVE
CASE NO: SUP 00-12
WHEREAS, Anthony V. DeLeonardis, “Owner/Developer,” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
All of lots 21 and 22 of that tract described in Map No. 5162,
recorded in the Office of the County Recorder, San Diego
County, California, on April 23,1963
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of November, 2001,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby ADOPTS the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit
“ND” dated September 4, 2001, and “PIP dated August 28, 2001, attached
hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: . . .
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
Findinps:
/ 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A. It has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration for Villas at
the Cove, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any
comments thereon prior to APPROVING the project; and
B. The Negative Declaration has 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
C. It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
D. Based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of November 2001, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Compas, Dominguez,
Heineman, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioners Baker and Nielsen
ABSTAIN:
*
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J.kbLZ%IILLER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 5067 -2-
City of Carlsbad
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: East side of Cove Drive, south of Park Drive
APN 207-150-66 & 67
Project Description: Four-unit condominium on a vacant 0.32 acre site.
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, 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 Barbara Kennedy in the Planning Department
at (760) 602-4626.
DATED: SEPTEMBER 7,200l
CASE NO: SUP oo-12KP 00-l l/MS 01-03
CASE NAME: VILLAS AT THE COVE
PUBLISH DATE: SEPTEMBER 7,200l
1635 Faraday Avenue l Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 l (760) 602-4600 * FAX (760) 602-8559 * www.ci.car1sbad.ca.m a9
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: SUP 00-12/CP 00-l l/MS 01-03
DATE: August 28.2001
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: VILLAS AT THE COVE
2. APPLICANT: Anthonv DeLeonardis
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2010 Subida Terrace, Carlsbad 92009
760-436-4500
4. DATE EL4 FORM PART I SUBMITTED: 12/l S/O0
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A four-unit condominium nroiect.
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.
q Land Use and Planning lxl Transportation/Circulation q Public Services
q Population and Housing q Biological Resources q Utilities & Service Systems
q Geological Problems q Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
q Water q Hazards q Cultural Resources
q Air Quality . q Noise q Recreation
q Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency) .
lxl
q
q
q
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 MITIGATED
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(n) EWNeg
Dee 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 EIR/MEIR 93-Ol/Neg
Dee pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier EWMEIR 93-Ol/Neg Dee, including revisions or mitigation measures that
are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has
been prepared.
a 31101 Date
&yK@f+J 1 Plannmg Direc r’s Signature
Rev. 03128196
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 identities 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.
l 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.
l “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.
0 “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
l Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but fl 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).
a 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.
l 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.
Rev. 03/28/96
0 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.
l 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
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
4
b)
c)
d)
e)
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#l: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 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
4
b)
cl
Cumulatively exceed offkial regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6) 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)
Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
4 W cl
4
e> fl
Ia I.4 i)
expose people to potential impacts invOlving:
Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, # 2 )
Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, # 2)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l :Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1.15, # 2)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15, # 2)
Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)) # 2)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, # 2)
Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, # 2)
Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-I - 5.1-15, # 2)
Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15, # 2)
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-l - 5..2-
11) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11, # 3) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Potentially Significanl Impact
q
q
0
cl
q
q
q
q
q q 0
cl
q q
0 q q
q
q
q
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation tncorporated
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q q q
q
q q
q q q
0
q
q
Less Than Significant
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q q Ix]
q
q q
q lzl q
cl
lxl
q
No Impact
txl
lxl
IXI
lxl
lxl
IXI
lxl
Ix]
El
Ix) q
lzl
lxl lxl
IXI q lxl
IXI
q
Ix1
5 Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
d)
e)
cl
g)
4
9
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 or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (#l:Pgs 5.2-I - 5..2-11)
Altered direction or rate of flow of grotmdwater? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-
11) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
5.2-l - 5..2-11)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
4
b)
cl
d)
Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
1 - 5.3-12)
Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
Alter air movement, moisture, or 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. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
a)
b)
cl
4
e>
f)
g)
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Insufficient 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:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
a) 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)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Potentially Significant Impact
0
0
cl
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
0
I7
q
Less Than Significant Impact
q
0
cl
0
0
0
cl
0
cl
0
III
a
0
I3
0
q
0
cl
0
No Impact
lxl
Ix]
lxl
IXI
Ix1
IXI
El
lxl
El
lxl
0
El
IXI
lxl
Ix]
lxl
lzl
El
lxl
6 Rev. 03128196
issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
cl
d)
4
VIII.
4
b)
c>
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 MMERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal? Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
1 - 5.13-9)
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents ofthe State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l - 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,
chemicals orradiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l -
5.10.1-5) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-l - 5.9-
15) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-
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)
Ix1
El
lxl
lxl
lxl
lxl
El
lxl
El
lxl
Ia
lz.l
lxl
lxl
IXI
lxl
lxl
Ix]
XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
7 Rev. 03128196
Potentially Significant Impact
0
0
El
Potentially Significant
Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
cl
0
0
Less Than Significant
Impact
No Impact
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
4
b)
cl
4
e)
f)
9)
XIII.
4
b)
4
XIV.
4
b)
cl
4
e)
Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
Communications systems? ()
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
Storm water drainage? (#l :Pg 5.2-8)
Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.12.3-7)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
5.1 l-l - 5.11-5)
Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
5.1 l-l - 5.11-5) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-
10) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-
10) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l :Pgs 5.8-
1 - 5.8-10)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-I - 5.8-10)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a)
W
XVI.
a)
Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#l :Pgs 5.12.8-1 -
5.12.8-7)
Affect existing recreational opportunities? (# 1 :Pgs
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
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?
Potentially
Significant Impact
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
cl
‘0
0
III
0
0
0
Less Than Significant
Impact
No Impact
tzl
El
lxl
El
lxl
IXI
IXI
txl
Ix1
Ix]
lxl
Ed
Ix1
Ix1
lxl
lxl
lxl
•l
Rev. 03/28/96
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
0 q 0 Ix]
0 0 Ix]
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)@). 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.
W 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.
cl 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.
9 Rev. 03128196
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
’ I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .
The development proposal consists of the construction of a four-unit condominium structure on a
0.32 acre parcel (two smaller parcels will be combined into one). The previously graded site is
relatively flat and is adjacent to a man-made channel of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon in the Bristol
Cove development. The present pad elevation is between 5 and 8 feet above mean sea level.
The project’s grading involves 30 cubic yards of cut and 230 cubic yards of import. The project
site is located on the east side of Cove Drive, south of Park Drive and is within the Agua
Hedionda Local Coastal Plan area. The site is currently undeveloped and is surrounded by multi-
family residential structures.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING
As designed, the project is consistent with the RI-I (Residential - high density) General Plan land
use designation. The project is consistent with all environmental plans and policies and with the
Agua Hedionda Local Coastal Plan. The project will be conditioned to obtain a Coastal
Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission. 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 is consistent with the General Plan land use designation (RI-I) and zoning
(R-W) for the project site. The proposal involves combining two lots of 0.14 and 0.18 acres in
size (which could be developed with two and three units, respectively) into a single lot with four
units. The project does not conflict with any applicable environmental plans and is consistent
with the surrounding development which includes multi-family residential developments. There
are no agricultural resources or operations near the site. The project will not divide an
established residential community. The site is a small infill site to be developed with a
residential use.
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS
A geotechnical evaluation was prepared for the project site by GeoSoils, Inc. This study
identified the presence of liquefiable soil layers underlying the site and the potential for
settlement of the alluvial soils. The report recommended that damaging deformations could be
mitigated by construction of drilled piers and structural foundations beneath the proposed
structure. The report noted that groundwater was encountered at approximately 6 feet below
existing grade, however it is not anticipated that it will affect site development providing that the
recommendations contained in the report are incorporated into the final design and construction
and that prudent surface and subsurface drainage practices are incorporated into the construction
plans. The soils test indicated that the onsite soils generally have a high expansion potential.
Corrosivity results will be provided as an addendum report and additional corrosion and
expansion index testing is recommended prior to final foundation and utility design and
construction. In conclusion, the report indicated that the site is suitable for the proposed
10 Rev. 03128196
development subject to the recommendations in the report. The site is not anticipated to be
significantly impacted by geologic impacts including seismic hazards, erosion, landslides, or
. ’ unique geologic features.
4. WATER
No significant impacts to water resources have been identified for this project. The development
of the proposed residential units will not significantly impact groundwater, significantly change
the amount of surface water in any water body nor expose people or property to significant water
related hazards. The development of the vacant site with buildings and paving will increase the
amount of impermeable surfaces which will increase the amount of surface runoff from the site.
The project will incorporate drainage structures to prevent increases in runoff and sedimentation
discharge into the adjacent Agua Hedionda Lagoon and is conditioned to comply with NPDES
standards. The Finish Floor Elevation (F.F.E.) of the structure will be constructed at a minimum
of 12 inches above the base flood elevation to prevent flooding of the structure in accordance
with FEMA regulations. The base flood elevation of 8.5 feet was determined using the Agua
Hedionda Creek Study dated July 1973.
5. 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)
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.
11 Rev. 03128196
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION:
I . 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.
A MEIR may not be used to review projects if it was certified more than five years prior to the
filing of an application for a later project. The City is currently reviewing the 1994 MEIR to
determine whether it is still adequate to review subsequent projects. Although the MEIR was
certified more than five years ago, the City’s preliminary review of its adequacy finds that no
substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MEIR was
certified. The only potential changed circumstance, the intersection failure at Palomar Airport
Rd. and El Camino Real, has been mitigated to below a level of significance. Additionally, there
is no new available information, which was not known and could not have been known at the
time the MEIR was certified. Therefore, the MEIR remains adequate to review later projects.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The project site is an infill site which was previously graded with the Bristol Cove development.
The site is void of any significant vegetation, with the exception of several Mexican Fan Palms
which will be removed and relocated. No endangered, threatened, or rare species or their
habitats have been identified on the site. The site does not contain any locally designated species
or natural communities or wetland habitats and does not serve as a migration corridor. The
proposed development of this infill site will not significantly impact any biological resources.
12 Rev. 03/28/96
The project includes construction of future boat docks in the Bristol Cove channel. The proposal
for boat docks is compatible with the surrounding Bristol Cove development and consistent with
. . the Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan. The project will need to provide additional environmental
analysis to determine if there will be impacts to eel grass or other sensitive wetland species and if
mitigation will be required. The project will be conditioned to obtain approval from the US
Army Corps of Engineers, the State Department of Fish and Game, the City of Carlsbad, and the
California Coastal Commission for construction of future boat docks.
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
The proposed project does not conflict with adopted energy plans nor use non-renewable
resources in a wasteful manner. No known mineral resources have been identified on the site.
9. HAZARDS
The proposed residential project will not result in increased risk of accidental explosion or
release of hazardous substances. It also will not interfere with any emergency response plans or
evacuation plans. The site is a mid-block infill site which fronts onto a public street. The project
will not result in exposure of people to any potential health hazards, including fire hazard.
10. NOISE
No long-term noise impacts will result from the presence of this residential structure. Some
temporary noise impacts will occur during construction. However, these impacts will be
temporary in nature. All such construction activities will be required to be conducted pursuant to
the City’s noise regulations and regulations governing construction activities.
11. PUBLIC SERVICES
The proposed project will not result in the need for new governmental services. The proposed
project involves an infill site for which all necessary public services are readily available. The
project will be conditioned to comply with all applicable requirements of the Local Facilities
Management Plan for the area to ensure that all such services are available.
12. UTILITES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
The proposed project will not result in the need for new utilities and services systems. The
proposed project will be developed on an infill site for which all necessary public utilities and
services systems are readily available. The project will be conditioned to provide 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 development proposal complies 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. The project has been reviewed by the HOA
for Bristol Cove and has received preliminary approval for the project. Lighting for the structure
will be typical to that for other small residential projects and will be directed inward toward the
project. Therefore, there will be no negative aesthetic impacts from the proposed project.
13 Rev. 03/28/96
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES
. 1 No cultural resources (archeological, paleontological, or historical) have been identified on this
infill site, and its development will not impact any sacred or religious resources.
15. RECREATION
The proposed four new units which were anticipated by the General Plan, will not create an
increased demand for neighborhood or regional recreational facilities. The project will not affect
existing recreational opportunities since the vacant site does not currently provide such facilities
or opportunities.
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 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008,
(760) 602-4600.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-Ol), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
2. Preliminarv Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Six-Unit Condominium, Lots 66 and 67,
Cove Drive, Carlsbad, CA, dated May 3 1,2000, GeoSoils, Inc.
3. Flood Plain Information, Agua Hedionda Creek, Pacific Ocean to Buena San Dieno
County. CA, July 1973, Department of the Army, Los Angeles District, Corps of
Engineers.
14 Rev. 03/28/96
. : LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
None.
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE1
None.
15 Rev. 03/28/96