HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-01-15; Planning Commission; Resolution 53351
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. 5335
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING OF A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
TO ALLOW AN 11 UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER
OF JEFFERSON STREET AND LAS FLORES DRIVE IN
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: FARBER JEFFERSON STREET CONDO
CASE NO.: CT 02-13/CP 02-08/CDP 02-32/SDP 02-14
WHEREAS, Farber Family Limited Partnership, “Developer/Owner,” has
filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as:
That portion of Tract 2 of Laguna Mesa Tract, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according
to Map thereof No. 1719, filed in the office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, June 20,1921
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with
said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 15th day of January, 2003,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby ADOPTS the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program according to Exhibit “ND”
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
dated December 9, 2002, and “PII” dated October 18, 2002, attached hereto and
made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A) it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration for
and SDP 02-14, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any
comments thereon prior to APPROVING the project; and
FARBER JEFFERSON STREET CONDO - CT 02-13, CP 02-08, CDP 02-32
B) the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and
the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
C) it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
D) based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the
project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Conditions:
1. The Developer shall implement or cause the implementation of the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program. ...
. ..
...
...
...
...
.I
PC RES0 NO. 5335 -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
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of January, 2003, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Heineman, Segall, White, and
Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Dominguez
ABSTAIN: None
, Chairperson
PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5335 -3-
- City of Carlsbad
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddresdLocation: Northeast comer of Jefferson Street and Las Flores Dr.
Project Description: A Tentative Map, Condominium Permit, Coastal Development
Permit, and Site Development Plan to allow grading and
construction of 11 two and three story condominium units
including 2 affordable units, with a roof deck and subterranean
parking structure on an existing lot located at the northeast comer
of Jefferson Street and Las Flores Drive. The project requires the
demolition of an existing single story residence. Access to the
project will be taken fiom Las Flores Drive via a driveway entry to
an underground parking structure.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the
initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1)
revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the
proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment
would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City
that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this
action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the
Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30
days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning
Department at (760) 602-4622
DATED: DECEMBER 9,2002
CASE NO: CT 02-1 3/CP 02-08/CDP 02-32/SDP 02-14
CASE NAME: FARBER JEFFERSON STREET CONDO
PUBLISH DATE: DECEMBER 9,2002
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us @
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CT 02-13/CP 02-O8/CDP 02-32/SDP 02-14 DATE: 10-18-02
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
CASE NAME: Farber Jefferson Street Condo
LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: Citv of Carlsbad
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Anne Hysong. (760) 602-4622
PROJECT LOCATION: Northeast corner of Jefferson Street and Las Flores Dr.
PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: Curt Farber, 2235 Encinitas Blvd, #104,
Encinitas. CA 92024
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RMH
ZONING: R-3
OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing
approval or participation agreements): CALTRANS
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
A tentative map, condominium permit, coastal development permit. and site development plan to
allow grading and construction of 11 two and three stow condominium units including 2
affordable units, wjth a roof deck and a subterranean parking structure on an existing lot located
at the northeast corner of Jefferson Street and Las Flores Drive. The project requires the
demolition of an existing single story residence. Access to the proiect will be taken from Las
Flores Drive via a driveway entry to an underground uarkina structure.
1 Rev. 07/03/02
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
0 Agricultural Resources
0 Geology/Soils [XI Noise
0 Air Quality [7 Hydrologyrnater Quality 0 Public Services
Biological Resources 0 Land Use and Planning [7 Recreation
Cultural Resources 0 Mineral Resources 0 TransportatiodCirculation
Mandatory Findings of
Significance 0 Utilities & Service Systems
2 Rev. 07/03/02
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have
been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have "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.
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.
0 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 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 appropriate “Potentially
Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration
may be prepared.
4 Rev. 07/03/02
0 An EIR 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 significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding
Considerations” for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (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. 07fO3fQ2
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0
0
0
0
0
0
(XI
(XI b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and hstoric
buildings within a State scenic hghway?
0 0
0
[x] 0
(XI
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
0 0 d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
II. 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:
0 0 0 IXI 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-agncultural
use?
0
0
0 IXI b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
IXI 0 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?
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:
0 0
0 IXI
IXI a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
0 0 b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
6 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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)?
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the
project:
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?
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?
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?
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?
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
Impact tributary areas that are environmentally
sensitive?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
IXI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No
Impact
17
(XI
IXI
IXI
IXI
[XI
Ixl
[XI
[XI
IXI
7 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a historical resource as defined in 6 15064.5?
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi-
cal resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
IV. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving:
i.
11.
... 111.
iv.
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.
Strong seismic ground shaking?
Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
Landslides?
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
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?
Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
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?
8
Potentially Significant Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
I7 o
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than Significant Impact
0
0
0
0
Kl
IXI
1sI
0
0
0
0
No Impact
IXI
Kl
IXI
IXI
0
0
Kl
IXI
IXI
Kl
IXI
Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
IV. 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?
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?
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
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?
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?
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?
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
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?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
Potentially Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact
Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
0 17 0 IXI 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 whxh permits
have been granted)?
0
0
0
0
0
17
[XI
[XI
c) Impacts to groundwater quality?
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?
0 0 IXI 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 0 17 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 runoff!
0
0
0
0
17
0
IXI
IXI
g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
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?
0 0 [XI
[XI
i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures,
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
0 0 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?
k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 0
0
0
0
0
0 1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface
waters.
10 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Ix.
X.
X.
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?
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?
LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) 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?
c) 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 hture 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?
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?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise
levels?
Potentially
Significant Impact
0
17
0
CI
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impact
Mitigation Incorporated
Unless Impact
0 ow
0 015)
0
0 ow
0
0
IXI 00
0 wo
11 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation Incorporated
A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
0 0 ow
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
0 0 ow
For a project located within an airport land use plan 0
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 OB
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?
0 0 om
X. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
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)?
0 0 0IxI
Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing 0 ow
elsewhere?
Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? CI 0 0IxI
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?
0 0 OIXI
0 OH
0 0 ow
0 0 ow
0 0 ow
12 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
XIV. RECREATION
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?
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?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRC - Would the project:
Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic 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)?
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
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?
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Result in inadequate emergency access?
Result in insufficient parking capacity?
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn-
outs, bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the
project:
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0
0
IXI
[XI
0
0
[XI
0
0
0
0
No
Impact
[XI
[XI
0
0
[x]
[XI
0
IXI
IXI
IXI
[XI
13 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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?
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
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?
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs?
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
XVII. 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 prehstory?
b) 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?)
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which
will cause the substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES
Potentially Potentlally Less Than
Significant Significant Significant
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated 0 0 17
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 w
o w 0
No
[mpact
IXI
[x]
1sI
IXI
IXI
w
0
0
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
14 Rev. 07/03/02
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.
15 Rev. 07/03/02
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Environmental Setting
The multi-family project is proposed at the corner of Jefferson Street, a collector street, and Las Flores
Drive, just west of the Las Flores 1-5 off-ramp in the City’s northwest quadrant. The one acre lot is
designated by the General Plan for Residential Medium-High (RMH) density development (8 - 15
du/acre with 11.5 growth control point) and zoned R-3 (Multiple Family Zone). The site is currently
occupied by a single story, single family residence, and surrounding development includes both single
family and multiple family units. The existing building pad rises above Jefferson Street approximately
12-13’ from an elevation of 63’ on Jefferson to 75’ at the top of slope and 76’ - 77’ at the center of the
site. Although the building pad would be raised approximately 1.5’-2.5’ above existing grade to 78.5’ to
enable driveway access to the subterranean garage, the building pad would not expand beyond the
existing pad area. The building pad is separated from Jefferson Street approximately 20’ - 40’ by an
existing driveway that provides access to the adjacent property to the north and a combination of
retaining wall and 2:l manufactured slope. The buildable pad is separated from the northern interior
property line by a 10’ - 25’ exclusive use easement granted to the adjacent property owner in which no
structure is allowed. A triangular shaped Caltrans easement separates the property from Las Flores
Drive. The result of these intervening improvements andor easements is that the buildable pad area is a
greater distance from the right-of-way linedproperty lines where required building setbacks are typically
measured thereby increasing the distance between roadways/property lines and the proposed
development.
AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
No Impact - Jefferson Street is identified as a scenic highway. Since the project’s Jefferson Street
frontage is currently improved with landscaping and an existing driveway, no further landscape
enhancement within the right-of-way is required. The slope beyond the right-of-way will be landscaped
with a combination of shrubs and trees and amenities to ensure an aesthetically pleasing appearance. The
condominium structures are a maximum of 35’ in height with views of the Buena Vista Lagoon. The
location of the structures west of the 1-5 freeway will result in minimal obstruction of distant views of the
lagoon from east of the freeway.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
No Impact @) - The project site is currently developed with a single family home. There are no
scenic resources on the site. There are no significant trees or vegetation that could be damaged
from future development of the site.
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
Less than Significant Impact (c) - The proposed project will not degrade the visual character or quality
of the site. Although the site and surrounding area are designated and zoned for multi-family
development, the surrounding neighborhood consists of both single family and multi-family units.
Important land use compatibility considerations between single family and multi-family developments
are development intensity. i.e., building coverage and building height. The project will result in the
demolition of a single story single family residence and development of a two and three story stacked
condominium with an underground parlung structure that results in 32% lot coverage on the one acre site.
Much of the site design, which is not considered in the coverage calculation, consists of outdoor living
area. The 32% building coverage and outdoor living area is consistent with single family development.
16 Rev. 07/03/02
To ensure building height compatibility with adjacent one and two-story structures, the project
transitions from two story units (29’) along the interior side and street side (Las Flores) property lines, to
three stories units (35’) in the central portion of the site. Additionally, the three-story segment is setback
from the top of slope along Jefferson Street a minimum of 46’, a minimum of 26’ from the Las Flores
Drive right-of-way line, and a minimum of 24’ from the northern property line. Based on the above
described site design that results in 32% building coverage, increased setbacks, transition from two
stories to three stories, and orientation of units toward the rear of the site, the visual character of the site
is changed but not significantly reduced or degraded.
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 11 unit project is adjacent to the 1-5 corridor and will not result in the
creation of substantial Iight and glare beyond the existing condition.
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 project 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 project will not conflict with any agricultural zoning or contracts.
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 infill and has been surrounded by residential development for many years.
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 (PM,,). 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 (SNAG).
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
17 Rev. Oll03l02
approval. After 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.
Section 15125(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:
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 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.
a) 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 200 1) 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. (Add the following text addressing short-term emissions, if there is grading
associated with the project.) The project would involve minimal short-term emissions associated with
grading and construction. Such emissions would be minimized through standard construction measures
such as the use of properly tuned equipment and watering the site for dust control. Long-term emissions
associated with travel to and from the project will be minimal. Although air pollutant emissions would
be associated with the project, 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 impact is assessed as less than
significant.
b) 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 fine particulates. The proposed project would represent a contribution to a cumulatively
considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however,
emissions associated with the proposed project would be minimal. Given the limited emissions
potentially associated with the proposed project, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not
the proposed project is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 (a)(4), the
proposed project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is
assessed as less than significant.
18 Rev. Q7lQ3lO2
c) Expose sensitive receptors to Substantial pollutant concentrations?
No Impact. As noted above, the proposed project 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. No impact is assessed.
d) Create objectionable odors affecting a Substantial number of people?
No Impact. The construction of the proposed project 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?
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, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact (a, b & c) - The project site is a previously developed infill site that 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.
a) 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 a previously developed infill site that is surrounded by urban
development. The site is not located within any identified native or migratory wildlife corridor, nor is it
located adjacent to any area identified as a wildlife corridor. Therefore, the project will not interfere
with any native or migratory wildlife corridor or native wildlife nursery site.
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 a previously developed infill site that is surrounded by urban
development. There are no known biological resources on the project site that would be protected by
local policies or ordinances.
19 Rev. 07/03/02
f) 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 a previously developed infill site that is surrounded by urban
development. The site does not contain any habitat identified by a local, regional or state habitat
conservation plan.
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.
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, b, c & d) - The project site is a one acre infill site that has been previously developed.
The site is surrounded by urban development including the 1-5 freeway. There are no known historical,
archeological, or paleontological resources or human remains on the project site.
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.iii.) - 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 future dwelling constructed on the site must comply with the UBC earthquake construction
20 Rev. Q7103102
standards, the proposed land use and zone change will not expose people or structures to substantial
adverse effects from the risks associated with earthquakes.
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 - 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 project’s compliance with standards in the City’s Excavation and Grading Ordinance that prevent
erosion through slope planting and installation of desiltation basins or other temporary means will avoid
substantial soil erosion impacts.
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 geotechnical investigation prepared for the project by Engineering Design
Group, 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.
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 geotechnical investigation prepared for the project by Engineering
Design Group, expansive soils are not significant on the site.
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?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
21 Rev. 07/03/02
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 site is not included on a hazardous materials site and the
residential project has no hazardous use potential.
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?
f) 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 the McClellan Palomar Airport Influence
Area identified on the City’s General Plan land use map. Therefore, the project 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) -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:
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
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)?
Impacts to groundwater quality?
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?
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?
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?
22 Rev. 07/03/02
g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
No Impact (a, b, c, d, e, f & g) - The infill project will rely on an existing public storm drain system
and is subject to City standards regarding water quality, drainage and erosion control, including storm
water permit ODES) requirements and best management practices. The project is conditioned to
require a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) that is consistent with the conceptual Storm Water
Management Plan prepared for the project to ensure that it is designed and constructed in compliance
with the City’s NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction
Activity issued by the State Water Resources Control Board and the San Diego NPDES Municipal Storm
Water Permit issued to San Diego County and Cities by the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board.
In addition, according to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study,
November 1992, and the geotechnical investigation prepared for the project by Engineering Design
Group, 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?
i) 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 project will not result in housing or structures within a 100-
year flood hazard area.
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?
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 project will not expose people or structures to
significant risk fi-om flooding as a result of a dam failure, or fi-om inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters.
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)?
Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or
following construction?
Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean
Water Act Section 303(d) list?
23 Rev. 07/03/02
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 directly 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 from any
development of the site will not discharge into any downstream receiving surface waters. The project will
be conditioned to prepare a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) to ensure that stormwater runoff
will not exceed existing 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.
LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact - The project site is an infill site surrounded by single family and multiple family residential
development. 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?
No Impact - The project is consistent with the designated Residential Medium High (RMH) General
Plan land use designation, the multiple family (R-3) zoning, and the applicable Mello II LCP policies and
implementing ordinances in that storm water runoff will be designed consistent with required standards
including the Carlsbad Municipal Code Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance
(Chapter 15.12 of the CMC) and applicable provisions of the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water
Discharges Associated with Construction Activity issued by the State Water Resources Control Board
and any subsequent amendments, and the San Diego NPDES Municipal Storm Water Permit. The
project density of 11 dwelling unitdacre is also consistent with the applicable Growth Management
growth control point for the RMH land use thereby ensuring that quadrant dwelling unit caps are not
exceeded.
The project is consistent and compatible with the surrounding residential single family and multiple
family development through its design in which increased setbacks are proposed from adjacent single
family development and roadways. 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.
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:
24 Rev. Q7lQ3102
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.
A noise analysis performed for the project due to its proximity to the 1-5 freeway and Jefferson Street
revealed that the required common and private recreation areas would be impacted by noise levels that
exceed the City’s 60 dBA CNEL exterior noise standard. Mitigation required to reduce noise levels
include plexi-glass noise walls surrounding selected common and private yard, patios, and balcony decks
to ensure that the required exterior noise standard is satisfied. The analysis also revealed that interior
noise mitigation would be necessary to achieve the City’s 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard.
Although the project is proposing a total of 7,171 square feet of private and common outdoor recreational
space, the required recreational space requiring conformance with the City’s exterior noise standard of 60
dBA CNEL is 2,200 square feet. Due to the project’s proximity to the 1-5 freeway to the east, the noise
analysis concludes that no reasonable mitigation can achieve a 60 dBA CNEL downstairs noise level on
the eastern side of the buildings; therefore, none of the recreational space provided along that elevation
would meet the City’s exterior noise standard. The acoustical analysis recommends that to attenuate
noise to the greatest extent possible (70 dBA), a 6’ high sound attenuation wall should be provided along
the eastern property line. As recommended, the required private passive recreational space required to
meet the City’s exterior noise standard is provided along the western building elevation where noise
levels are somewhat reduced due to the condominium structure which will act as a noise barrier between
1-5 and the outdoor space. Due to noise levels along Jefferson Street, 5’ - 6’ high plexiglass walls will
be required to attenuate noise around private patios facing Jefferson Street. According to the analysis,
the 31d story deck (Decks C and D), a fire pit and lawn area totaling approximately 2,250 square feet,
required to satisfy the project’s common active recreational requirement, would be mitigated to the 60
dBA standard through provision of a 5’ wall along the western elevation and a 6’ - 8’ wall along the
eastern elevation of the decks and a 2‘ wall surrounding the fire pit and 6’ wall surrounding a passive
lawn area. The following table reflects the required mitigation requirement:
Location
Eastern Property Line
Unit A Western Patio
Unit B Western Patio
Unit C Western Deck
Wall Height Noise Level
dBA CNEL
6’
6’
5’
5.5’
71
60
60
60
25 Rev. 07/03/02
Unit D Western Deck
Unit E Western Patio
Unit F Western Deck
Unit G Western Deck
Unit H Western Patio
Unit I Western Patio
Unit J Western Patio
Unit K Western Patio
Common Deck D (Western Elevation)
Common Deck C (Eastern Elevation)
Fire pit
Common Area 2A
5.5’
5’
5’
5’
5’
5’
5’
5’
5’
6’ - 8’
2’
6’
60
60
57
57
57
57
57
58
56
60
60
60
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. Therefore, the project 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) -The proposed 11 unit residential condominium project would
generate only 88 ADT which is not sufficient to result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. With regard to temporary or
periodic increase in noise levels, the only potential increase in noise would be from construction activity
associated with development of the 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 project 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?
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?
No Impact (e & f) - The project is not located within the boundaries of the McClellan Palomar Airport
influence area and no private airstrips are located within the vicinity.
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?
26 Rev. 07/03/02
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 to provide for adequate
park facilities in each quadrant. The project site is located within Park District #1 (Northwest Quadrant).
The necessary park acreage to achieve the GMP standard (3 acredl ,000 population) for Park District #1
was based upon the GMP dwelling unit limitation. The project is consistent with the density permitted
by the GMP and parks demand, in the northwest quadrant does not currently exceed the supply.
Therefore, parks facilities are adequate to accommodate the project.
The project does include private recreational facilities consisting of common and private passive areas.
These facilities are integrated into the project design thereby avoiding an adverse physical effect on the
environment.
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC-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. The project will generate 88 Average Daily Trips (ADT) and 8 peak
hour trips. This traffic will utilize the following roadways: Las Flores Drive and Jefferson Street. Note:
these roadways are not classified as arterials. Existing traffic on this (these) roadways are 9,800 ADT
and 14,000 ADT respectively (2001) and the 2001 peak hour level of service at the roadway
intersection(s) impacted by the project is C. The design capacities of the roads affected by the proposed
project are 10,000 ADT and 20,000 ADT vehicles per day. The project traffic would represent 4% and
<<1% respectively of the existing traffic volume and the design capacity respectively. While the
increase in traffic from the proposed project may be slightly noticeable, the street system has been
designed and sized to accommodate traffic from the project and cumulative development in the City of
Carlsbad. The proposed project 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 the proposed
project 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* - LOS Buildout ADT*
Rancho Sank 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.
27 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 project is consistent with 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.
a) 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 project does not include any aviation components. The project is consistent
with 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.
b) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses?
No Impact. All project circulation improvements will be designed and constructed to City standards;
and, therefore, would not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the City’s
general plan and zoning. Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use. No
impact assessed.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency
requirements of the Fire and Police Departments. The project will be conditioned to obtain an access
easement from the adjacent property owner over an existing driveway on Jefferson Street and to provide
a fire hydrant along the northern property line to ensure adequate emergency access.
a) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
No Impact. The proposed project is not requesting a parking variance. Additionally, the project
complies with the City’s parking requirements to ensure an adequate parking supply. No impact
assessed.
b) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)?
No Impact. The multi-family project is served by public transportation in that bus service is available on
Jefferson Street and the Coaster commuter train is located within one mile of the project.
UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
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?
28 Rev. 07/03/02
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 (a, b, 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. The proposed residential land use will not result in growth that exceeds the
City’s growth projections. Therefore, the project will not result in a significant need to expand or
construct new water facilities/supplies, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage facilities.
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient 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) - Existing waste disposal services are provided to the site and are adequate to serve
residential use on the site without exceeding landfill capacities.
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 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 a previously developed 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.
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?)
29 Rev. 07/03/02
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 project will result in 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 15130 (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.
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?
Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated - Based upon the nature of the proposed residential land
use which is in compliance with City standards, the project 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.
30 Rev. 07/03/02
EARLIER 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. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MER
93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994.
2. City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mappine Study, November 1992.
3. ”Geotechnical Investigation and Foundation Recommendations for Proposed Multi-Family
Development.. .” prepared by Engineering Design Group, dated December 22,2000.
4. “Acoustical Impact Analysis - Jefferson Street Project” prepared by Giroux & Associates, dated
February 22,2001, and addendum dated November 14,2002.
5. “Traffic Analysis - Las Flores Drive Condominiums, Carlsbad, California”, prepared by
Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers dated November 29,200 1
6. “Storm Water Management Plan” prepared by Piro Engineering, dated October, 2002.
31 Rev. 07/03/02
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
Noise Mitigation:
Mitigation required to achieve the required 45 dBA CNEL interior standard includes central air
conditioning, premium dual paned windows, double layer drywall installed on resilient channels,
acoustically lined ducts and vents. The Phase II acoustical study required with final building plans will
verify that interior standards based on the 70 - 78 dBA CNEL exterior noise levels are satisfied.
A solid 6’ high wall around the eastern and northern property line shall be required to reduce the noise
level at the first story units.
The following table reflects the required mitigation requirement to be shown on the building plans and
approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of building permits:
Location
Eastern Property Line
Unit A Western Patio
Unit B Western Patio
Unit C Western Deck
Unit D Western Deck
Unit E Western Patio
Unit F Western Deck
Unit G Western Deck
Unit H Western Patio
Unit I Western Patio
Unit J Western Patio
Unit K Western Patio
Common Deck D (Western Elevation)
Common Deck C (Eastern Elevation)
Fire pit
Common Area 2A
Noise Attenuation Noise Level
(Wall Height) dBA CNEL
6’
6’
5’
5.5’
5.5’
5’
5’
5’
5’
5’
5’
5’
5’
6’- 8’
2’
6’
71
60
60
60
60
60
57
57
57
57
57
58
56
60
60
60
32 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.
33 Rev. 07/03/02
~-
1
PROJECT NAME: Farber Jefferson Street Condo FILE NUMBERS: CT 02-13/CP 02-081CDP 02-32/SDP 02-14
APPROVAL DATE: Januarv 15,2003 CONDITIONAL NEG. DEC.:
The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate 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 and implemented, and fulfills the City's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). -.
Mitigation Measure
Noise Mitigation:
Mitigation required to achieve the required 45 dBA CNEL interior standard includes central air conditioning, premium dual paned
windows, double layer drywall installed on resilient channels,
acoustically lined ducts and vents. The Phase II acoustical study required with final building plans will verify that interior standards based
on the 70 - 78 dBA CNEL exterior noise levels are satisfied.
A solid 6' high wall around the eastern and northern property line shall
be required to reduce the noise level at the first story units.
The following table reflects the required mitigation requirement to be shown on the building plans and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of building permits:
Location Noise Attenuation (Wall Heiaht
Eastern Property Line 6' Unit A Western Patio 6' Unit B Western Patio 5'
Unit C Western Deck 5.5'
Unit E Western Deck 5'
Unit F Western Deck 5'
Unit G Western Deck 5'
Unit H Western Patio 5'
Unit I Western Patio 5'
Unit J Western Patio 5'
Unit K Westem Patio 5'
Common Deck D (Western Elevation) 5'
Common Deck C (Eastern Elevation) 6' - 8' Fire pit 2' Common Area 2A 6'
Exdanation of Headinas: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure.
Monitoring
Type
3uilding
'lancheck
Monitoring
Department
Planning
Shown on
Plans
Building
Verified
Implementation 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.
information. Show on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this cOhmn will be RD - Appendix P.
initialed and dated.