HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-06-05; Planning Commission; Resolution 51801
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, 5180
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO DEVELOP A 12 UNIT AIR
SPACE CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT THE
NORTH SIDE OF LAGUNA DRIVE AT THE NORTHERN
TERMINUS OF MADISON STREET IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: CASA LAGUNA
CASE NO.: CT 01 - 16/SDP 0 1 - 15/CP 02-0 1 /CDP 0 1 -42
WHEREAS, Laguna Carlsbad, L.L.C., “Developer/Owner” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described
Per the attached legal description
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 5th day of June, 2002, 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 RESaVED 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 March 7, 2002, and “PII” dated March 4, 2002, attached hereto and
made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findinps:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
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
A. It has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration, the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments
thereon prior to APPROVAL of 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 11 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 5th day of June, 2002, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Heineman, Trigas,
White, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Dominguez
ABSTAIN: None
SEENA TRIGAS, Chderson
CARTSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
Planning @rector /
PC RES0 NO. 5 180 -2-
Casa Laguna
APN 155-223-08, 09
Legal Description
PARCEL I:
That portion dl: Lot 1 in Section 1, Township -12 South, Range 5 West., San Bemardino
Meridian? in the City of Carlshad, County of San Diego, State of California, accordins lo
Officiai Plat thereof, described as follows:
Commencing at the intersection of the East line of as Lot 1 with the North line of Laguna
Drive, as shown on Map No. 1722 or Seaside Lands, tiled in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Dicgo County, July 28, 1921; thence North 89"50' West, along said North
Jiue of Laguna Drive, 495.0 feet to a point on the West line of land conveycd to Alcxander
Beller by Deed dated March 30, 191 6 and recorded in Book 708 ~ Page 70 of Deeds, said
poinr being the True Point of Beginning; thence continuing North 89'50' West along said
North line of Laguna Drive, 169.0 feet to the Southeas( comer of land conveyed to Willis
James Caqxnter by Deed dared January 7, 1952 and rccorded in Dook 4345, Page 547 of
Offficial Records; thence North 0'0.5' East along thc East line of said land, 256.0 feet to a
point on the Southcrly bt3UTldary of Buena Vista Gardens as shown on the Map thercof No.
2492, filed i11 the Oftice of the County Recorder of Sarr Diego County, August 4, 1948;
thence South 89"SO' hsl along said Southerly bourldary 169.0 feet to the nfol*emcntioned
West linc of land conveyed to Beller; thsnce South 0'05' West along said Wesl line 256.0
he1 10 the True Point of'Beginning.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM the West 25 feet thereof.
APN: 155-223-08
PARCEL 2:
That portion of Lot 1 in Section I, Township 12 South, Range 5 West, San Bernardino
Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to
the Official Plat thereof, described as follows:
Commencing at the intersection OF the Northeriy line of Laguna Drive, with thc Wssterly
line of Front Strcct as shown on Seaside Lands, according LO Map thereof No. 1722, riled
1.11 che Office of the Counly Recorder of San Dicgo CounLy, June 28, 1921; thence along the
Northerly line of said Laguna Drive, North 89"50'00" West, 495.00 feet to the
Southeasterly center line of land described in Deed to Allen W. X~ngz, et LIX? rccorded
May 16, 1952 as File No. 60313, in Book 4469, Pap 356 of' Official Records; thence
continui~lg along said Northerly line, Norch 89"SO'OO" West, 144.00 feet to the Southeast
corner of the Westerly 25.00 feet of said Lange's Lmd and being the True Point of
Beginning; thence continuing along said Northerly line, North 89"50'00" West 65.00 feet
to the Southwesterly corner of land described in deed to Allen W. Lnge, et ux, rccorded
September 17, 1953 as File No. 126693 irl Book 4987, Page 316, Ofiice 01' the Couuty
1057660
Recordcr of San Diego County; thence along the Westerly tine of said Lange’s Land last
above referred to: North OO”O5’00” East 256.00 feet to the Southerly boundary of Buena
vista Gardens, according tu Map thereof No. 2492, Filed in the Oftice of thc County
Rccorder of Sa11 Diego Counry, -4ugust 4, 1948; thence dong said Southerly boundary
South 89”50’00” East 65.00 feet to the Northeast corncr of the Westerly 25.00 feet of said
Lange’s Land first hereinabove referred to; thence along the EzWerly line of said Wcsterly
25.00 feet, South OO”05’00” West: 256.00 feel to the True Point of Beginning.
APN: 155-223-09
- City of Carlsbad
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddressLocation: East side of Laguna Drive at the northern terminus of Madison
Street in the northwest quadrant of the City. APN: 155-223-08109.
Project Description: 12-unit air space condominium 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 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 Eric Munoz in the Planning Department at
(760) 602-4608.
DATED: March 7,2002
CASE NO: GPA Ol-l4/LCPA 01-13ICT 01-16/SDP 01-15/CP 02-O1/CDP 01-42
CASE NAME: Casa Laguna
PUBLISH DATE: March 7,2002
MICHAEL J. HOBMILYER
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us @
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 11
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CT 01-16/SDP 01-15/CP 02-01/CDP 01-42
DATE: March 4.2002
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Casa Laguna
2. APPLICANT: Mike Roletti
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 31225 La Baya Drive, Suite 103,
Westlake Village, CA 91362.
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: October 24,2001
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 12-unit air-suace condo proiect, which includes two affordable units,
on an in-fill lot on the east side of Lanuna at the northern terminus of Madison Street.
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 TransportatiordCirculation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 Water Hazards
Air Quality 0 Noise
0 Cultural Resources
u Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
IXI
0
0
0
0
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) EIR 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 pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
Planner Signature Date
2 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.
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.
e
e
“Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
“Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect fkom “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 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
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 Em, (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
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 56-18)
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
landuses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
(#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
minority community)? (#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 -
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
5.5-6)
housing? (#1 :PgS 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Faultrupture?(#l:Pgs5.1-1 -5.1-15)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#1 :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
5.1-1 - 5.1.15)
5.1-15)
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? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15)
Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
0
0 0
0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than No
Significant Impact Impact
OH om
om om
uta
0 om
0 OH
0 OIXI
om 0 OIXI 0 OIXI
0 OIXI OIXI
0 om om 0 OIXI
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 0 0 om
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 OIXI
11)
0 0 om
5 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11)
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
body? (#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 0
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?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
(#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
11)
5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
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?
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)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
5.7.22)
0
0
0
Ixl
0
0
0
IXI
0
0
0
0
0
0
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 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
0
0 (#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact
Mitigation Unless Impact
Incorporated 0 om
0 om
0 OH
0 om
0 om
0 om
0 00
0 om
0 om
0 OIXI
0 OIxl
0 ON
0 om
6 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
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)
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 or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
5.10.1-5)
hazards? (#l:PgS 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
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: Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6)
Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4)
"
Schools? (#l:PgS 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (
Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
5.12.8-7)
Potentially Significant Impact
0
0
0
0
I3
cl
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0
Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated 0
0 El
0
I7
0
0
0
0
0
'0
0
0 0 D 0 0
Less Than No
Significant Impact Impact
OIXI
UIXI
om
OIXI
OIXI
UIXI
OIXI
0 0 0 0 0
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. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
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 -
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
5.12.3-7)
0 0 Ixl
0 0 0 0 Ixl El
0 0 cl
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
Ixl El IXI IXI
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#1 :Pgs
c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
5.11-1 - 5.11-5) 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(XI
Ixl
IXI
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-
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
10)
10)
1 - 5.8-10)
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
0 0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0 0 0 IXI IXI
0 0 IXI
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 -
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs
5.12.8-7)
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
0
0
0 0 Ixl
0 0
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 fsh 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 IXI
8 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
0 0 OH Incorporated
MI. 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.
9 Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
LAND USE PLANNING
\ The site is a 1.18-acre infill site located in the City’s northeast quadrant. The existing General
Plan designation is a combination RMH/O whereby the Office designation is proposed for
removal. The zoning designation is multi-family so the proposal for 12 condo units is consistent
with the area’s General Plan and existing and future allowed land uses. As an infill lot
surrounded by a variety of residential development, no agricultural crops, sensitive habitat or
scenic resources are associated with the site.
POPULATION AND HOUSING
The project is proposing a density consistent with its density allowance. Two onsite units will be
redeveloped with the project so there will not be a net displacement of units in the area. The
project will also provide its share of affordable housing units (two) to maintain consistency with
city standards.
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS
The site does not have any geologic instabilities or expansive soils. Surrounded by residential,
urban development, the site is not adjacent to, or located on, a bluff edge, sea cliff, earthquake
fault line, landslide area, etc.
WATER
The project will comply with all pertinent Engineering Department standards regarding run-off,
grading and stormwater control. Improper drainage patterns will not result from the project and
the use of water resources by this project is considered typical of a project of this scale. The
project will not impact the flow of water in Buena Vista Lagoon, or any other wetland or water
body. Groundwater resources will not be affected by this project.
AIR OUALITY
In 1994 the City prepared and certified an EIR which analyzed the impacts which will result
fiom 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
10 Rev. 03/28/96
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 MER
This document is available at the Planning Department.
CIRCULATION:
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
11 Rev. 03/28/96
certified. The only potential changed circumstance, the intersection failure at Palomar Airport
Rd. and El Camino Real, is in the process of being 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.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The proposed infill site location has no significant habitat or vegetative cover that supports
sensitive plant or animal habitats. There are some mature trees onsite and the project is
proposing to relocate and retain a certain number of trees per the project’s submitted report titled,
“Tree Report” by Susan McEowen dated February 20,2002 on file in the Planning Department.
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
The project will have not have an adverse impact on natural resources or the availability of
known mineral resources. The energy consumption of this project is considered typical of a
project of this type and scale.
HAZARDS
No health or explosion hazards will be created or facilitated by the development of this proposed
12-unit in-fill residential project.
NOISE
The project will not generate a significant amount of noise since it a residential project of a scale
that is compatible with the adjacent, existing residential developments. Laguna Drive is not a
Circulation Element roadway and will not create a significant amount of noise for the project.
PUBLIC SERVICES
The project will comply with all the requirement of the City’s Growth Management Ordinance
and all necessary services and facilities needed to serve the project will be in place. The demand
of this project on city services and facilities is typical of projects of this scale and type.
UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS
All project needs can be serviced by existing utilities and services systems. The infill lot can
accommodate the density proposed with the existing utility and service systems in place. Local
water supplies can service the project.
AESTHETICS
The project proposes architecture that is Spanish contemporary aid will compliment the area’s
existing residential development with high quality buildings that comply with the City’s design
policy (No. 44) that requires architectural quality and variation as well as single story component
to projects. No scenic highways or vistas are associated with the site or located near the project.
12 Rev. 03/28/96
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The infill residential site with two existing units, has no cultural resources on-site.
RECREATIONAL
There are no existing recreational resources or uses associated with the site. The site will not
create an unusual or significant demand for recreational resources. The project will be designed
to comply with the City’s private and common recreational requirements for residential projects
of this type and scale.
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 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department. Please note:
there is no new information or substantial change in circumstances since the MEIR was
completed that would prevent its application to this project.
13 Rev. 03/28/96
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
NIA
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
NIA
14 Rev. 03/28/96