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