Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-09-04; Planning Commission; Resolution 52641 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. 5264 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF SIX AIRSPACE CONDOMINIUM UNITS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD AND JUNIPER AVENUE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASE NAME: PACIFIC VIEW CONDOS CASE NO.: CT 02-01/CP 02-03/CDP 02-03 WHEREAS, James and Kiki Zathas, “Owner/Developer,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as Lots 1, 2 and 3 Block “E” of Palisades, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1747 filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, February 5,1923 (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 4th day of September, 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 Mitigated 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration according to Exhibit “ND” dated May 20, 2002, and “PII” dated May 13, 2002, 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 Findinm: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: A. It has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration for PACIFIC VIEW CONDOS - CT 02-01/CP 02-03/CDP 02-03, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to APPROVING the project; and B. The Mitigated 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 I1 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 4th day of September, 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Segall, White, and Whitton NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None n SEENA TRIGAS, Chairperson CAFUSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: c Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5264 -2- - City of Carlsbad MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project AddressLocation: Southeast comer of Carlsbad Boulevard and Juniper Avenue in the City of Carlsbad, California, County of San Diego (APN 204-25 1 - 01,02, & 03) Project Description: Six-unit 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, the initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Mitigated 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: MAY 20,2002 CASE NO: CT 02-01/CP 02-03/CDP 02-03 CASE NAME: PACIFIC VIEW CONDOS PUBLISH DATE: MAY 20,2002 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 02-01/CP 02-03/CDP 02-03 DATE: May 13,2002 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Pacific View Condos 2. APPLICANT: James Zathus 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 6384 Lourdes Ter.. San Diego, CA 92 120 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: Januaw 22.2002 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 6-unit attached condominium proiect . 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 Is] Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services 0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems 0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics 0 Water Hazards 0 Cultural Resources Air Quality Is] Noise 0 Recreation u Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 03/28/96 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A 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 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 MEIR 93-01/Neg Dec pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier MEIR 93-01/Neg Dec, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. * 511 31 03- Planner Signature I Date Planning Director%igna&e 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. 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 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 ER 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. 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. 0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 4 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible 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) 0 0 0 ON om 0 0 0 0 0 om om 0 0 om II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: 0 0 0 0 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) homing? (#l:PgS 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) 0 om III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs 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) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 om ON om IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff! (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2- b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1) 11) 0 0 om 0 0 0 0 om om 5 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Less Than No Significant Impact 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 interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2- 1 1) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs body? (#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) (#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 17 17 17 Incorporated 0 0 0 CI 0 17 0 0 OIXI UIXI 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- Ix1 0 1 - 5.3-12) - 5.3-12) 0 0 b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) cl 0 0 0 om OIXI UIXI VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRClJL.ATION. Would the proposal result in: a) ‘Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) IXI 0 0 0 on om 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)? (#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) (#1 :PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) (#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 g) Rail, waterborne or air traffk impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) W.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats in impacts to: (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, 0 0 animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) 0 0 OIXI OIXI 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) E. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals orradiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential e) Increase 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) gass, ortrees? (#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)(#3) 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) Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IXI Less Than No Significant Impact Impact om om OIXI om om OIXI OB OIXI om OIXI OIXI on XILUTILITIES 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 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) 0 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) o 0 0 0 0 0 facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) 5.12.3-7) 0 Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 I7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5) 5.11-1 - 5.11-5) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.11-1 - 5.11-5) XIV. CULTWUL 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) 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 - 5.8-10) potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 - b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.12.8-7) 5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7) XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 0 0 0 No Impact IXI Ixl (XI IXI IXI IXI (XI Ixl Ixl IXI (XI IXI Ixl IXI 8 Rev. 03128196 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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 0 0 OH probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 0 0 nIxI MI. EARLIER ANALYSES. With the exception of the master EIR analysis of the General Plan Update of 1994 for citywlde traffic and air quality impacts, no earlier analyses were conducted for this project. 9 Rev. 03/28/96 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONDCNVIRONMENTAL SETTING The proposal is for the development of a 6-unit attached condominium project located on the southeast comer of Carlsbad Boulevard and Juniper Avenue. The 0.4 acre site consists of three separate lots that will be consolidated and re-subdivided as a 6-unit air space condominium. The project is located in the Mello I1 Segment of the Coastal Overlay Zone and requires a coastal development permit from the City. The site was part of an early subdivision in 1923 and was previously graded. The uses surrounding the site are as follows: Carlsbad Boulevard and the Pacific Ocean to the west, single-family residences to the east and south, and multi-family residential to the north. 11. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Environmental Impact Discussion I. Land Use and Planning The site is zoned R-3 (Multi-family residential) with a General Plan Land Use Designation of RH (high density residential 15 -23 ddac). The 15.1 dwelling units per acre proposed by the development complies with the 19 ddac allowed under the City's Growth Management Plan. There will be no conflicts with applicable environmental plans or policies that are under the jurisdiction of any resource or regulatory agency. The site is pre-graded and disturbed with no habitat or agricultural uses present. II. Population and Housing The project site is designated for multi-family residential development. The proposed units are part of the anticipated build-out of the City. The project would not displace existing housing nor would it require a significant extension of major services or infrastructure. The project will be required to meet its affordable housing obligations through payment of an In-Lieu affordable housing fee. III. Geologic Problems The site is free of any known or documented seismic or geologic problems. No landslides, fault lines, or soils with expansive or unstable properties are found on site. IV. Water The project is designed to meet all applicable Engineering Standards regarding drainage and surface runoff. The development of the pad will not impact groundwater flow or quality and will not change the flow of surface run-off or impact public water supplies. V. Air Quality 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 10 Rev. 03/28/96 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. VI. TransportatiodCirculation In 1994 the City prepared and certified a Master EIR which analyzed the impacts which would result from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concluded that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate build-out traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all fkeeway 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. 11 Rev. 03/28/96 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 MER 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. 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. The 6-unit condominium project will generate 48 ADT which is within the level of ADT anticipated by the MER. VII. Biological Resources The disturbed, previously graded site supports no significant habitats for sensitive plants or animals. The proposed project will not impact biological resources. VIII. Energy The use and loss of mineral resources is not associated with the project; neither is the use of non- renewable resources. Typical energy resources would be required for project construction. IX. Hazards The proposed condominium project will not increase the degree of risk resulting from an explosion or release of hazardous substances. Emergency and evacuation plans will not be impacted by the project and no new fire hazards will result. Engineering and Fire Department review of the project will ensure that typical safety features and provisions are designed into the proj ect . X. Noise An acoustical analysis was prepared for the project which indicates that the residential units may be exposed to interior and exterior noise impacts from Carlsbad Boulevard. In order to mitigate these potential impacts to levels less than significant, the exterior patios which are used to satisfl the open space requirements for the project will be located on the east side of the structure so that the building will attenuate the exterior noise impacts to less than 60 &A CNEL. In addition, the developer will also be required to submit an acoustical analysis prior to issuance of building permits to insure that typical building upgrades such as additional insulation and mechanical ventilation are incorporated into the building design so that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dBA CNEL. 12 Rev. 03/28/96 XI. Public Serviceshtilities and Service Systems All public service and utility systems necessary for the long-term operation of the proposed residential development will be available and supplied. The project will not impact the ability to deliver these services. XII. Aesthetics The project will not negatively impact the scenic qualities of Carlsbad Boulevard or public views of the Pacific Ocean. XIV. Cultural Resources The pre-graded pad does not contain any cultural resources. XV. Recreation The project will be conditioned to pay park fees upon issuance of a building permit. The project will not increase the demand for recreational facilities or affect existing recreational 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 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department. 2. Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1 per the City’s Growth Management Program, dated September 1, 1987, City of Carlsbad Planning Department. 3. External Analvsis of the Proposed Six-unit, Two-Story Townhouses at the Corner of Carlsbad Blvd. and Juniper St.(sic) in Carlsbad. California, dated August 3, 1999, Dr. Penzes & Associates. 13 Rev. 03/28/96 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Developer shall submit an acoustical analysis for approval by the Planning Director. The analysis shall identify acceptable construction materials and design measures necessary to a) reduce the interior noise levels of the units to a maximum of 45 dBA CNEL per California CCR Title 24 Noise Insulation Standards; and b) reduce the noise levels of second level patios on the east side of the building and within the common recreation area to a maximum of 60 dBA CNEL per City requirements. All such identified materials and measures shall be incorporated into the project. ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) None. APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. 14 Rev. 03/28/96