HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-09-18; Planning Commission; Resolution 52711
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. 5271
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
ADDENDUM AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM FOR A GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE AND LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE
DESIGNATION FROM “N’ TO “RM” AND THE ZONE
THE COMMERCIAL VISITOR-SERVING OVERLAY ZONE
ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER
OF INTERSTATE 5 AND POINSETTIA LANE IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 4.
CASE NAME: SMITH PROPERTY LAND USE CHANGE
CASE NO.: GPA 02-02 / ZC 02-03 / LCPA 02-05
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad, “Applicant,” has filed a verified application
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Caroline’s Survivor’s Trust (Caroline
Smith), “Owner,” described as
DESIGNATION FROM “C- 1 -Q” TO “RDM-Q’, AND REMOVE
Lot 171 of Carlsbad Tract 73-24, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map
thereof No. 7996, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of
San Diego County, August 5,1974
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program was prepared in conjunction
with said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 4th day of September, 2002
and on the 18th 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
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
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program.
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 RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
according to Exhibit “ND” dated July 25, 2002, and “PII” dated July 16, 2002,
including the “Addendum” dated August 14, 2002, attached hereto and made a
part hereof, based on the following findings and conditions:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated
Negative Declaration, Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program for SMITH PROPERTY LAND USE CHANGE - GPA 02-02, ZC 02-03
and LCPA 02-05, the environmental impacts therein identified for the project and any
comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program 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
3. It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad;
and
4. Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the
project will have a significant effect on the environment, provided the following
mitigation measures are incorporated into future residential development on the project
site:
A. Any proposal to construct residential units on the project site shall include a
site/project design specific noise analysis. Such noise analysis shall specify
the exact noise mitigation necessary for the specific project to reduce exterior
noise levels to not exceed 60 dB CNEL, and interior noise levels to not exceed
45 dB CNEL.
B. Unless evidence is provided that justifies mitigation other than that specified
in the Noise Analysis prepared for this project, dated July 10, 2002, the
following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into any future
residential development on the project site:
PC RES0 NO. 5271 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
V.
vi.
vii.
...
...
...
. ..
...
...
.. .
A 10-foot high solid wall along the west side of the property (5 feet
back from the top of the existing slope). City standards do not allow
walls to exceed 6 feet in height. Therefore, the noise barrier wall may
be a combination of earthen berm with a 6-foot maximum solid wall
above. Transparent materials, such as acrylic panels, may be utilized
to maintain views, if evidence shows that they will be effective in
providing the necessary noise mitigation. The design of all walls will
be subject to City review and approval.
An 8-foot high solid wall along the north property line. City
standards do not allow walls to exceed 6 feet in height. Therefore, the
noise barrier wall may be a combination of earthen berm with a 6-foot
maximum solid wall above. Transparent materials, such as acrylic
panels, may be utilized to maintain views, if evidence shows that they
will be effective in providing the necessary noise mitigation. The
design of all walls will be subject to City review and approval.
A 6-foot high solid wall along the east property line.
Closed-window condition on residential units, which will require an
alternative means of ventilation, such as heat pumps or forced-air
units.
Second story residential units would require double-pane windows
(no special window glazing would be necessary on first floor windows
with the construction of the noise walls specified above).
Windows and sliding glass doors facing Interstate 5 and Poinsettia
Lane would need to have a Sound Transmission Class (STC) of at
least 30 - 35.
Doors would need to be solid core and equipped with an appropriate
gasket.
PC RES0 NO. 5271 -3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of September 2002, by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Dominguez, Heineman, Segall, and Whitton
NOES: Commissioners Baker and White
ABSENT: Chairperson Trigas
ABSTAIN:
KER, Vice-Chairperson
PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5271 -4-
City of Carlsbad Ex hi bi t “ND”
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Addresskocation: Southeast Comer of Interstate 5 and Poinsettia Lane (APN: 214-471-53).
Project Description: The Carlsbad City Council has directed City staff to process and make
recommendations for an appropriate residential land use designation on the
Smith property located on the southeast comer of Interstate 5 and Poinsettia
Lane. The project site is a 5.12 acre undeveloped infill site that is surrounded by
urban development.
The current General Plan land use designation is N (Neighborhood Commercial),
the current Zone designation is C-1-Q (Neighborhood Commercial in a Qualified
Development Overlay Zone). The site is also located within the Mello I Segment
of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program (LCP) with a land use designation of
General Commercial.
Pursuant to City Council direction, staff is processing a General Plan
Amendment (GPA 02-02), Zone Change (ZC 02-03) and Local Coastal Program
Amendment (LCPA 02-05) to change the current neighborhood commercial land
use and zoning designations to the following residential designations:
Land Use - RM - Medium Density (4 - 8 ddac)
(Note: Based upon the project site area (5.12 acres), the proposed RM land use
designation would allow up to 40 dwelling units on the site at maximum density.)
Zone - RDM-Q (Residential Density-Multiple Zone / Qualified Development
Overlay)
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 with the incorporation of mitigation
measures, the potential significant effects can be mitigated to a level of less than significant. 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 the date of this notice.
If you have any questions, please call Jennifer Coon in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4637.
CASE NO: GPA 02-02 / ZC 02-03 / LCPA 02-05
CASE NAME: SMITH PROPERTY LAND USE CHANGE
PUBLISH DATE: JULY 25,2002
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue 0 Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us @
Exhibit “PII”
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: GPA 02-02EC 02-O3/LCPA 02-05
DATE: July 16.2002
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
CASE NAME: SMITH PROPERTY LAND USE CHANGE
LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad - 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad.
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Jennifer Coon, Associate Planner - (760) 602-
PROJECT LOCATION: Southeast comer of Interstate 5 and Poinsettia Lane (APN: 214-471-53)
PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad - 1635 Faraday Avenue,
Carlsbad, CA 92008
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: N (Neiphborhood Commercial)
ZONING: C-1-0 (Neighborhood CommerciaVOualified Overlay Zone)
OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing
approval or participation agreements): California Coastal Commission (Local Coastal Promam
Amendment)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
The Droiect consists of a land use and zone change on a 5.12 acre Darcel located on the southeast
comer of Interstate 5 and Poinsettia Lane. The Droiect site currently has a General Plan Land Use
and Local Coastal Program Land Use designation of N (Neighborhood Commercial) and is zoned
C-1-0 (Neighborhood CommerciaVOualified Overlay Zone). The proposed General Plan
Amendment, Zone Change and Local Coastal Promam Amendment would result in the following
desienations:
0 General Plan Land Use - RM (Residential Medium Density - 4-8 ddac)
JNote: Based umn the project site area (5.12 acres). the urouosed RM land use desimation
would allow up to 40 dwelling units on the site at maximum densitv.)
0 Zoning - RDM-0 (Residential Density - Multiule Zone/Oualified Overlay Zone)
0 Local Coastal Promam Land Use - RM (Residential Medium Density - 4-8 ddac)
0 Local Coastal Promam Zoning - RDM-0 (Residential Density - Multiule
Zone/Oualified Overlay Zone)
The uroiect site is an undeveloued infill site that is surrounded by a residential develoDment to the
south, east and north. The site is bounded by Interstate 5 to the west, Poinsettia Lane to the north,
Paseo Del Norte (Lowder Lane) to the east, and residential (condominium) develoument to the
south.
1 Rev. 07/03/02
street elevation of Paseo Del Norte, which is located adjacent the site’s east property line. The
majority of the remainder of the site (excluding the western 25 feet) is located approximately 5
feet below the upper pad. The grade between the two pads is split by a 2: 1 manufactured slope.
The western 25 feet of the site consists of a manufactured slope that slopes down to Interstate 5
located approximately 30 feet below the site.
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 Aesthetics u Geology/Soils Noise
u Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality 0 Public Services
0 Biological Resources @ Land Use and Planning 0 Recreation
0 Cultural Resources Mineral Resources TransportatiodCirculation
Mandatory Findings of
Significance 0 Utilities & Service systems
2 Rev. 07/03/02
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
€3
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 ‘potentially significant impact(s)” on the environment,
but at least one potentially significant impact 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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed
project. Therefore, nothing further is required.
Date I
3 Rev. 07/03/02
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 significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and
policies.
“Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than
Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the
mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant
level.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significantly adverse.
Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse
effect on the environment, but &l potentially significant adverse 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.
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to
prepare an EIR if the significant adverse 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 adverse effect on the environment.
If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the
4 Rev. 07/03/02
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 adverse 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 adverse impact to less than sigrificant; (2) a
“Statement of Ovemding Considerations’’ for the significant adverse impact has not been made
pursuant to an earlier Em, (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse 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.
5 Rev. 07t03102
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Potentially Significant
Impact
I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
0
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a State scenic highway?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
0
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
AGRICULTRAL RESOURCES - (In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model-1997 prepared by the California
Department of Conservation as an optional model to use
in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would
the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
0
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or
a Williamson Act contract? 0
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
cl
Potentially
Significant
Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact
Unless Less Than
nIx1
I7
0
OIXI
UIXI
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
6 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
III. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied
upon to make the following determinations.) Would the
project:
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identifed as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian,
aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations or by California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 OIXI
0
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
7 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filing, hydrological interruption, or other means?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Impact tributary areas that are environmentally
sensitive?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi-
cance of an archeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi-
cal resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Potentially
Significant Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated ImGt lmgt 0
0
0
cl
0
0 om
0
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
8 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated ImEt ImKt
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred 0 outside of formal cemeteries?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
V. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving:
0 IXIn 0 i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
0
0
0
0
ii. Strong seismic ground shakmg?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
0 0 iv. Landslides?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
0 0 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
0 0 c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction,
or collapse?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
0 d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - l-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 0 0 e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
9 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
VI. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would
the project:
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Create a significant hazard to the public or
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
environment?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
For a project within an airport land use plan, or
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Potentially Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
0
‘0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 IXI
OBI
10 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intennixed with
wildlands?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with ground water recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local ground water table
level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
c) Impacts to groundwater quality?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in
a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
f) Create or contribute runoff water, which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runof€?
Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated ImGt ImEt 0 I7
13
0
cl
0
0
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
11 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Infommtion Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact IncoGrated imEt lmpgt I7 0 g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation
Illilp?
0
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
0 i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures,
which would impede or redirect flood flows? 0
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
0
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 0 0 OB
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
0 0 OIXI 1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface
waters.
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
0 0 OB m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics,
nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash)
into receiving surface waters or other alteration of
receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 0 n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or
wetland waters) during or following construction?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
0 0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired
water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section
303(d) list?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
12 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated I7 0 p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater
receiving water quality objectives or degradation of
beneficial uses?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
0
0 OIXI
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
IXI no b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
0 0 c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
0 OB 0 a) 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?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
0 0 b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
XI. NOISE - Would the project result in:
0 a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels
in excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of
other agencies?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
0 0 OB b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundbourne vibration or groundborne noise
levels?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
13 Rev. 07103102
Issues (and Supporting Infomation Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Imp& ImEt
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
0 0
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 NO
0 ON
0 ON
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
14 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered government facilities, a
need for new or physically altered government
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
XIV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in
relation to the existing trafftc load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
15 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Imgt ImEt
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level
of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads
or highways?
0
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
0
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
0
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
0 Result in insufficient parking capacity?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn-
outs, bicycle racks)?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the
project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which would
cause significant environmental effects?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
UIXI
OIXI
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
16 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs?
(See Disc’ussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
XW. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
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?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumula-
tively 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?)
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated 1mEt Imgt 0 0
0
Q
0
0
0
0 GIXI
0
0
0
ISI
17 Rev. 07/03/02
Xvm. 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.
18 Rev. 07/03/02
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
No Impact - The project site is located adjacent to two scenic corridors (Interstate 5 and Poinsettia Lane).
The proposed land use/zone change does not include a proposal for any physical development of the
project site that could impact a scenic vista. The proposed land use and zone change will result in the
potential for future residential development on the site. Any future development proposal will be subject
to CEQA review and will be required to comply with City development standards, which will ensure an
aesthetically acceptable design. Therefore, the project will not have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
No Impact (b & c)- The project site is undeveloped and previously disturbed through grading. There are
no scenic resources on the site. The proposed land use and zone change does not include a proposal for
any physical development of the project site, and will not degrade the visual character or quality of the
site. There are no significant trees or vegetation that could be damaged from future development of the
site. Any future development proposal will be subject to CEQA review and will be required to comply
with the City’s development standards that ensure high quality design and compatibility with the
surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, the project will not damage scenic resources or degrade the
existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.
d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
No Impact - The proposed land use and zone change does not include a proposal for any physical
development of and will not create any new source of light and glare. Any future development of the site
will be subject to CEQA review and will be required to comply with the City’s light standards.
AGRICULTRAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact - The project site is not considered Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of
Statewide Importance. Therefore, the proposed land use and zone change will not convert farmland to a
non-agricultural use.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact - The project site is not zoned for agricultural use and is not subject to a Williamson Act
contract. Therefore, the proposed land use and zone change will not conflict with any agricultural zoning
or contracts.
19 Rev. 07/03/02
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
No Impact - The project site is within an area that was subject to an agricultural subsidy program pursuant
to the Mello I1 Segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program. The site and surrounding properties were
permitted to develop with non-agricultural uses upon payment of an agncultural development fee. The
agncultural development fee has been paid for the site and surrounding properties, which have been
developed with non-agricultural uses. Therefore, the proposed land use and zone change from commercial
to residential will not result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use because the conversion
has previously occurred.
AIR QUALITY-Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
No Impact - The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a federal and state non-
attainment area for ozone (03), and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to
10 microns in diameter (I‘Mlo). The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards
(AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothill areas, requires that
a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San
Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in. the Regional Air Quality Strategies
(RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San Diego Association
of Governments (SWAG).
A plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the
1991 state-mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other California non-
attainment areas having serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation
Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November
9th through 10th in 1994, and was forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for
approval. Mer considerable analysis and debate, particularly regarding airsheds with the worst smog
problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996.
The proposed project relates to the SIP and/or RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that
are incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each
city’s and the County’s general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan,
then the project presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such
consistency would ensure that the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact.
Although the project consists of a land use and zone change from commercial to residential, the potential
residential units (40 du at max. density) on the site will be consistent with the City’s overall growth
assumptions. The additional residential units will be provided for through the City’s “excess dwelling
unit bank” (units not developed on properties that, based on the General Plan density provisions, could
have yielded more units than actually built).
Section 15 125(B) of the State of California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains
specific reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the
applicable air quality management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS.
The RAQS and TCM plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal
ambient air quality standards. The California Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining
whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the following:
0 Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area?
Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan?
The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is
being implemented. The project is consistent with the growth assumptions of the City’s General Plan and
20 Rev. 07/03/02
the RAQS. Therefore, the project is consistent with the regional air quality plan and will in no way
conflict or obstruct implementation of the regional plan.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected
air quality violation?
Less Than Significant Impact - The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is in the City
of Oceanside. Data available for this monitoring site through April, 2002 indicate that the most recent air
quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (one day in both 2000 and
2001) and one day in 200 1 for the federal 8-hour average for ozone and one day for the 24-hour state
standard for suspended particulates in 1996. No violations of any other air quality standards have been
recorded recently. Long-term emissions associated with travel generated from future residential
development of the site will be minimal. Although air pollutant emissions would be associated with a
future residential development, they would neither result in the violation of any air quality standard
(comprising only an incremental contribution to overall air basin quality readings), nor contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Any potential impact is assessed as less than
significant.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard?
Less Than Significant Impact - The Air Basin is currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone and
suspended fme particulates. The proposed land use and zone change will result in a potential for future
residential development, which would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential
net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated
with a future residential development would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially
associated with a residential development of the site, air quality would be essentially the same whether or
not the a residential development is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15130
(a)(4), the project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is
assessed as less than significant.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
No Impact - As noted above, the proposed land use and zone change will result in the potential for future
residential development, which would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or concentrations. In
addition, there are no sensitive receptors (e.g., schools or hospitals) located in the vicinity of the project
site. No impact is assessed.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
No Impact - The proposed land use and zone change will not result in any activity that could create
objectionable odors. Construction of future residential development could generate fumes from the
operation of construction equipment, which may be considered objectionable by some people. Such
exposure would be short-term or transient. In addition, the number of people exposed to such transient
impacts is not considered substantial.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
21 Rev. 07/03/02
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations
or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, f&ng, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact (a, b & c) - The project site is an undeveloped infill site, previously disturbed through
grading, and is surrounded by urban development. The site is not identified in a local or regional plan to
contain habitat or sensitive species. Also, the site does not contain and is not adjacent to any riparian,
aquatic or wetland habitat. In addition, the proposed land use and zone change does not include a
proposal for any physical development of the project site. Therefore, the project will not result in an
adverse effect on any sensitive habitat or species. Any future development proposals will be subject to
further environmental review pursuant to CEQA.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
No Impact - The project site is an undeveloped infill site, previously disturbed through grading, and is
surrounded by urban development. The site is not located within any identified native or migratory
wildlife corridor, nor is it located adjacent any area identified as a wildlife corridor. In addition, the
proposed land use and zone change does not include a proposal for any physical development of the
project site. Therefore, the project will not interfere with any native or migratory wildlife comdor or
native wildlife nursery site. Any hture development proposals will be subject to further environmental
review pursuant to CEQA.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact - The project site is an undeveloped infill site, previously disturbed through grading, and is
surrounded by urban development. There are no known biological resources on the project site that
would be protected by local policies or ordinances. In addition, the proposed land use and zone change
does not include a proposal for any physical development of the project site. Therefore, the project will
not conflict with the local policies and ordinances that protect biological resources. Any future
development proposals will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA.
0 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
No Impact - The project site is an undeveloped infill site, previously disturbed through grading, and is
surrounded by urban development. The site does not contain any habitat identified by a local, regional or
state habitat conservation plan. In addition, the proposed land use and zone change does not include a
proposal for any physical development of the project site. Therefore, the project will not conflict with
the provisions of any habitat conservation plan. Any future development proposals will be subject to
further environmental review pursuant to CEQA.
22 Rev. 07/03/02
g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive?
No Impact - The site does not contain and is not located adjacent to any environmentally sensitive
tributary area. In addition, the proposed land use and zone change does not include : proposal for any
physical development of the project site. Therefore, the project will not adversely impact any
environmentally sensitive tributary area. Any future development proposals will be subject to further
environmental review pursuant to CEQA.
CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined
in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
No Impact (a, by c & d) - The project site is an undeveloped infill site that has been previously disturbed
through grading. There are no known historical, archeological, paleontological resources or human
remains on the project site. In addition, the proposed land use and zone change does not include a
proposal for any physical development of the project site. Therefore, the project will not adversely
impact a cultural resource. However, the city limits of Carlsbad are known to contain cultural resources
near the lagoons and surrounding areas. Any future development proposals will be subject to further
environmental review pursuant to CEQA, and will be subject to the City’s Cultural Resource Guidelines.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Less than Significant Impact (a.i. to a%.) - There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zones within
the City of Carlsbad and there is no other evidence of active of potentially active faults within the City.
However, there are several active faults throughout Southern California, and these potential earthquakes
could affect Carlsbad. The project site is located in an area of stable soil conditions and the risk of
seismic-related ground failure or liquefaction is very minimal (according to City of Carlsbad
Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992). In addition, the Geotechnical
Hazards Analysis identifies the project site to be in an area of low to moderate risk from ground shaking.
The risk from ground shaking is not significant when structures are built pursuant to the Uniform
Building Code (earthquake standards). Because the site is located in an area of stable soil conditions, and
any fkture dwelling constructed on the site must comply with the UBC earthquake construction standards,
the proposed land use and zone change will not expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects
from the risks associated with earthquakes.
23 Rev. 07/03/02
iv. Landslides?
No Impact - According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study,
November 1992, the project site is in an area of stable soil conditions that are not subject to landslides.
Therefore, the proposed land use and zone change will not expose people to risks associated with
landslides.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
No Impact - The proposed land use and zone change does not include any proposal for physical
development on the site, and, therefore, will not result in substantial soil erosion on the site.’ However,
according to the US Department of Agriculture, Soil Survey - San Diego Area, December 1973, the
project site contains soils that have high erosion limitations, as do most soil types in Carlsbad. The
potential for soil erosion is not significant, however, when the City’s Engineering standards are
implemented for a development project. Any future development proposal on the project site will be
subject to CEQA review and City’s Engineering standards, which will ensure that future development on
the site will not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
No Impact - According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study,
November 1992, the project site is located in an area of stable soil conditions and the risk of landslides,
lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse is very minimal. In addition, the proposed land use
and zone change does not include any proposal for physical development on the site. Therefore, the
project will not result in unstable soil conditions. Any future development proposal will be subject to
CEQA review and City development standards, which will ensure that future development on the site
does not result in unstable soil conditions.
d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
No Impact - According to the US Department of Agriculture, Soil Survey - San Diego Area, December
1973, the project site contains soils that are not considered “expansive soils”. The soil characteristics of
the site are known to drain well and do not expand substantially when they become saturated with water.
Therefore, the proposed land use and zone change will not result in substantial risks associated with
expansive soils.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
No Impact - The project site is an undeveloped infill site surrounded by urban development. Existing
sewer facilities are located near the site and are available and adequate to support a future residential land
use on the site.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably *
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
24 Rev. OJlQ3lO2
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or environment?
No Impact (a, b, c & d) - The project consists of a land use and zone change from a commercial
designation to a residential designation. Based upon the nature of a residential land use, there is no
routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials associated with residential uses. Therefore, there
is no potential of a significant hazard associated with the project from accidents involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment, or from the emission of hazardous substances within the
proximity of a school.
e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact (e & f) - The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan
has not been adopted. However, the project site is located approximately 1.8 miles from the McClellan-
Palomar Airport (public general aviation airport). The project site is not located within any flight, crash,
or safety hazard zones associated with the airport. Therefore, the proposed land use and zone change will
not result in a safety hazard for people residing on the project site.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
No Impact (g & h) - Based on the nature of the proposed residential land use designation, and the
adequacy of existing emergency services and facilities to serve the site and proposed land use, the project
will not impair the implementation or physically interfere with any adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation. In addition, the project site is an infill site surrounded by urban development.
There are no wildlands adjacent to the site that could expose people to significant risk from wildland fires.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water
recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local ground water table level (Le., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells
would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
c) Impacts to groundwater quality?
25 Rev. 07/03/02
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate
or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or
off-site?
0 Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
No Impact (a, b, c, d, e, f & g) - The proposed land use and zone change does not include any proposal
for physical development on the site. Any future development on the site will be subject to City standards
regarding water quality, drainage and erosion control, including storm water permit (NPDES)
requirements and best management practices. In addition, according to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical
Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992, the project site is located in an area where
development will not have a significant impact to groundwater. Therefore, the project will not violate any
water quality standards, deplete groundwater supplies or quality, substantially alter existing drainage
patterns, cause substantial erosion or flooding, or significantly impact the capacity of stormwater drainage
systems.
h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map?
9 Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact (h & I) - The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according to the
Flood Insurance Rate Map. Therefore, the proposed land use and zone change will not result in housing
or structures within a 100-year flood hazard area.
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No Impact (j & k) - According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping
Study, November 1992, the project site is not located within any dam failure inundation area, or area
subject to inundation by seiche or tsunami. Therefore, the proposed land use and zone change will not
result in exposing people or structures to significant risk from flooding as a result of a dam failure, or
from inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters.
m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives,
synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving
surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or
following construction?
26 Rev. 07/03/02
0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean
Water Act Section 303(d) list?
p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives
or degradation of beneficial uses?
No Impact 0, m, n, o & p) - The project site is not located adjacent to any body of water. Drainage
from the site is subject to the City’s drainage and storm water pollution control standards (NPDES and
best management practices), which ensure that sediment and pollutants fiom any development of the site
will not discharge into any downstream receiving surface waters. Also, the City’s drainage and storm
water pollution control standards ensure that development does not reduce water quality of any marine,
fresh or wetland waters or groundwater. In addition, the proposed land use and zone change does not
include a proposal for any physical development of the project site. Therefore, the project will not
adversely impact water quality. Any future development proposals will be subject to further
environmental review pursuant to CEQA, and will be subject to the City’s drainage and storm water
pollution control standards.
LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact - The project site is an infill site surrounded by urban development. The proposed land use
and zone change consists of changing the existing commercial designation to a residential designation.
The project site is surrounded by residential development. Future residential development of the site will
be compatible with and integrate into the existing community. Therefore, the project will not physically
divide an established community.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated - The proposed project consists of a land use
and zone change fiom a commercial land usehone designation to a residential land use/zone designation.
It is not relevant to consider whether or not the proposed land usehone designation conflicts with the
existing land usehone designation, since the proposal is to remove the existing designation and apply a
new one. With regard to consistency with the remainder of the policies and regulations of the City’s
General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program, the proposed residential land use
designation does not conflict with any of the provisions of those documents, with the exception of the
Noise Element of the General Plan. Further discussion of the noise issues and mitigation can be found
below under the questions related to “Noise”. With the mitigation described below, the proposed
residential land use designation will not conflict with the policies of the General Plan
With regard to other policies of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, the proposed residential land use
designation (RM - Residential Medium Density 4 - 8 ddac) does not conflict with any other goal,
objective, policy or program. The proposed land use is consistent and compatible with the surrounding
residential development, which is also designated RM. The land use designation would provide for the
potential to develop 30 dwelling units on the site, which will not exceed any Growth Management
Program policy, and all public facilities and services are adequate to serve such a use. The site is also
adequate in area to accommodate a residential development consistent with all required development
standards.
27 Rev. 07/03/02
With regard to the Local Coastal Program (Le), the LCP land use and zoning designation will also be
changed from commercial to residential. The proposed residential land use and zone designation would
not conflict with any provision or policy within the LCP. The original adoption of the Mello I Segment
of the LCP required that the site be developed with 35% tourist commercial uses, which is a priority use
in the Coastal Zone. However, the later adoption of the Mello II Segment removed the requirement for
35% tourist commercial uses on the site, which eliminated the concern that a residential land use would
remove a priority land use designation. There is no other policy within the LCP that would prohibit a
residential land use on the property. Therefore, the proposed land use designation does not conflict with
the LCP.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
No Impact - The project site is an undeveloped infill site that is surrounded by urban development. The
site is not identified in any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan
as having potential habitat or natural community constraints. Therefore, the proposed land use and zone
change will not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation
plan.
MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) 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?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
No Impact (a & b) - According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping
Study, November 1992, the project site does not contain any mineral resources. Therefore, the proposed
land use and zone change will not result in the loss of availability of a know mineral resource or mineral
resource recovery site.
NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in
the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated - The Noise Element of the General Plan
specifies that sixty (60) dB CNEL is the exterior noise level to which all residential units should be
mitigated, and that interior noise levels should be mitigated to 45 dB CNEL. According to the Noise
Contour Map contained within the General Plan, the project site contains noise contours of 70 - 75 dB
CNEL These high noise levels are primarily generated from traffic on Interstate 5 (west of the site) and
Poinsettia Lane (north of the site).
URS Corporation prepared a Noise Analysis (July 10, 2002) for the proposed land use and zone change.
The Noise Analysis verified that the noise levels on the site exceed the acceptable noise levels specified
in the General Plan for residential uses. The highest noise levels detected on the site were 76 dB CNEL at
the west side of the site near Interstate 5, and 66 dB CNEL at the north side of the site near Poinsettia
Lane. Future noise levels at City build-out are projected to be 77 dB CNEL on the west side of the
property, 69 dB CNEL on the north side, 65 dB CNEL on the east side, and 64 dB CNEL on the south
side. These projected noise levels are at ground-level. The Noise Analysis also calculated noise levels
for a second story, which are one to two decibels higher than the ground-level (first floor).
28 Rev. 07/03/02
The Noise Analysis considered various land use scenarios, including three residential densities (RM 4-8
ddac, RMH 8-15 ddac, & RH 15-23 ddac), office, commercial (existing designation), and hoteVmote1.
For each land use alternative the Noise Analysis concluded that the noise level could be reduced to a level
acceptable for the specified land use with the incorporation of mitigation, sptdkally a sound
barriedwall.
In the case of a proposed residential land use designation, including the proposed RM designation, the
Noise Analysis concluded that the following mitigation measures would be necessary to achieve an
exterior noise level of 60 dB CNEL and an interior noise level of 45 dB CNEL:
1. 10-foot high solid wall along the west side of the property (5 feet back from the top of the
2. 8-foot high solid wall along the north property line
3. 6-foot high solid wall along the east property line
4. Closed-window condition on residential units, which will require an alternative means of
ventilation, such as heat pumps or forced-air units.
5. Second story residential units would require double-pane windows (no special window glazing
would be necessary on first floor windows with the construction of the noise walls specified
above).
6. Windows and sliding glass doors facing Interstate 5 and Poinsettia Land would need to have a
Sound Transmission Class (STC) of at least 30 - 35.
7. Doors would need to be solid core and equipped with an appropriate gasket.
existing slope)
Noise barrier walls would also be necessary to mitigate noise for the other land uses reviewed in the
Noise Analysis (office, commercial, hoteYmotel). The noise walls would range form 6 to 8 feet (2 feet
less than those required for a residential land use).
Because there is no development project currently associated with the proposed land use and zone change,
the noise mitigation measures recommended in the Noise Analysis were made to determine the feasibility
of reducing noise levels to below the level of significance. A site-specific noise study based on an actual
project design will have to be completed for any hture development proposal.
The Noise Analysis also calculated the potential noise generated by trafftc from the different land uses,
and the impacts site generated traffic noise might have to adjacent properties. There are existing
residences located adjacent to the south property line of the site, across Paseo Del Norte to the east and
across Poinsettia Lane to the north. Many of the existing residences have existing barriers that minimize
roadway noise. The Noise Analysis concluded that noise levels at residences across Poinsettia Lane north
of the site would vary by less than 1 dBA for all land uses analyzed. The noise levels at residences along
Poinsettia Lane east of the site and south of the site would vary by less than 2 dBA for residential, office
and hoteVmote1 uses, but would increase by approximately 6 dBA for commercial use. Therefore, traffic
generated noise from the proposed residential land use would not significantly impact adjacent properties,
while traffic generated noise from a commercial land use could potentially have a significant impact on
adjacent residences.
Therefore, with the mitigation measures specified in the Noise Analysis prepared by URS Corporation,
dated July 10, 2002, the proposed residential land use will not expose people to and will not generate
noise levels in excess of standards established in the General Plan.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or
groundbourne noise levels?
No Impact - Based upon the nature of the proposed residential land use, the project will not result in any
activity that would generate excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels. In addition,
the project site is not located adjacent to any use that generates excessive groundbourne vibration or
groundbourne noise levels. Although the site is adjacent to Interstate 5, the noise levels from the freeway
29 Rev. 07/03/02
are traffic generated and do not generate excessive groundbourne vibration or noise (the impacts of the
traffic generated noise are discussed above). Therefore, the proposed land use and zone change will not
result in the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne
noise levels.
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Less than Significant Impact (c & d) - As discussed above, a Noise Analysis was prepared for the
proposed land use and zone change. The Noise Analysis concluded that traffic generated noise from the
proposed residential land use (above that existing today and projected in the future) would be
insignificant (less than 1 &A). Other than traffic generated noise, typical residential land uses do not
generate a substantial amount of noise. With regard to temporary or periodic increase in noise levels, the
only potential increase in noise would be from construction activity associated with a future development
project. The City incorporates standard regulations on all project construction activity to ensure that noise
and other potential impacts to surrounding properties are not significant. Therefore, the proposed land
use and zone change will not result in a substantial permanent or temporary increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact (e & f) - The project site is located approximately 1.8 miles from the McClellan-Palomar
Airport. However, the site is not located within an area impacted by excessive noise levels generated by
the airport. The site is not located near any other public or private airport. Therefore, the proposed land
use and zone change will not expose people to excessive noise levels generated from an airport.
POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
Less than Significant Impact - The proposed land use and zone change will result in the potential for 40
dwelling units on the site (at maximum density), which is not substantial. The additional 40 dwelling
units is consistent with the City’s growth projections contained in the Growth Management Program.
Because all public facilities (roads, infrastructure, etc) have been planned to accommodate the growth
anticipated in the Growth Management Program, no substantial new roads or infixstructure will be
necessary. Therefore, the project will not induce substantial growth either directly or indirectly.
30 Rev. 07/03/02
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
No Impact (b & c)- The project site is undeveloped. Therefore,. the proposed land use and zone change
will not displace any existing housing or people.
PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or
physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection? ii. Police protection? iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities?
No Impact (a.i to a.v.) - Although the proposed land use and zone change will result in additional
residential units, those additional units will be provided for through the City’s “excess dwelling unit
bank”, which ensures the dwelling unit limitations in the City’s Growth Management Program, and those
of the applicable Local Facilities Management Plan, will not be exceeded. The project site is located
within Local Facilities Management Zone 4. The provisions of public facilities within LFMZ 4, including
fire & police protection, parks, libraries and other public facilities, have been planned to accommodate the
projected growth of that area. Because the project will not exceed the total growth projections anticipated
within LFMZ 4, all public facilities will be adequate to serve residential development on the site.
Therefore, the project will not result in substantial adverse impacts to or result in the need for additional
government facilities.
RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
No Impact (a & b) - As part of the City’s Growth Management Program, a performance standard for
parks was adopted. The park performance standard requires that 3 acres of Community Park and Special
Use Area per 1,000 population within a park district (quadrant) must be provided.
The project site is located within Park District #3 (Southwest Quadrant). The necessary park acreage to
achieve the GMP standard (3 acres/1,000 population) for Park District #3 was based upon the GMP
dwelling unit limitation for the Southwest Quadrant, which is 12,859 units.
31 Rev. 07/03/02
Although the proposed land use change will result in additional residential units in the SW Quadrant,
those units will be provided for through the “excess dwelling unit bank”, which ensures the GMP
dwelling unit limit will not be exceeded. In addition, the Parks and Recreation Element states that the
park acreage demand for the SW Quadrant, based on the GMP dwelling unit limit, is 89.41 acres, and the
anticipated park acreage to be provided at build-out will be 96.25 acres. Therefore, there will be adequate
parkland within the SW Quadrant, and the proposed land use change will not cause additional demand for
parkland or expansion of recreational facilites. Because park facilities will be adequate to serve
residential development on the site, any increase in use of park facilities generated from future
development of the site will not result in substantial physical deterioration of any park facility.
TRANSPORTATION/C-Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and
capacity of the street system?
Less Than Significant Impact. Based upon the density range (4-8 ddac) of the proposed RM land use
designation, which could result in 40 dwelling units on the site at maximum density, the proposed RM
land use designation has the potential to generate 400 Average Daily Trips (ADT) and 40 peak hour trips.
The 400 ADT is based on the standard trip generation rate for single family residential development (10
tripddu). The standard trip generation rate for multifamily development (condominiums/apartments) is
less (8 tripddu).
Traffic from future residential development on the site will utilize Poinsettia Lane and Paseo Del Norte.
Existing traffic on Poinsettia Lane (major arterial) between Interstate 5 and Paseo Del Norte is 28,559
ADT (2001) and east of Paseo Del Norte is 22,030 ADT (2001). The existing traffic on Paseo Del
Nortekowder Lane (collector) south of Poinsettia Lane is 1,470 ADT (2002), and Paseo Del Norte
(secondary arterial) north of Poinsettia Lane is 10,406 ADT (2001). The 2001 peak hour level of service
at the arterial intersection impacted by the project (Poinsettia Lane and Paseo Del Norte) is LOS “A”.
The design capacity of Poinsettia Lane is 40,000 vehicles per day. The design capacity of Paseo Del
Norte south of Poinsettia Lane is 10,000 vehicles per day and north of Poinsettia Lane is 20,000 vehicles
per day. According to the City Traffic Engineer, the proposed residential land use will not change the
LOS on any roadway. The street system has been designed and sized to accommodate traffk from such
development and cumulative development in the City of Carlsbad. The proposed land use and zone
change would not, therefore, cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system. The impacts from future residential development on the site are,
therefore, less than significant.
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by
the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
Less Than Significant Impact - SANDAG acting as the County Congestion Management Agency has
designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway
segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The Existing and Buildout average daily
traffic (ADT) and Existing LOS on these designated roads and highways in Carlsbad is:
Existing ADT* Buildout ADT*
Rancho Santa Fe Road 15-32 “A-C” 28-43
El Camino Real 21-50 “A-C” 32-65
Palomar Airport Road 10-52 “A-B” 29-77
SR 78 120 “F” 144
1-5 183-198 “D” 2 19-249
*The numbers are in thousands of daily trips.
32 Rev. 07/03/02
The Congestion Management Program’s (CMP) acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard is “E, or
LOS “F” if that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (e.g., SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS “F” in 1990).
Accordingly, all designated roads and highways are currently operating at or better than the acceptable
standard LOS.
Note that the buildout ADT projections are based on the full implementation of the region’s general and
community plans. The proposed land use and zone change is consistent with the growth projections of
the general plan and, therefore, its traffic was used in modeling the buildout projections. Achievement of
the CMP acceptable Level of Service (LOS) “E” standard assumes implementation of the adopted CMP
strategies. Based on the design capacity(ies) of the designated roads and highways and implementation of
the CMP strategies, they will function at acceptable level(s) of service in the short-term and at buildout.
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or
a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
No Impact - The proposed residential land use designatiodzone does not include any aviation
components. The project site is not located within the McClellan-Palomar Airport influence area and
does not conflict with any provision of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the McClellan-Palomar
Airport. It would not, therefore, result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety
risks. No impact assessed.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses?
No Impact - The proposed land use and zone change does not include a proposal for any physical
development of the project site. All circulation improvements associated with future residential
development of the site will be designed and constructed to City standards; and, therefore, would not
result in design hazards. The proposed residential land use is consistent and compatible with surrounding
land uses. Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use. No impact assessed.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No Impact - The proposed land use and zone change does not include a proposal for any physical
development of the project site. Any future residential development resulting from the proposed land use
and zone change will be required to be designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and
Police Departments. No impact assessed.
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
No Impact - The proposed land use and zone change does not include a proposal for any physical
development of the project site. Any future residential development resulting from the proposed land use
and zone change will be required to comply with the City’s parking requirements to ensure an adequate
parking supply. No impact assessed.
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)?
No Impact - The proposed land use and zone change does not include a proposal for any physical
development of the project site. Any future residential development resulting from the proposed land use
and zone change will be required to comply with any applicable policies, plans and programs supporting
alternative transportation. No impact assessed.
33 Rev. 07/03/02
UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
No Impact - The proposed land use and zone change does not include a proposal for any physical
development of the project site. Any future residential development resulting from the proposed land use
and zone change will be required to comply with all Regional Water Quality Control Board
Requirements. In addition, LFMP Zone 4 anticipated that the project site would be developed with a
commercial use and wastewater treatment facilities were planned and designed to accommodate a
commercial use on the site. The proposed residential land use will have a lesser demand for wastewater
treatment facilities. Therefore, the project will not result in development that will exceed wastewater
treatment requirements.
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand
in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
No Impact @, c, d & e) - All public facilities, including water facilities, wastewater treatment facilities
and drainage facilities, have been planned and designed to accommodate the growth projections for the
City at build-out. In addition, LFMP Zone 4 anticipated that the project site would be developed with a
commercial use and water, wastewater treatment and storm water drainage facilities were planned and
designed to accommodate a commercial use on the site. The proposed residential land use will have a
lesser demand on such facilities than the anticipated commercial development. Also, the proposed
residential land use will not result in growth that exceeds the City’s growth projections. Therefore, the
proposed land use and zone change will not result in a significant need to expand or construct new water
facilities/supplies, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage facilities.
0 Be served by a landfill with suficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact (f & g) - Based on the nature proposed residential land use, and the projected density (40
dwelling units), existing waste disposal services are adequate to serve a residential use on the site without
exceeding landfill capacities. In addition, any future residential development resulting from the proposed
land use and zone change will be required to comply with all federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste.
34 Rev. 01/03/02
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?
No Impact - Based upon the nature of the proposed residential land use/zone, the project will not degrade
the quality of the environment. The project site does not contain any fish or wildlife species. Therefore,
the project will not reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species.
The project site is an undeveloped infill site that has been disturbed through grading, and is not identified
by any habitat conservation plan as containing a protected, rare or endangered plant or animal
community. Therefore, the project will not threaten or reduce the number a plant or animal community.
In addition, there is no historic structures on the site and there‘ is no known cultural resources on the site.
Any future residential development on the site will be required to comply with the City’s Cultural
Resource Guidelines. Therefore, the project will not result in the elimination of any important examples
of California History or prehistory.
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?)
Less than Significant Impact - San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projects regional
growth for the greater San Diego area, and local general plan land use policies are incorporated into
SANDAG projections. Based upon those projections, region-wide standards, including storm water
quality control, air quality standards, habitat conservation, congestion management standards, etc, are
established to reduce the cumulative impacts of development in the region. All of the City’s development
standards and regulations are consistent with the region-wide standards. The City’s standards and
regulations, including grading standards, water quality and drainage standards, traffic standards, habitat
and cultural resource protection regulations, and public facility standards, ensure that development within
the City will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact.
There are two regional issues that development within the City of Carlsbad has the potential to have a
cumulatively considerable impact on. Those issues are air quality and regional circulation. As discussed
above, the proposed land use and zone change will result in a potential for future residential development,
which would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions
throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with a future residential
development would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with a residential
development of the site, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the residential
development is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15 130 (a)(4), the project’s
contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than
significant.
Also, as discussed above, the County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) has designated three roads
(Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad
as part of the regional circulation system. The CMA has determined, based on the City’s growth
projections in the General Plan, that these designated roadways will function at acceptable levels of
service in the short-term and at build-out. The project is consistent with the City’s growth projections,
and therefore, the cumulative impact from the project to the regional circulation system is less than
significant.
35 Rev. 07/03/02
With regard to any other potential impact associated with the project, City standards and regulations will
ensure that future residential development on the site will not result in a significant cumulative
considerable impact.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated - Based upon the nature of the proposed
residential land use, and that any future development of the site will comply with City standards, the
residential land use designation will not result in any substantial adverse environmental effects. However,
the project site is located in an area where human beings could be exposed to significantly high noise
levels generated from traffic on adjacent roadways. As discussed above, any potential impact from noise
can be mitigated to a level less than significant. Those mitigation measures will be incorporated as
conditions of project approval. Any future residential development on the site will be required to comply
with all applicable federal, state, regional and City regulations, which will ensure the development of the
site will not result in an adverse impact on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
EARL.IER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
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.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Final Master Environmental Imuact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MER
93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994.
City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mauuinp; Study, November 1992.
Noise Analysis, prepared for the City of Carlsbad by URS Corporation, July 10,2002.
Carlsbad General Plan, September 6, 1994.
Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 4, May 1987.
36 Rev. 07/03/02
~~
To mitigate noise levels on the site to not exceed 60 dB CNEL (exterior) and 45 dl3 CNEL (interior), as
specified in the General Plan for residential land uses, the following mitigation measures shall be applied
to any future residential development on the project site:
e Any proposal to construct residential units on the project site shall include a site
specific/project design specific noise analysis. Such noise analysis shall specify the exact
noise mitigation necessary for the specific project to reduce exterior noise levels to not
exceed 60 dB CNEL, and interior noise levels to not exceed 45 dB CNEL.
e Unless evidence is provided that justifies mitigation other than that specified in the Noise
Analysis prepared for this project, dated July 10, 2002, the following mitigation measures
shall be incorporated into any future residential development on the project site:
e 10-foot high solid wall along the west side of the property (5 feet back fiom the top
of the existing slope). City standards do not allow walls to exceed 6 feet in height.
Therefore, the noise barrier wall may be a combination of earthen berm with a 6 foot
maximum solid wall above. Transparent materials, such as acrylic panels, may be
utilized to maintain views, if evidence shows that they will be effective in providing
the necessary noise mitigation. The design of all walls will be subject to City review
and approval.
e 8-foot high solid wall along the north property line. City standards do not allow
walls to exceed 6 feet in height. Therefore, the noise barrier wall may be a
combination of earthen berm with a 6 foot maximum solid wall above. Transparent
materials, such as acrylic panels, may be utilized to maintain views, if evidence
shows that they will be effective in providing the necessary noise mitigation. The
design of all walls will be subject to City review and approval.
e 6-foot high solid wall along the east property line.
e Closed-window condition on residential units, which will require an alternative
means of ventilation, such as heat pumps or forced-air units.
e Second story residential units would require double-pane windows (no special
window glazing would be necessary on first floor windows with the construction of
the noise walls specified above).
e Windows and sliding glass doors facing Interstate 5 and Poinsettia Lane would need
to have a Sound Transmission Class (STC) of at least 30 - 35.
e Doors would need to be solid core and equipped with an appropriate gasket.
37 Rev. 07/03/02
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.
38 Rev. 07/03/02
. ~~ ~~ ~~
ADDENDUM TO THE
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR
SMITH PROPERTY LAND USE CHANGE
GPA 02-02 / ZC 02-03 / LCPA 02-05
This Addendum to the project Mitigated Negative Declaration is to clarify and modify the project
description. The modification to the project description is insignificant and does not create any new
significant environmental effect that was not previously identified.
The modified project description is as follows:
Project Description:
The Carlsbad City Council has directed City staff to process and make recommendations for an
appropriate residential land use designation on the Smith property located on the southeast corner
of Interstate 5 and Poinsettia Lane. The project site is a 5.12 acre undeveloped infill site that is
surrounded by urban development.
The current General Plan and Local Coastal Program land use designation is N (Neighborhood
Commercial). The current Citv zone and Local Coastal Program zone designation is C-1-Q
(Neighborhood Commercial in a Qualified Development Overlay Zone). The site is also located
within the Commercial Visitor-ServinP Overlay Zone, and is within the Mello I Segment of
the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program (LCP) i.
Pursuant to City Council direction, staff is processing a General Plan Amendment (GPA 02-02),
Zone Change (ZC 02-03) and Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 02-05) to change the
current neighborhood commercial land use and zoning designations to the following residential
designations:
0 Land Use - RM - Medium Density (4 - 8 du/ac)
(Note: Based upon the project site area (5.12 acres), the proposed RM land use
designation would allow up to 40 dwelling units on the site at maximum density.)
0 Zone - RDM-Q (Residential Density-Multiple Zone / Qualified Development
Overlay), without the Commercial Visitor-Serving Overlay Zone.
0 Local Coastal Propram Land Use - RM (Residential Medium Densitv - 4-8
du/ac)
0 Local Coastal Program Zoning - RDM-O (Residential Densitv - Multiple
Zone/Oualified Overlay Zone), without the Commercial Visitor-Serving Overlay
Zone.
The Local Coastal Program amendment also includes a modification to the Mello I SePment
text to reflect the proposed residential land use desimation. The text amendment will also
incorporate awlicable land use policies previously adopted in the Mello 11 Sepment that
suDercede those in the Mello I Segment.
DATE: August 14,2002
PROJECT NAME: SMITH PROPERTY LAND USE CHANGE FILE NUMBERS: GPA 02-02 / ZC 02-03 / LCPA 02-05
APPROVAL DATE: CONDITIONAL NEG. DEC.:
I and- implemented, and fulfills the -City’s monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code Section I 21081.6).
The following environmental mitigation measures are included in the Findings for approval of this project, which ensure that identified z n
environmental impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. These mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the Conditions of 5
Approval for future residential development projects on the project site in order to mitigate the identified environmental impacts to a level of
insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure has been complied with E m
Mitigation Measure
Any proposal to construct residential units on the
project site shall include a site specific/project design
specific noise analysis. Such noise analysis shall
specify the exact noise mitigation necessary for the
specific project to reduce exterior noise levels to not
exceed 60 dB CNEL, and interior noise levels to not
exceed 45 dB CNEL.
Unless evidence is provided that justifies mitigation
other than that specified in the Noise Analysis prepared
for this project, dated July IO, 2002, the following
mitigation measures shall be incorporated into any
future residential development on the project site:
Monitoring
Type
Future Project
Future Project
Monitoring
Department
Planning
Planning
Shown on
Plans
N/A
N/A
Verified
Implementation Remarks
I To be verified with
future residential
development
projects on the site
To be verified with
future residential
development
projects on the site
Exdanation of Headinas:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular
mitigation measure.
information. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be
initialed and dated.
Verified Implementation =When mitigation measure has been implemented,
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other
this column will be initialed and dated.
RD - Appendix P.
2
Mitigation Measure
A. IO-foot high solid wall along the west side of the
property (5 feet back from the top of the existing
slope). City standards do not allow walls to exceed
6 feet in height. Therefore, the noise barrier wall
may be a combination of earthen berm with a 6 foot
maximum solid wall above. Transparent materials,
such as acrylic panels, may be utilized to maintain
views, if evidence shows that they will be effective
in providing the necessary noise mitigation. The
design of all walls will be subject to City review and
approval.
B. 8-foot high solid wall along the north property line.
City standards do not allow walls to exceed 6 feet
in height. Therefore, the noise barrier wall may be
a combination of earthen berm with a 6 foot
maximum solid wall above. Transparent materials,
such as acrylic panels, may be utilized to maintain
views, if evidence shows that they will be effective
in providing the necessary noise mitigation. The
design of all walls will be subject to City review and
approval.
C. 6-foot high solid wall along the east property line.
D. Closed-window condition on residential units, which
will require an alternative means of ventilation,
such as heat pumps or forced-air units.
ExDlanation of Headinas: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular
mitigation measure.
information.
Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated.
Monitoring
Type
Future Project
Future Project
Future Project
Future Project
Monitoring
Department
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
a Shown on
Plans
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
Verified
Implementation
To be verified with
future residential
development
projects on the site
To be verified with
future residential
development
projects on the site
To be verified with
future residential
development
projects on the site
To be verified with
future residential
development
projects on the site
Remarks
Verified Implementation =When mitigation measure has been implemented,
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other
this column will be initialed and dated.
RD - Appendix P.
3
Mitigation Measure Monitoring Monitoring Shown on
Type Department Plans
E. Second story residential units would require
double-pane windows (no special window glazing Future Project Planning NIA
would be necessary on first floor windows with the
construction of the noise walls specified above).
~~~
F. Windows and sliding glass doors facing Interstate 5
and Poinsettia Lane would need to have a Sound Future Planning NIA
Transmission Class (STC) of at least 30 - 35.
11 G. Doors would need to be solid core and eauimed i I I I I /I- ~~
with an appropriate gasket. -I ~ I- I- ~ ~ Future Project Planning I I NIA
Explanation of Headinas: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure.
information.
Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be
initialed and dated.
To be verified with
future residential
development
projects on the site
~~ To be verified with
future residential
development
projects on the site
To be verified with
future residential
development
projects on the site
Verified Implementation =When mitigation measure has been implemented,
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other this column will be initialed and dated.
RD - Appendix P.