HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-06-18; Planning Commission; Resolution 54341
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. 5434
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW THE SUBDIVISION
SPACE CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT GENERALLY
LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF LA COSTA AVENUE,
BETWEEN RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD AND CENTELLA
STREET IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6.
CASE NAME: CASA LA COSTA
AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 39-UNIT MULTIFAMILY AIR-
CASE NO.: CT 02-29/CP 03-02/SDP 02-1 8
WHEREAS, Rancho La Costa LLC, “Developer/Owner,yy has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
That portion of Lot 249 of La Costa Vale Unit No. 1, according
to Map No. 7457, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego,
State of California, and amended as shown on Certificate of
Compliance recorded November 9, 1981 as Instrument #81-
354864, both on file in the Office of the County Recorder of
San Diego County
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 18th day of June, 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 Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
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
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby ADOPTS the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit
“NOI” dated May 29, 2003, “ND” dated June 18, 2003, and “PII” dated May 21,
2003, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findiqps:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration and the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments
thereon prior to APPROVING the project; and
b. the Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
d. based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of June, 2003, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Dominguez, Heineman,
Montgomery, Segall, White, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
R, Chairperson
PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. H~Z~LER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5434 -2-
- City of Carlsbad
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME:
CASE NO:
PROJECT LOCATION:
Casa La Costa
CT 02-29/CP 03-02/SDP 02-18
Southwest of La Costa Avenue, between Levante Street and
Rancho Santa Fe Road, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for a Negative Declaration, Tentative Tract Map,
Condominium Permit, and Site Development Plan to allow the development of a 39 unit
multifamily residential air-space condominium project, on a vacant, previously graded 4.49 acre
site.
PROPOSED DETERMINATION: 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) did not identi@ any potentially
significant impacts on the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration will be
recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission.
A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Negative
Declaration are 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 20 days of the date of this notice.
The proposed project and Negative Declaration are subject to review and approvalladoption by
the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council. Additional public notices will be
issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Michael
Grim in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4623.
PUBLIC REVIEW PEFUOD May 29.2003 to June 17,2003
PUBLISH DATE May 29.2003
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 ww. Ydmmw."= @
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME: Casa La Costa
PROJECT LOCATION:
Santa Fe Road, City of Carlsbad, County of San Dieno
CASE NO: CT 02-29/CP 03-02/SDP 02-1 8
Southwest of La Costa Avenue, between Levante Street and Rancho
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for a Negative Declaration, Tentative Tract Map,
Condominium Permit, and Site Development Plan to allow the development of a 39 unit
multifamilv residential air-space condominium project, on a vacant, previously graded 4.49 acre site
DETERMINATION: 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) did not identify any potentially significant impacts on the
environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows:
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment.
0 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. (Negative
Declaration applies only to the effects that remained to be addressed).
0 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 ENVRONMENTAL 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.
A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is
on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008.
ADOPTED: June 18, 2003, pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 5434
ATTEST:
Planning Director
@ 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 6024600 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 02-29/CP 03-02/SDP 02-1 8
DATE: May 20,2003
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
CASE NAME: Casa La Costa
LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: Citv of Carlsbad
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUh4BER: Michael Grim (760) 602-4623
PROJECT LOCATION:
Rancho Santa Fe Road, in the Citv of Carlsbad
PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: Rancho La Costa LLC, 28118 Agoura
Rd. Agoura Hills CA 9 130 1
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Medium High Densitv (RMH)
ZONING: Residential Density-Multiple with a Qualified Development Overlay (RD-M-0)
OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits,
financing approval or participation agreements): none
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
Southwest of La Costa Avenue, between Levante Street and
Request for a Negative Declaration, Tentative Tract Map, Condominium Permit, and Site
Development Plan to allow the development of a 39 unit multifamily residential air-space
condominium proiect, on a vacant. previously maded 4.49 acre site generally located southwest
of La Costa Avenue. between Levante Street and Rancho Santa Fe Road in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego.
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.
_. u Aesthetics 0 Geology/Soils Noise
0 Agricultural Resources HazardsEIazardous Materials c] and Housing
0 Air Quality 0 HydrologyDVater Quality Public Services
0 Biological Resources 0 Land Use and Planning [3 Recreation
0 Cultural Resources 0 Mineral Resources 0 TransportatiodCirculation
0 Utilities & Service Systems Mandatory Findings of
Significance
2 Rev. 07/03/02
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
IXI
0
0
0
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been
added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have “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.
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 $J 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 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 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. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) 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?
d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
6
11. AGRICULTURAL 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-1 997 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?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
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:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
Potentially Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact
Mitigation Incorporated
Unless Impact
17
o OIXI
OM
0
0
0
0
OIXI
6 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated
c) 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)?
0 0 IXIO
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? 0 0
0 0
OIXI
OIXI e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
IV. 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?
0 0 OB
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?
0 0 OIXI
0 0 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?
OIXI
0 0 OB 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?
0 0 OIXI e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
0 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?
0 g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally
sensitive? 00
7 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant Significant
Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated
No
Impact
IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a historical resource as defined in Q 15064.5? 0 0 0 Ixl
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to Q 15064.5? 0 0 0 IXI
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi-
cal resource or site or unique geologic feature? 0 0 0 IXI
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries? 0 0 0 IXI
IV. 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 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.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 0
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides? o 0 o 0 a) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
0 b) 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?
c) 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?
0 0
0 d) 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?
0
8 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:
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact Mitigation’ Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ow
ow
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
ow
ow
ow
ow
9 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Impact
Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless Impact
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)?
0 0 OH
OH c) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0
0 OH 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?
OH 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, whch would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
0 0
Q 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 OH
0
0
0
0
OH 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
IZip?
OH
0
0
0
0
OH
OIXI
i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures,
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
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
0
0
0
OB
OH
k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface
waters.
10 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated o 0 OIXI 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)?
o I7 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?
IX. 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?
X. 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?
X. 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?
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise
levels?
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ON
UIXI
ON
OIXI
ON
OIXI
11 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact Mitigation
Incorporated 0 0 om c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
0 0 Ian d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
0 0 OB 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 worlung in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
0 0 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?
X. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
0 0 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)? o 0 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
0 0 c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
2UII. 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?
OIXI om
OIXI
OB
12 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation Incorporated
XIV. RECREATION
0 0 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?
OH
o 0 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?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - 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)?
0 0
0 0 HO Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for des,ignated roads or
highways?
0 0 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 Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
0 0 OBI Result in inadequate emergency access?
0
0
0
0
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:
a) 0
o 0
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?
OH
13 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact Mitigation
Incorporated 0 0 OB 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 UIXI d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
0 OM 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?
0 0 ON f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs?
0 0 UIXI g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
OIXI 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?
o 0 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?)
0 0 c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
14 Rev. Q7lQ3IQ2
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Rancho La Costa LLC is requesting approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Condominium Permit, and Site Development
Plan to allow the subdivision and construction of a 39 unit, multifamily air-space residential condominium
development. The 4.49 acre site is located southwest of La Costa Avenue, between Levante Street and Rancho Santa
Fe Road. The site is designated Residential Medium High (RMH) in the City’s General Plan and zoned RD-M-Q
(Residential Density - Multiple with a Qualified Development Overlay). The subject property is almost completely
surrounded by roadways; those being La Costa Avenue to the northeast, Levante Street to the northwest, Rancho
Santa Fe Road to the southeast, and Centella Street to the west. South of the project is the parking area for the
Carlsbad Boys and Girls Club.
The project site is mostly vacant and clear of native vegetation, however a temporary City fire station (Fire Station
#6) occupies approximately 0.44 acres on the northwestern portion of the site, fronting on Levante Street. The area
covering the existing fire station is planned as the second phase of residential development, once the temporary fire
station is relocated. The development plan includes temporary grading, landscaping, and walls to accommodate the
station and buffer the proposed residences from the temporary land use to the extent feasible. There are several tall
trees on the property, including eucalyptus, pines and melaleucas. According to a “Tree Report” prepared by the
applicant’s landscape architect, dated March 6, 2003, none of these trees are considered landmark trees nor do they
constitute sensitive native habitat; they are proposed for removal prior to development. The proposed development
plan includes a number of large trees within the project site and along the La Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe
Road frontages.
The proposed development would consist of 12 residential buildings, private dnves, three common recreation
facilities, 16 surface guest parking spaces, and a recreational vehicle storage area. The residential buildings would
consist of one duplex, seven three-plex buildings and four four-plex buildings. All units would include a private
two-car garage. The buildings would contain two stories and would measure a maximum of 27 feet in height to the
peak of the roof. The air-space condominium units would range in size from 1,034 square feet to 2,226 square feet
and would be accessed off of the project’s internal pedestrian walkway system. The project architecture would
follow a California Mediterranean theme with stucco walls and tile roofs, incorporating strong architectural relief
and numerous design elements. The total building coverage would be 57,135 square feet (or 29 percent of the site).
The common recreational areas would include a central active area with a large lawn area and children’s play
equipment, a shuffleboard area with seating, and a passive area with barbeque, tables and chairs, and decorative
paving.
The proposed residential development would necessitate removaVrecompaction of approximately 12,000 cubic yards
of materials. The actual grading quantities are estimated to be a balanced cut and fill of 6,685 cubic yards. The site
development would include several retaining walls, measuring a maximum of five feet tall. The project site would
take access off of Levante Street at two locations in addition to an access off of Centella Street. The estimated traffic
generation would be 312 average daily trips. The project would be required to comply with the City’s National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit through the implementation of Best Management
Practices, this reducing the amount of pollutants entering the public storm drain system. Due to the project’s
proximity to La Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road, a site-specific noise study was conducted. That noise
study indicated the need for noise attenuation walls along the project’s frontage with La Costa Avenue, Rancho Santa
Fe Road, and a portion of Levante Street. In addition, due to the lack of intervening buildings, the noise attenuation
wall would also be required along the southern property line, adjacent to the Carlsbad Boys and Girls Club site.
These walls would range in height from four to six feet in height and would be incorporated into the project design.
Given the above, and the following discussion, the project as designed would not create any significant adverse
environmental impacts.
AESTHETICS
No Impact. The project site is a relatively flat, pregraded pad within a developed portion of the City; no scenic
vistas or scenic resources exist on the site. The proposed residential architecture meets the requirements of the
City’s Planned Development Ordinance for architectural design and would be consistent with the surrounding
residential structures. No substantial sources of light or glare are proposed with the project; the only lighting being
that normally associated with residential development. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts to aesthetics will
occur.
15 Rev. 07/03/02
AGFUCULTURAL RESOURCES
No Impact. The project site is currently vacant, with no existing or previous agricultural activities taking place.
There are no nearby farmlands or lands under Williamson Act contract, therefore no impacts to such will occur.
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 (Os), 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 (SANDAG).
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. 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 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
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 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 2001) and one day in
2001 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
16 Rev. 07/03/02
(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 15 130 (a)(4), the proposed project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considered
de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than significant.
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.
4 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
No Impact. As stated above, the project site is a vacant, pregraded area with some isolated trees and shrubs. No
native vegetation or habitats exist on or near the property. In addition, no sensitive or endangered species reside or
use the property. The City’s Habitat Management Plan does not identify the site for preservation and no local
policies or ordinances exist regarding the removal of mature non-native trees. Therefore, no adverse impacts to
biological resources will occur.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
No Impact. As stated in the project-specific cultural resources survey (RECON, 2002), no recorded archeological
sites are located within the project site and those within one-half mile are in developed areas and no longer exist. A
site-specific survey revealed no evidence of cultural resources on the mite. No historic buildings or structures exist
on the project site. Therefore, no adverse impacts to cultural resources will occur.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
No Impact. According to the project-specific geotechcal report (Construction Testing and Engineering, Inc.,
2002), no unusual geotechnical or seismic conditions exist on the project site. The site is not located within a Fault-
Rupture Hazard Zone and is not subject to liquefaction or landslides. The report does recommend the
overexcavation and removal of the top three and one-half feet of soils. Therefore, no adverse impacts due to geology
or soils will occur.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
No Impact. The proposed residential development would not cause any significant impacts with regard to hazards
or hazardous materials. The site is not designated as a hazardous materials site nor is it located with an airport land
use plan or in proximity to an airstrip. No uses other than residential condominiums and associated recreational
areas are proposed therefore no significant sources of hazardous emissions or materials are anticipated. The project
is required to maintain an all-weather access road throughout construction and provide for emergency fire prevention
water on site prior to the storage of any hazardous construction materials. Therefore, the Casa La Costa
development will not produce any significant adverse impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials.
17 Rev. 07/03/02
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
No Impact. According to the project-specific hydrology report (Pacific Coast Civil, Inc., 2003), no adverse
hydrologic conditions or impacts would occur with the proposed development. No wells or deep excavation are
proposed therefore no impacts to groundwater supplies, recharge, or quality will occur. The site grading closely
follows the existing topography thus continuing to direct the surface drainage southward towards the existing surface
drainage system on Centella Street. The project site is not within the 100-year floodplain nor is it subject to
flooding, seiches, tsunamis, or mudslides. The project is designed with Best Management Practices for storm water
quality, including swales and subsurface drainage features, and must comply with the City’s National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System permit requirements. Therefore, the Casa La Costa residential subdivision will not
cause any significant adverse impacts to hydrology and water quality.
LAND USE AND PLANNING
No Impact. The project site is currently vacant and is surrounded by existing roadways and will not physically
divide an established community. The proposed residential development is consistent with the applicable policies
and regulations contained in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. As stated above, there is no native habitat on
the project site and the City’s Habitat Management Plan does not identify any resource conservation areas in or near
the project site. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts to land use and planning will occur.
MINERAL RESOURCES
No Impact. There are no known mineral resources within the project area and no locally important mineral resource
recovery site is delineated within the City’s General Plan or other land use plan. No loss in availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value to the region or the residents of the State will occur. Therefore, the
Casa La Costa project will not produce any significant adverse impacts to mineral resources.
NOISE
Less than Significant Impact. The project site is bounded by La Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road, both
arterial roadways that could, at buildout, produce roadway noise that exceeds the City’s General Plan Noise Element
standard. Therefore, the project is designed with a sound attenuation wall along these two frontages, as well as
adjacent to a portion of the Levante Street frontage and the southern property line. The construction of the project is
anticipated to produce short-term noise impacts, however the developer must comply with the City’s regulations
regarding the timing of construction noise. Given the short-term nature and regulatory controls, the construction
impacts are considered less than significant. The project site is located within 3 miles of the McClellan-Palornar
airport and, as such, requires notification of all future property owners about the possibility for aircraft overflight and
airplane noise. Given the project boundary sound attenuation walls, regulatory controls on construction timing, and
the advisory notice for aircraft overflight, the proposed residential subdivision would produce less than significant
adverse impacts with regard to noise.
POPULATION AND HOUSING
No Impact. The residential density proposed with the subdivision is 8.7 dwelling units per developable acre. Based
upon the Residential Medium High Density (RMH) General Plan land use designation of the project site (as adjusted
by the City’s Growth Management Control Point), the property could contain between 8.0 and 11.5 dwelling units
per developable acre. The proposed density is within the realm anticipated by the City’s General Plan and, therefore,
would not induce substantial growth to the area. No existing housing exists on site nor uses the property for access
and no displacement of any people will occur. In addition, the project is paying an affordable housing fee to
compensate for the fair share cost of constructing housing affordable to lower income households. Therefore, the
Casa La Costa project will not produce any significant adverse impacts to population and housing.
PUBLIC SERVICES
No Impact. The proposed 39-unit residential condominium will not result in the need for new or physically altered
government facilities in that it complies with all requirements and standards of the City’s Growth Management
program. It is located adjacent to an existing fire station and is served by the Carlsbad Police Department. The
Encinitas Union and San Dieguito Union High School Districts have stated that the development can be provided
school services by those districts. All other public facilities are required to be in place concurrent, or prior to,
18 Rev. 01/03/02
construction. Therefore, the Casa La Costa residential project will not produce any significant adverse impacts to
Public Services.
RECREATION
No Impact. Pursuant to the City Ordinances, the project developer must pay a park-in-lieu fee to compensate for
their fair share of park demand. According to the City’s Growth Management program, there will be adequate park
facilities within the southeastern quadrant of the City to accommodate the park demand generated by the project. In
addition, the development would contain common recreation areas within the project site. These recreation areas and
sized based upon the number of dwelling units and meet all applicable regulations. Therefore, no significant adverse
impacts to recreation will occur.
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 3 12 Average Daily Trips (ADT). This traffic will utilize
the following roadways - La Costa Avenue, Rancho Santa Fe Road, Levante Road and Centella Road. Existing
traffic on these arterials is below peak hour and overall design capacity and all, roadways operate at an acceptable
level of service. 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 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.
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 capacities of the designated roads and highways
and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will hction at acceptable levels 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?
19 Rev. 07/03/02
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.
c) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and Police
Departments. No impact assessed.
d) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
No Impact. The proposed project is not requesting a parking variance. Additionally, the project would comply with
the City’s parking requirements to ensure an adequate parking supply. No impact assessed.
e) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)?
No Impact. (Note whether the project is near public transportation. If not, then state that the project is not served
by or not located in an area conducive to public transportation.) (Note bike racks are not necessary for a single-
family residential project. Otherwise, condition the project to install bike racks and note here that the project has
been so conditioned.)
UTILITY AND SERVICES SYSTEMS
No Impact. The proposed residential development is required to provide all necessary utility and service systems
necessary to serve the development concurrent or prior to construction. The proposed 39 EDUs of wastewater can
be accommodated in the local system without the need for expansions. The Leucadia Municipal Water District has
indicated that there is adequate water supply and water distribution systems to serve the proposed development. The
project also complies with all applicable regulations, including that for solid waste. Therefore, the project will not
cause any significant adverse impacts to utilities and service systems.
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 (MEIR 93-01).
City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994.
2. Geotechnical Recommendations Proposed 39-unit Condominium Development. Construction Testing and
Engineering, Inc. December 2002.
3. Preliminary Hvdroloev and Detention Calculations for Casa La Costa. Pacific Coast Civil, Inc. February
2003.
4. Acoustical Analvsis Report - Casa La Costa Condominiums. Medlin and Associates. December 2002.
5. Tree Report. Susan E. McEowen, Landscape Architect. March 2003.
6. Cultural Resource Survev of the La Costa Parcel at the Corner of La Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe
Road, Carlsbad, CA. RECON. October, 2002.
20 Rev. 01/03/02