HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-02-11; City Council; 17076; Villa Paradisio ZC 01-12/LCPA 01-12CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL I
W# 17,076
IEPT. PLN &
VILLA PARADlSlO ~TG, 2-11-03
TITLE:
ZC 01-12/LCPA 01-12 ,
I I
TECOMMENDED ACTION:
rhat the Council INTRODUCE Ordinance No. NS-657 , APPROVING Zoning Change
!C 01-12, and ADOPT Resolution No. 2003-045 ADOPTING a Mitigated Negative
Ieclaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and APPROVING Zone Change ZC
11-12 and Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 01-12 based on the findings and subject to the
:onditions contained therein.
TEM EXPLANATION:
Proiect aDDlication(s) I Administrative I Reviewed by and I To be Reviewed - I Final at Council
The request is for a Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment to replace the existing
3ne-Family Residential (R-I) designation with Residential Density-Multiple (RD-M) on the 0.7-acre
site. The designation change is necessary to develop the site with the proposed 13-unit
:ondominiurn project. The zone designation is consistent with the RH General Plan land use
lesignation which would allow a density of 19 du/ac under Growth Management. Development of
:he site with 13 condominium units would result in a density of 18.4 du/ac.
3n January 15, 2003, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 (Commissioner Dominguez absent and
me seat vacant) to approve the tentative subdivision map, condominium permit, site development
,Ian, and coastal development permit for the proposed 13-unit condominium project. The Planning
>ommission also made a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the Mitigated Negative
leclaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approve the Zone Change and
-oca1 Coastal Program Amendment.
The site is located in the North Beach Planning and Traffic Study Area which analyzed areas that
Should retain their R-I zone designation even though the General Plan land use designation would
allow higher densities. Because this site is surrounded by multi-family uses, it was not identified as
an area suitable for the R-I designation. Therefore, rezoning the property to a zone designation that
Mould implement the higher density General Plan designation was supported.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
Based on an environmental impact assessment conducted by staff, potentially significant noise and
dibration impacts from the adjacent railroad and noise impacts from traffic on Tamarack Avenue
Mere found to impact the project. Mitigation measures have been imposed to reduce those impacts
to below a level of significance. The Planning Director issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration on
November 29, 2002. No comments were received during the 30-day public review period.
I
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. l7r076
FISCAL IMPACT:
All public infrastructure required by this project would be funded by the developer.
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Ordinance No. NS-657
2. City Council Resolution No. 2003-045
3. Location Map
4. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5328, 5329, and 5330
5. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated January 15, 2003
6. Draft Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated January 15, 2003. NOT AVAILABLE
d
1
2
3
4
,S
6
i
E
s
1c
11
12
12
14
15
It
li
18
15
2(
21
22
22
24
25
2t
27
2E
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-045
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND APPROVING A ZONE
CHANGE AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT TO
REZONE A 0.7 ACRE PARCEL GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE
SOUTH SIDE OF TAMARACK AVENUE, WEST OF THE
RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: VILLA PARADlSlO
CASE NO.: ZC 01-12/LCPA 01-12
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as
follows:
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on January 15, 2003. hold a duly
noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Zone Change 01-12 and Local Coastal Program
Amendment 01-12 to rezone 0.7acres of land from Residential One-Family (R-I) to Residential
Density-Multiple (RD-M), and adopted Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5328, 5329, and
5330 recommending to the City Council that they be approved; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did on the -11th day of February , 2003
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Zone Change, and Local Coastal
Program Amendment and;
+I
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the City Council considered all factors
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,
Zone Change, and Local Coastal Program Amendment.
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California does hereby resolve as
follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the findings of the Planning Commission in Planning Commission
Resolutions No. 5328, 5329 and 5330 constitute the findings of the City Council in this matter.
3. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment, ZC 01-12 and 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
E
S
IC
11
12
1:
1'
1:
1t
1;
1)
1'
2(
.. 2:
2:
2:
2r
2t
2(
2
21
LCPA 01-12 respectively, are approved as shown in Planning Commission Resolutions NO.
5328. 5329 and 5330 on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference .
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of'the City Council Of the city Of
Carlsbad on the 11th day of February 2003, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Finnila, Kulchin, Hall and Packard
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ATTEST:
J
LOdRAlNE M. WOOD, City Clerk
(SEAL)
Resolution No. 2003-045 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
t
i
E
s
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 21.05.030 OF
THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY AN AMENDMENT TO
THE ZONING MAP TO GRANT A ZONE CHANGE, ZC 01-12,
FROM R-I TO RD-M ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF TAMARACK
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: VILLA PARADlSlO
CASE NO.: ’. zc 01-12
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California does ordain as follows:
AVENUE, WEST OF THE RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY IN
1 SECTION I: That Section 21.050.30 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, being the
I zoning map, is amended as shown on the map marked Exhibit “ZC 01-12 attached hereto and
made a part hereof.
SECTION II: That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission as
set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5329 constitute the findings and conditions of
the City Council.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its
adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be
published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation within fifteen days after its
adoption. (Not withstanding the preceding, this ordinance shall not be effective within the City’s
Coastal Zone until approved by the California Coastal Commission.) e
c
I
l
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City
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 AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the
day of , 2003, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk
(SEAL)
c
Ordinance No. NS-657 -2-
ZONE CHANGE zc 01 -1 2
drafi [XI final
Project Name: Villa Paradisio - ZC 01-12
Propelty/Legal Description@): APN 206-020-08 That portion of Lot 6 in Block S of Palisades Number Two, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California, according to Map thereof No 1003, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, on
August 25,1924
02-07/SDP 01-13lCDP 01-30
Related Case File No(s): LCPA 01-12/CT 02-1 11CP
Zone Change Approvals
Property/APN(s) Council Approval Date: To: From:
A. 206-020-08 Resolution No: RD-M R-1
Effective Date:
Signature:
I I I
Attach additional pages if necessary I
5
EXHIBIT 3
S
VILLA PARADISIO
ZC Ol-l2/LCPA 01-12
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
EXHIBIT 4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5328
A RESOLUTION OF THE. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
UNIT AIRSPACE CONDOMINIUM ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
PROGRAM TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 13-
TAMARACK AVENUE, WEST OF THE RAILROAD RIGHT-
OF-WAY IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: VILLA PARADISIO
CASE NO.: ZC Ol-l2/LCPA 01-12/CT 02-1 l/CP 02-07:
SDP 01-13/ CDP 01-38
WHEREAS, Randall K. Lockett, “OwnerDeveloper,” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
That portion of Lot 6 in Block S of Palisades Number Two, in
the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to Map thereof No. 1803, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, on August 25,1924
(“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 RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative 9
1
L
f
f
I
I(
1:
1:
1:
lr
I!
It
1:
If
l!
2(
2:
2:
2:
21
21
2f
2:
28
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program according to
Exhibit "ND" dated November 29, 2002, and "PII" dated October 25, 2002,
attached hereto and made a.part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findinps:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
C)
Dl
Conditions:
It has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration for
I3/CDP 01-38, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and
any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project:
and
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
It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
Based on the EM Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
VILLA PARADISIO - ZC 01-12/LCPA Ol-lZ/CT 02-11/CP 02-07/SDP 01-
1. The Developer shall implement or cause the implementation of the Villa Paradisio
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
...
...
...
t..
PC RES0 NO. 5328 -2-
1
1
t
I
<
1(
11
12
1:
1'
15
1C
1;
18
1s
2c
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
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5328 -3-
~ Citv of Carlsbad
-
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: South side of Tamarack Avenue, west of the railroad r.0.w. in the
City of Carlsbad, California, County of San Diego
(APN 206-020-08)
Project Description: Thirteen (13) unit condominium project.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the
initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1)
revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the
proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment
would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City
that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this
action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the
Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30
days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Barbara Kennedy in the Planning
Department at (760) 602-4626.
DATED:
CASE NO:
CASE NAME:
PUBLISH DATE:
NOVEMBER 29,2002
CT 02-11/ZC 01-12/LCPA 01-12ICP 02-07/SDP O1-13/CDP 01-38
VILLA PARADISIO
NOVEMBER 29,2002
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad. CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 - FAX (760) 602-8559 - www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us /P
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CT 02-11ICP 02-07iLCPA Ol-12iZC 01-12ISDP 01-13ICDP 01-38
DATE: October 25.2002
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Villa Paradisio
2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad. Plannine Department: 1635
Faradav Ave.. Carlsbad. CA 92008
3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER Barbara Kennedv, 760-602-4626
4. PROJECT LOCATION: Southwest comer of Tamarack Avenue and the RR r.0.w. (APN 206-
020-08) 391 Tamarack Avenue
5. PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: Robert Richardson Kamak Plannine &
Desim 2802 State Street. Suite C Carlsbad. CA 92008
6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential -High (19 ddac)
7. ZONING: R-1
8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing
approval or participation agreements): California Coastal Commission
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
Request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Condominium Permit, Local Coastal program
Amendment, Zone Change, Site Development Plan, and Coastal Development Permit for a 13
unit air-space condominium project. The site is located in the Mello I1 Segment of the Local
Coastal Program and is within the City’s Beach Area Overlay Zone. The project will require
approval of a zone change from R-1 to RD-M and an amendment to the Local Coastal Program
Zone Map so that the zoning designation will be consistent with the General Plan Designation.
The site is located on the south side of Tamarack Avenue, west of the RR tracks and currently
contains one single-family dwelling which will be demolished as part of the proposal. The 0.7
acre lot is relatively flat and will be developed with a two-story structure with a subterranean
parking garage. The project proposes to meet the City’s inclusionary housing requirement
through the provision of 2 affordable units within the project. The site is bordered by the San
Diego Northem Railroad tracks on the east, multi-family development on the south and west, and
’ single-family homes to the north.
1 Rev. 07/03/02 /3
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 GeologyiSoils [XI Noise
Agricultural Resources 0 HazardsEIazardous Materials 0 Population and Housing
[XI Air Quality 0 HydrologyiWater Quality 0 Public Services
0 Biological Resources [XI Land Use and Planning Recreation
0 Cultural Resources 0 Mineral Resources [XI TransportatiodCirculation
0 Mandatory Findings of 0 Utilities Service Systems Significance
2 Rev. 07/03/02
//f
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0
IXI
0
0
0
I fmd that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I fmd 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 fmd 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.
Pfanner Signature J Date‘
3 Rev. 07/03/02
/5
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 all 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 16
. 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 othenvise be determined significant.
5 Rev. 07/03/02 17
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
Potentially Significant
Impact
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?
o
0
0
0
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?
11. AGRICULTRAL RESOURCES - (In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model-1997 prepared by the California
Department of Conservation as an optional model to use
in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would
the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or 0
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 0
0
a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment,
conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
111. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance
management or air pollution control district may be relied
criteria established by the applicable air quality
upon to make the following determinations.) Would the
project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 0
0
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
violation?
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
Potentially
Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant
Incorporated Impact
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 IXI
Impact
No
[XI
IXI
[XI
IXI
IXI
IXI
0
6 Rev. 07/03/02 /8
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
Significant
Less Than
Impact Impact No
0 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)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
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 US. 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 US. 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 intenuption, or other means?
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?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
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?
g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally
sensitwe?
0
0 0
(XI
(XI
0 0 IXI 0
(XI 0 0 0
IXI 0 0 0
0 0 0 (XI
0
0
0 0
0
5
0 IXI
IXI 0 0 0
I Rev. 07/03/02 19
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defmed in
§15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi-
cance of an archeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi-
cal resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. 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
Division of Mines and Geology Special
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
or that would become unstable as a result of the
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction,
or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - I-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless Less Than
Mitigation Significant
Incorporated Impact
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 [XI
0 0
Imuact
No
IXI
[XI
[XI
[XI
0
0
0
IXI
0
[XI
[XI
8 Rev. 07/03/02 JO
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment though the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
environment though reasonably foreseeable upset
hazardous materials into the environment?
and accident conditions involving the release of
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
within one-qualter mile of an existing or proposed
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous' materials sites compiled pursuant to
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
environment?
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?
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?
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
cl
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
17
o
Significant No
Less Than
Impact Impact
om
om
om
om
om
om
om
om
om
9 Rev. 07/03/02 dl
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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 pattem of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would
site?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem 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!
Othenvise substantially degrade water quality?
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?
Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures,
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
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?
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface
waters.
pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics,
Increased pollutant discharges (e&, heavy metals,
nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash)
into receiving surface waters or other alteration of
receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature.
dissolved oxygen or Nrbidity)?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
E!
0
0
El
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant Unless Less Than
Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact
0 0
E! IXI
0 IXI
0 0
E! 0
0 0
0
0 0
E! 0
Impact
No
IXI
IXI
0
0
[XI
[XI
Kl
IXI
[XI
[XI
[XI
10 Rev. 07/03/02 2la
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
Significant Potentially
Impact
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?
0
0
0 p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater
receiving water quality objectives or degradation of
beneficial uses?
Potentially Significant
Unless
Miti_eation
Incorporated
0
0
0
Significant No
Less Than
Impact Impact
IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
project (including but not limited to the general plan,
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
0 0 ON
0 0 1xIn
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 0 0 o[xI
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?
0 0 OM
0 0 OB b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
use plan?
on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land
XI. 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 €4 00
h) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundboume vibration or groundboume noise 0 EJ no
levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
without the project?
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing 0 (XI0
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above 0 0 €40
levels existing without the project?
11 Rev. 07/03/02 a3
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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
project area to excessive noise levels?
the project expose people residing or working in the
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?
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
(for example, by proposing new homes and
extension of roads or other infrastrucnrre)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
need for new or physically altered government
new or physically altered government facilities, a
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?
XIV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
Potentially Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
lncorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Significant Less Than
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Impact
No
[XI
[XI
E4
[XI
E4
12 Rev. 07/03/02 a4
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
0
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Significant No Less Than
Impact Impact
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
effect on the environment?
facilities, which might have an adverse physical
XV. TRAh'SPORTATIONiTRAFFIC - Would the project:
a) 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)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level
of service standard established by the county
or highways?
congestion management agency for designated roads
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
(e& sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in insufficient parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus tum-
outs, bicycle racks)?
XVI. 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?
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?
0 0
0
0 0 om
0 0 om
0 0
0
0 o
0 0
0
om
0
0
0
13 Rev. 07/03/02 25
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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?
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?
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 prehistory?
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
Significant
Less Than
Impact
0
17
0
0
0
0
XWI. EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on
attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
review.
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant with Mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis.
Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refmed from
the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the
project.
14 Rev. 07/03/02 al,
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
AESTHETICS
No Impact. The project will have not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista since the site is
located in an urbanized area and will be constructed to meet the maximum 30’ height limitation of the
Beach Area overlay Zone. Although the project is located in the coastal zone, the project would not
obstruct any coastal views from 1-5. The site is currently developed with an older residence and no
scenic resources exist on the site or in the surrounding area. The project would upgrade the existing
visual character and quality of the site through the demolition of the older run-down property and
construction of a new building and associated parking and landscape improvements.
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
No Impact. There will be no impact on agricultural resources due to the proposed project as the site is
not designated as or used as farmland. The existing and proposed zone designation for the subject site is
for residential development and is not subject to a Williamson Act Contract. The project would not result
in other changes to the environment that would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural
uses.
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
Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies
a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San
(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 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:
15 Rev. 07/03/02 a7
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 witli the regional air quality plan and will in no way
conflict or obstruct implementation of the regional plan.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected
air quality violation?
Less Than Significant Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is in the City
of Oceanside. Data available for this monitoring site through April, 2002 indicate that the most recent air
quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (one day in both 2000 and
2001) and one day in 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.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
quality standard?
project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
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.
d) 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.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
No Impact. Construction of future residential development could generate fumes from the operation of
construction equipment, which may be considered objectionable by some people. Such exposure would
be short-term or transient. In addition, the number of people exposed to such transient impacts is not
considered substantial.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
No Impact. The subject site is a previously graded and developed infill site and there will be no impacts
on biological resources. The subject site is designated as an “UrbadDeveloped” area on the City’s Draft
Habitat Management Plan.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
No Impact. The subject site is a previously graded and developed infill site which is surrounded by
urban development and there will be no impacts on cultural resources. There are no known historical,
archeological, paleontological, or human remains on the project site.
16 Rev. 07/03/02 28
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 or 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
Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992). In addition, a project specific
seismic-related ground failure or liquefaction is very minimal (according to City of Carlsbad
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation was prepared by GeoSoils, Inc., dated April 31, 2001. The
GeoSoils Inc. report states “The possibility of ground acceleration or shaking at the site may be
considered as approximately similar to the southern California region as a whole”.
iv. Landslides?
No Impact. The site is relatively flat and 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.
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less than significant impact. Although the soils on the site are relatively prone to erosion, the site is
relatively flat and erosive velocities are not expected to be obtained in site runoff. A preliminary Storm
Water Management Plan for the project was prepared by Snipes-Dye Associates. A grading and erosion
control plan will be required prior to any construction and it is anticipated that the latest technologies will
be used to eliminate the potential of soil erosion and sedimentation from the site, both during and post
construction.
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. The subject site as well as surrounding sites are relatively flat and 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.
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. The report prepared by Geosoils, Inc. included laboratory test results of soil samples taken
from the site. These results showed the onsite soils are generally very low in expansion potential. NO
substantial risk to life or property is anticipated due to hazards typically found in expansive soils.
17 Rev. 07/03/02 a9
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. Sewers are available to the subject site and the project will be served by a public wastewater
system.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
No Impact. Based on the nature of a residential land use, there is no routine transport, use or disposal of
hazardous materials associated with residential uses. Therefore, there is no potential of a significant
hazard associated with the project from accidents involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment, or from the emission of hazardous substances within the proximity of a school.
The site was used as an avocado orchard prior to 1958. The site is currently used as a residence and to
Agricultural Residue Survey was performed to identify any potential contaminants of the soil from the store items related to the applicant’s tree-trimming and tree maintenance business. A Limited
historical or current use of the site. Low levels of Chlorinated Pesticides were detected in the soil
samples, however, the concentrations were below the EPA Preliminary Remediation Goals. There was no
detection of Organophosphorus Pesticides, Chlorinated Herbicides, or PCB’s in the soil samples.
Therefore, the report concluded that no further action is required.
The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted.
However, the project site is located approximately 2.8 miles from the McClellan-Palomar Airport (public
general aviation airport). The project site is not located within any flight, crash, or safety hazard zones
associated with the airport. Therefore, the project will not result in a safety hazard for people residing on
the project site.
The project will not impair the implementation or physically interfere with any adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation since the project site is an infill site surrounded by urban
development which is adequately served by emergency services. There are no wildlands adjacent to the
site that could expose people to significant risk from wildland fires.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
No Impact. An erosion control plan and storm water management plan will be prepared prior to
construction of the project. These plans will ensure acceptable water quality standards will be maintained
both during the construction phase as well as post-development.
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)?
No Impact. This project does not propose to directly draw any groundwater. The project will be served
via existing public water distribution lines adjacent to the site.
c. Impacts to groundwater quality?
18 Rev. 07/03/02 30
No Impact. Groundwater was not encountered in any of the exploratory borings made during the soils
investigation. The majority of the site will drain to an existing storm drain system within Tamarack
Avenue.
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?
Less than significant impact. The Preliminary Hydrology Calculations and Hydraulic Analysis prepared
by Snipes-Dye Associates shows existing drainage patterns are generally maintained within and adjacent
to the subject site. Erosion and siltation will be controlled both during construction and post-construction.
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?
Less than significant impact. The Preliminary Hydrology Calculations and Hydraulic Analysis prepared
by Snipes-Dye Associates shows the site will be designed to retain any potential increase in runoff during
runoff away ftom the subject property.
a ten year six-hour storm event. An existing storm drain system within Tamarack Avenue will convey
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!
Less than signifcant impact. The existing storm drain system as well as the planned system as
identified in the City’s Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan will adequately
convey runoff from the subject site. The Preliminary Hydrology Calculations and Hydraulic Analysis
prepared by Snipes-Dye Associates shows this project will not have a significant impact on the
stormwater system.
g. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
No Impact. The proposed project will not substantially degrade water quality of adjacent receiving
waters.
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 proposed 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?
19 Rev. 07/03/02 31
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.
I) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters.
m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.&, 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& 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?
No Impact (1, m, n, o & p) - The project site is not located immediately 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 discharged from
development of the site will be reduced to the maximum extent possible. 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. Therefore, the project will not adversely impact water
quality.
LAND USE AND PLANNING
No Impact (a). The subject site is a previously graded and developed infill site which is surrounded by
multi-family and single-family residential development. Future residential development of the site will be
compatible with and will integrate into the existing community.
Less than Significant Impact (b). The project does not conflict with the property’s General Plan
designation (RH - 19 ddac) which would allow 13 dwelling units on the site. However, the project does
require approval of a Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment to change the zone
designation from R- 1 to RD-M on the City’s Zoning Map and on the Coastal Plan Zoning Map. The RD-
M zone designation would allow multiple-dwelling units on the site, would be consistent with the General
Plan Land Use Designation, and would be consistent with the zoning on properties to the south and west
of the site.
No Impact (c). The property is located in the Mello I1 Segment of the City’s Local Coastal Program and
is subject to the requirements of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone. The project will be
conditioned to comply with all applicable coastal zone policies and the project will be conditioned to
adhere to the City’s Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan and Grading Ordinance
to avoid increased runoff and soil erosion.
The subject site does not conflict with any habitat conservation plans or natural communities plans in that
the property is designated as an “UrbadDeveloped” area in the City’s Draft Habitat Management Plan.
20 Rev. 07/03/02 3a
MINERAL RESOURCES
No Impact. 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 project
will not result in the loss of availability of a hown 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. An Acoustical Analysis Report was prepared
for the proposed project by Douglas Eilar & Associates which indicates that the project site will be
subject to train noise from the San Diego Northern Railroad at a level of approximately 83.8 dBA CNEL
and traffic noise level from Tamarack Avenue of approximately 68.7 dBA CNEL. The City of Carlsbad
Noise Guideline Manual requires that exterior noise levels in the required common areas and private
balconies does not exceed 60 dBA CNEL. While some outdoor areas will be subject to occasional higher
noise levels due to the intermittent train noise, the project has been designed so that each unit has at least
one private balcony that is located such that the exterior noise levels will not exceed 60 dBA CNEL. In
addition, for residential projects, 200 sf. of common recreation area must be provided for each unit which
would result in a project requirement of 2,600 sf. The projects satisfies this requirement in that 5,256 sf.
of the total 7,264 sf. of common area is located such that it will not be subject to noise levels exceeding
60 dBA CNEL or it will include mitigation measures (such as sound walls) so that exterior noise levels do
not exceed 60 dBA.
However, since there are some exterior common recreation areas and private balconies that will
be impacted by noise levels exceeding the 60 dBA CNEL threshold, a mitigation measure has
been included which requires that all purchasers or renters of the impacted property shall be
notified in writing prior to purchase, and by deed disclosure in writing, that the property they are
purchasing is, or will be noise impacted and does not meet the Carlsbad exterior noise standard
for residential property.
The interior noise levels for the project are required to be no greater than 45 dBA CNEL. The report
indicates that the entirety of the project will be subject to noise levels between approximately 59 and 84
dBA CNEL. The report indicates that mitigation of interior habitable space is feasible and attainable
through standard or enhanced construction practices, using readily available materials. Therefore, a
mitigation measure has been included for the project requiring that prior to issuance of a building permit,
a supplemental acoustical analysis must be submitted to insure that the plans have been designed so that
interior noise levels are mitigated to 45 dBA or less.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or gronndbourne
noise levels?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed buildings are close enough to
the single-track centerline that they will experience significant ground-bourn vibration and noise
transmission from railway operations. The Railroad Vibration Impact Evaluation prepared for the project
indicates that with the incorporation of vibration dampening into the building design, the effects of
ground-bourn vibration can be mitigated to a less than significant impact.
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?
21 Rev. 07/03/02 33
Less than Significant Impact (c & d) - Other than traffic generated noise, typical residential land uses
do not generate a substantial amount of noise. With regard to temporary or periodic increase in noise
levels, the only potential increase in noise would be from construction activity associated with a future
development project. The City incorporates standard regulations on all project construction activity to
ensure that noise and other potential impacts to surrounding properties are not significant. Therefore, the
proposed land use and zone change will not result in a substantial permanent or temporary increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
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 site is located approximately 4 miles from the McClellan-Palomar
Airport. However, the site is not located within an area impacted by excessive noise levels generated by
the airport. The site is not located near any other public or private airport. Therefore, the proposed
project will not expose people to excessive noise levels generated from an airport.
POPULATION AND HOUSING
No Impact. The project would result in 13 dwelling units on an infill site that is served by existing roads
and utilities and therefore, the project would not induce substantial growth either directly or indirectly.
The project would demolish one single-family unit, however this housing stock would be replaced by 13
new condominium units. Displacement of the existing residence is not considered significant, nor would
it necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
The City’s inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires that 15% if the total units (2 units) be reserved as
affordable housing units for low income households (80% of the AMI). The proposed reservation of the
required to enter into an affordable housing agreement to deed restrict the 2 units as affordable to lower-
two affordable units meets the minimum inclusionary housing requirement and the developer will be
income households.
PUBLIC SERVICES
No Impact. The project will result in 13 dwelling units which is consistent with the Growth
Management Control Point of 19 du/ac which would allow 13 units on this site. The provisions of public
facilities within the Zone 1 LFMP including fire & police protection, parks, libraries and other public
not exceed the total growth projections anticipated within the Zone 1 LFMP, all public facilities will be
facilities, have been planned to accommodate the projected growth of that area. Because the project will
adequate to Serve the proposed residential development on the site. Therefore, the project will not result
in substantial adverse impacts to or result in the need for additional government facilities.
RECREATION
No Impacts. As part of the City’s Growth Management Program, a performance standard for parks was
per 1,000 population within a park district (quadrant) must be provided.
adopted. The park performance standard requires that 3 acres of Community Park and Special Use Area
The project site is located within Park District #I (Northwest Quadrant). The necessary park acreage to
achieve the GMP standard (3 acres/1,000 population) for Park District #1 was based upon the GMP
dwelling unit limitation for the Northwest Quadrant, which is 15,370 units.
22 Rev. 07/03/02 34
The proposed project will result in additional residential units in the NW Quadrant, however, those units
were anticipated on this site under the City’s Growth Management Plan. The number of dwelling units
on the site will not exceed the growth control point allowed by the site’s General Plan Designation. The
Parks and Recreation Element states that the park acreage demand for the NW Quadrant, based on the
GMP dwelling unit limit, is 106.87 acres, and the anticipated park acreage to be provided at build-out will
be 120.12 acres. Therefore, there will be adequate parkland within the NW Quadrant, and the proposed
land use change will not cause additional demand for parkland or expansion of recreational facilities.
Because park facilities will be adequate to serve residential development on the site, any increase in use
of park facilities generated from development of the site will not result in substantial physical
deterioration of any park facility.
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. Projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT): IO4 ADT
The proposed project is expected to generate 104 average daily trips. The project takes direct access to
Tamarack Avenue, a fully improved Collector.
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:
Existine ADT* Buildout ADT*
Rancho Santa Fe Road 15-32 “A-C” 28-43
El Camino Real 21-50 “A-C“ 32-65
Palomar Airport Road 10-52 “A-B” 29-77
SR 78 120 “F” 144
1-5 183-198 “D” 219-249
*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
used in modeling the buildout projections. Achievement of the CMP acceptable Level of Service (LOS)
community plans. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan and, therefore, its traffic was
“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.
23 Rev. 07/03/02 33-
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or
a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
No Impact. The proposed 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.
d) 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. Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use. No impact assessed.
e) 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.
0 Result in inadequate parking capacity?
No Impact. The project will provide the required resident and guest parking spaces are required by the
City’s Zoning Ordinance. No impact assessed.
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)?
No Impact. The project is located on a street which is not currently served by public transportation.
However it is anticipated that in the future, a route will serve Tamarack Avenue. Comments were
received from North County Transit District (NCTD) which noted, that because of the location of the
project, the close proximity to the railroad would prevent NCTD from safely locating a bus stop on the
subject property. Future bus stop will be located elsewhere along the route, therefore, no improvements
are required by NCTD.
UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS
No Impact - The proposed residential development will be required to comply with all Regional Water
Quality Control Board Requirements. In addition, the Zone 1 LFMP anticipated that the project site
would be developed with a high density residential use and wastewater treatment facilities were planned
and designed to accommodate the residential uses on the site. 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 density on the site will
increase the demand for these facilities. However, the proposed density would not result in an overall
increase in the City’s growth projection in the NW quadrant. Therefore, the project will not result in
development that will result in a significant need to expand or construct new water facilities/supplies,
wastewater treatment or storm water drainage facilities.
The project has been reviewed by the local solid waste disposal provider (Coast Waste). Existing waste
disposal services are adequate to serve the proposed residential use on the site without exceeding landfill
capacities. In addition, the proposed residential development will be required to comply with all federal,
state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
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
24 Rev. 07/03/02 3h
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
prehistory?
animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
No Impact -The proposed residential 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 currently developed with an older residential structure and the site has been previously
disturbed by 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 numbers
of a plant or animal community.
In addition, there are no historic structures on the site and there are no hown cultural resources on the
site. The project will not result in the elimination of any important examples of California History or
prehistory.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection^ with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?)
Less than Significant Impact - San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projects regional
growth for the greater San Diego area, and local general plan land use policies are incorporated into
SANDAG projections. Based upon those projections, region-wide standards, including storm water
quality control, air quality standards, habitat conservation, congestion management standards, etc, are
established to reduce the cumulative impacts of development in the region. All of the City’s development
standards and regulations are consistent with the region-wide standards. The City’s standards and
regulations, including grading standards, water quality and drainage standards, traffic standards, habitat
and cultural resource protection regulations, and public facility standards, ensure that development within
the City will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact.
There are two regional issues that development within the City of Carlsbad has the potential to have a
cumulatively considerable impact on. Those issues are air quality and regional circulation. As discussed
above, the project would contribute to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions
throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with the residential
development would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the 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
projections in the General Plan, that these designated roadways will function at acceptable levels of
as part of the regional circulation system. The CMA has determined, based on the City’s growth
and therefore, the cumulative impact from the project to the regional circulation system is less than
service in the short-term and at build-out. The project is consistent with the City’s growth projections,
significant.
With regard to any other potential impact associated with the project, City standards and regulations will
ensure that residential development of the site will not result in a significant cumulative considerable
impact.
25 Rev. 07/03/02 37
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated - Based upon the residential nature of the
project and the fact that future development of the site will comply with City standards, the project will
not result in any direct or indirect substantial adverse environmental effects on human beings. However,
the project site is located in an area where human beings could be exposed to significantly high noise
levels generated from the adjacent San Diego Northern Railroad and traffic on Tamarack Avenue. 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. 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.
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 Imuact Reuort for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR
93-01), City of Carlsbad Planning Department, March 1994.
2. Draft Habitat Manaaement Plan for Natural Communities in the Citv of Carlsbad, City of
Carlsbad, December 1999 with addendum.
3. Citv of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analvsis and Mauuina Study, November 1992.
4. Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation 391 Tamarack Avenue, GeoSoils, Inc., August 31,2001
5. Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) for Villa Paradisio, Snipes-Dye Associates, June 3,
2002.
6. Acoustical Analvsis Reuort Villa Paradisio Townhouses, Douglas Eilar & Associates, Revised
Updated September 26,2002.
7. Railroad Vibration Impact Evaluation for Villa Paradisio Townhomes, Douglas Eilar &
Associates, November 4,2002
8. Limited Agricultural Chemical Residue Survey for 391 Tamarack Avenue, GeoTeck, Inc.,
December 2 1,2001,
26 Rev. 07/03/02 38
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES
1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a supplemental acoustical analysis of the building plans shall
be provided to demonstrate that construction features have been integrated into the building plans to
insure that interior noise levels in habitable areas are mitigated to 45 dBA CNEL or less.
2. The proposed second-level sun deck recreation area shall incorporate a IO’ high sound attenuation
bamer as recommended in the acoustical analysis to insure that exterior noise levels do not exceed 60
dBA CNEL. The barrier shall be constructed with a transparent material to allow- sunlight into the
area and the barrier shall be integrated into the overall design scheme of the project.
3. A 6’ high sound wall shall be provided around the gazebo/recreation area.
4. All purchasers or renters of the impacted property shall be notified in writing prior to
purchase, and by deed disclosure in writing, that the property they are purchasing is, or will
be noise impacted and does not meet the Carlsbad exterior noise standard for residential
property.
5. The building design shall incorporate vibration dampening to below the maximum allowable
vibration level of 70 Vdb.
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEAS
Date
21 Rev. 07/03/02 39
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 1 of 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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5329
A RESOLUTION OF THE. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE FROM R-1 TO RD-M, ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE
OF TAMARACK AVENUE, WEST OF THE RAILROAD
ZONE 1
CASE NAME: VILLA PARADISIO
CASE NO.: zc 01-12
WHEREAS, Randall K. Lockett, “OwnerDeveloper.” has filed a verified
RIGHT-OF-WAY IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
That portion of Lot 6 in Block S of.Palisades Number Two, in
the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to Map thereof No. 1803, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, on August 25,1924
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Zone Change as shown on
Exhibit “X” dated January 15, 2003, attached hereto, VILLA PARADISIO - ZC 01-12 as
provided by Chapter 21.52 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; 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, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Zone Change; and
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 Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of VILLA PARADISIO - ZC 01-12 based on
the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
42
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
Findines:
1. That the ‘proposed Zone Change from R-1 to RD-M is consistent with the goals and
policies of the various elements of the General Plan, in that the proposed RD-M zone is
consistent with the existing RH (Residential High Density) Land Use designation
and is compatible with the RD-M zoning of the abutting properties .
2. That the Zone Change will provide consistency between the General Plan and Zoning as
mandated by California State law and the City of Carlsbad General Plan Land Use
Element, in that the proposed RD-M Zone designation, as shown on Exhibit “ZC 01-
12,” implements the existing RH Land Use Designation.
3. That the Zone Change is consistent with the public convenience, necessity and general
welfare, and is consistent with sound planning principles in that the proposed RD-M
zoning will allow development of the proposed multi-family condominium project
which is consistent with the RH General Plan land use designation and is compatible
with the surrounding multi-family development on properties south of Tamarack
Avenue.
Conditions:
1. Approval of ZC 01-12 is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and LCPA 01-12,
CT 02-11, CP 02-07, SDP 01-13, and CDP 01-38 and is subject to all conditions
contained on Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5328, 5330, 5331, 5332, 5333 and
5334 for those other approvals, incorporated by reference herein.
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees,
dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“feesiexactions.”
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these feesiexactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified feesiexactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any feesiexactions of which you have previously been given a
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
PC RES0 N0.5329 -2- 5(3
1
'
L
L -
t
L I
$
S
IC
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
L
1
i
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, Cali.fomia, 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
\. JudIE BwR. Chaimerson
C- PLA~G COMMISSION
ATTEST: .
Planning Director
PC RES0 NOS329 -3- 44
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
21
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5330
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CARLSBAD
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM (LCP) TO BRING THE LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM AND ZONING MAP INTO
CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE
OF TAMARACK AVENUE, WEST OF THE RAILROAD
RIGHT-OF-WAY IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: VILLA PARADISIO
CASE NO.: LCPA 01-12
WHEREAS, California State law requires that the Local Coastal Program,
General Plan, and Zoning designations for properties in the Coastal Zone be in conformance; and
WHEREAS, Randall K. Lockett, “OwneriDeveloper,” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
That portion of Lot 6 in Block S of Palisades Number Two, in
the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to Map thereof No. 1803, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, on August 25,1924
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Local Coastal
Program Amendment as shown on Exhibit “LCPA 01-12’’ dated January 15, 2003 attached to
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5330 VILLA PARADISIO - LCPA 01-12, as provided
in Public Resources Code Section 30574 and Article 15 of Subchapter 8, Chapter 2, Division 5.5
of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations of the California Coastal Commission
Administrative Regulations; 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
45
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
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Local Coastal Program Amendment.
WHEREAS, State Coastal Guidelines requires a six week public review period
for any amendment to the Local Coastal Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) At the end of the State mandated six week review period, starting on November
28,2002 and ending on January 9,2003, staff had received no public comments
on the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment.
C) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of VILLA PARADISIO - LCPA
01-12 based on the following findings, and subject to the following conditions:
FindingS:
1. That the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment meets the requirements of, and is
in conformity with, the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act and all applicable policies
of the Mello I1 Segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program not being amended by
this amendment, in that the proposed RD-M zone is consistent with the existing RH
(Residential High Density) land use designation.
2. That the proposed land use and zone designation amendment to the Mello I1 Segment of
the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program is required to bring the designations of the City’s
Zoning Map and the Mello I1 Local Coastal Program Segment into conformance.
Conditions:
1. Approval of LCPA 01-12 is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and ZC 01-12, CT
02-11, CP 02-07, SDP 01-13, and CDP 01-38 and is subject to all conditions contained
on Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5328, 5329, 5331, 5332, 5333 and 5334 for
those other approvals, incorporated by reference herein.
...
PC RES0 NO. 5330 -2- 46
1
2
1 -
4
5
6
i
e
s
IC
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees,
dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“feedexactions.”
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any feedexactions of which you have previously been given a
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
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
(Q&W
JUL E B R, Chairperson
Cw PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
\
MICHAEL J. HOD‘MILLW
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5330 -3- 47
LOCAL COSTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT LCPA 01 -1 2
draft [XI final 0
I Proiect Name: Villa Paradisio - LCPA 01-12 I Related Case File No(s): ZC 01-12/CT 02-1 l/CP 02- ~,~ ~ I 07/SDP Ol-l3/CDP 01-38
PropeRylLegal Description(s): APN 206-020-08 That Dortion of Lot 6 in Block S of Palisades Number Two, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
Califdrnia, according to Map thereof No 1803, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San DiegoCounty, on
August 25,1924
Local Coastal Program Amendment Approvals
Property/APN(s) Council Approval Date: To: From:
A. 206-020-08 Resolution No: RD-M R-1
Effective Date:
I I I Signature:
I I I I Attach additional pages if necessary I
The City of CARLSBAD Planning Department EXHIBIT 5
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application complete date: September 30, 2002
P.C. AGENDA OF: January 15,2003 Project Planner: Barbara Kennedy
Proiect Eneineer: John Maashoff
SUBJECT: ZC Ol-l2/LCPA 01-12/CT OZ-ll/CP 02-07/SDP 01-13/CDP 01-38 - VILLA
PARADISIO - Request for adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, a recommendation of approval for
a Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment, and approval of a
Tentative Tract Map, Condominium Permit, Site Development Plan, and Coastal
Development Permit to develop a 13-unit airspace condominium project on
property located south of Tamarack Avenue, west of the railroad right-of-way
within Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5328, 5329,
5330,5331,5332,5333 and 5334 RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL of ZC 01-12 and LCPA 01-12, and APPROVING CT 02-11, CP 02-07, SDP 01-
13, and CDP 01-38 based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
The applicant proposes to demolish an existing residence and develop the 0.7 acre project site
with a 13-unit airspace condominium project on an infill site in the Beach Area Overlay Zone
(BAOZ), located on the south side of Tamarack Avenue, west of the railroad right-of-way. The
project requires two legislative actions: 1) a Zone Change and 2) a Local Coastal Program
Amendment to implement the zone change in the Local Coastal Program (LCP). Development
of the condominium project also requires the processing and approval of a Tentative Tract Map,
Condominium Permit, Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit. The site lies
within the Mello I1 segment of the Local Coastal Program and therefore, the Coastal
Development Permit will be issued by the City of Carlsbad. The project’s proposed density of
18.4 dwelling units per acre is below the 19 dwelling units per acre allowed per the Growth
Management control point for the property’s Residential High (RH) General Plan designation. In
order to meet the City’s Inclusionary Housing requirement, the project includes two units which
will be affordable to lower-income households. The project meets the City’s standards for
planned developments and subdivisions, ‘and as designed and conditioned, the project is in
compliance with the General Plan, Subdivision Ordinance, and relevant zoning regulations of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code. The project would not have a significant effect on the environment
and a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been issued for the project. The project conforms to
all applicable standards, there are no outstanding project issues, and findings can be made for
approval of the project.
ZC Ol-l2/LCPA 01-12iCT 02-1 l/CP 02-07iSDP Ol-l3/CDP 01-38 -VILLA PARADISIO
January 15,2003
111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The 0.7 acre project site is rectangular in shape and is located south of Tamarack Avenue,
immediately to the west of the railroad right-of-way.' The site currently contains a singe-family
residence and accessory structures which will be demolished. The site has been previously
graded and is devoid of any significant or sensitive vegetation.
The site is zoned Single-Family Residential (R-1) and has a General Plan designation of RH.
Surrounding properties to the south and west are zoned Residential Density-Multiple (RD-M)
and are developed with multi-family apartment projects. Properties to the north are zoned R-1
and are developed with single-family residences. All of the properties in the vicinity have an RH
(Residential-High) General Plan land use designation. The site is located in the North Beach
PlanningiTraffic Study (NBPTS) area. This document notes that the General Plan allocated
densities in this area are too high and widespread development at densities of 15 - 23 ddac
would result in incompatibility with surrounding land uses and inadequacy of public facilities.
The NBPTS included recommendations to address lowering General Plan densities and to
develop a strategy for retaining some single-family (R-1) zoning within the study area. Because
the site is surrounded by existing multi-family development, the NBPTS did recommend
retaining the R-1 zoning for this property.
The applicant proposes to develop a 13-unit airspace condominium project on the subject site.
Access to the garages and eight guest parking spaces is via a private driveway off Tamarack
Avenue. The condominium units are arranged within four buildings connected by a landscaped
deck on the first floor level. The buildings are two-story structures with basement level garages
and the project has an overall building height of 27 feet. Twelve two-bedroom units range in
size from 1,115 sq. ft to 1,909 sq. ft. The remaining three-bedroom unit contains 2,678 sq A.
Each unit will have its own two-car garage and private storage space. The two smallest units are
proposed to satisfy the City's Inclusionary Housing requirement and will be designated for
lower-income households
Each unit has at least one private balcony and numerous common recreation areas are provided
throughout the project. The common recreation areas include an indoor recreation room, a sun
deck, landscaped decks on the first level, and a centralized gathering space with a covered
pavilion surrounded by turf and landscaping. The Mediterranean style structure will have stucco
siding, concrete roof tile with foam detailing under the roof eaves, stucco trim at windows and
around the building, and cast stone balusterhails at the private balconies. The proposed colors
and materials for the building are tan colored walls with lighter tone trim elements, red-flashed
roof tile and white cast stone work.
IV. ANALYSIS
The project involves the following legislative actions:
A. Zone Change from R-1 to RD-M; and,
B. Local Coastal Program Amendment to implement the zone change in the Local
Coastal Program.
ZC 01-12ILCPA 01-12/CT UL-ll/CP 02-07iSDP OI-13/CDP 01-38 -VILLA PARADISIO
January 15,2003
The project is subject to the following regulations and requirements:
C. General Plan R-H (Residential - High Density) designation;
D. Beach Area Overlay Zone (BAOZ), RD-M (Residential Density-Multiple) Zone, and
Planned Development (Condominium Permit) regulations (Chapters 21.82,21.24, and
21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code);
E. Local Coastal Program (Mello II Segment);
F. Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code);
G. lnclusionary Housing (Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code); and,
H. Growth Management (Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code).
The recommendation for approval for this project was developed by analyzing the project’s
consistency with the applicable City regulations and policies. The project’s compliance with
each of the above regulations is discussed in detail in the sections below.
Legislative Actions
A. Zone Change
The applicant is proposing to change the zoning on the property from R-1 to RD-M. The RD-M
zone is one of the zones intended to implement the RH General Plan land use designation.
As discussed in the project description and background, the NBPTS does not identify this site as
being located in an area where the R-1 zoning should be retained. The properties adjacent to the
site are developed with multi-family projects and are zoned RD-M. Staff believes the requested
RD-M zoning would implement the RH General Plan land use designation, would be compatible
with the zoning on the surrounding properties, and would allow the property to be developed in a
manner similar to the adjacent properties south of Tamarack Avenue.
B. Local Coastal Program Amendment
The Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) is required in order to implement the proposed
zone change from R-1 to RD-M in the Local Coastal program. The LCPA will result in the
zoning and costal land use designations for the site being consistent.
No comments were received during the required six-week LCPA public notice period.
ZC Ol-l2/LCPA 01-12ICT 02-1 1/CP 02-07ISDP 01-13/CDP 01-38 -VILLA PARADISIO
January 15,2003
Page 4
Regulatorv ComDliance
C. General Plan
The proposed project is consistent with the policies and programs of the General Plan. The
property has a General Plan designation of RH. The RH designation allows the development of
multi-family residential units at a density of 15 - 23 dwelling units per acre. The growth control
point is 19 dwelling units per acre. The development proposal consists of the construction of 13
condominium units on a 0.7 acre rectangular shaped lot. Development at the growth control
point would allow 13.3 units on the property. The 13 proposed units result in a density of 18.6
dwelling units per acre. The project complies with all the Elements of the General Plan as
outlined in Table 1 below:
Table 1 - GENERAL PLAN CC
USE, CLASSIFICATION,
ELEMENT I GOAL, OBJECTIVE OR
PROGRAM
Land Use
15% Inclusionary housing Housing
Site is designated for RH
(Residential High - 19 du/ac.)
requirement = 1.95 units
Public Safety Provide project review that allows
consideration of seismic and
geologic hazards.
Expand the use of automatic fire
sprinkler systems.
Noise Residential interior noise standards
of 45 dBA CNEL.
Exterior noise level of 60 dBA
CNEL in private open space areas.
Open Space
City. Conservation
Minimize environmental impacts
& to sensitive resources within the
Utilize Best Management Practices
for control of storm water and to
protect water quality.
MPLIANCE
PROPOSED USES &
IMPROVEMENTS
Multi-family residential
units at 18.6 du/ac.
Project proposes to
construct two units
affordable to lower
income households
Project improvements
will not significantly
impact or be impacted
by geologic or seismic
conditions.
The project is
conditioned to sprinkler
the building.
to comply with the 45 dBA
The project is conditioned
CNEL interior noise
standard and required
common open space
complies with the 60 dBA
CNEL exterior noise standard.
Project will not have any
environmental impacts
to the previously
developed site.
The project will conform
to all NPDES
requirements.
COMPLk
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
ZC 01-12LCPA 01-12/CT 02-1 1/CP 02-07/SDP Ol-l3/CDP 01-38 -VLLLA PARADIS10
January 15,2003
Table 1 - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE - Continued R USE, CLASSIFICATION, I PROPOSED USES & I COMPLY I
ELEMENT IMPROVEMENTS
D. BAOZ/RD-M Zoning/Planned Development (Condominium Permit)
The proposed project is subject to the BAOZ regulations, the RD-M Zone regulations, and the
Planned Development (PD) regulations. The PD regulations are the development standards for
condominium projects.
Projects located within the BAOZ require the processing of a Site Development Plan (SDP) or a
Planned Development permit (Condominium Permit) to ensure consistency with the BAOZ
standards per Section 21.82.040 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The BAOZ is intended to
supplement the underlying zoning by providing additional development regulations to: 1) ensure
that proposed development is compatible with existing surrounding uses; 2) provide adequate
parking for residential developments; 3) ensure that public facilities exist to serve the beach area;
and, 4) protect the unique mix of residential development and aesthetic quality of the area.
The proposed two-story structure with basement level parking has a building height of less than
30 feet. The project will be compatible with the existing multi-family development and complies
with the BAOZ regulations. The proposed parking (2 spaces per unit and 8 guest parking spaces)
provides enough parking to satisfy the BAOZ requirements. All public facilities including curb,
gutter and sidewalk exist along the property frontage. The building elevations have been
designed to include elements currently found in the neighborhood in order to blend into the
surrounding development.
The proposed 13-unit condominium project is also subject to the regulations of the RD-M Zone
and the PD (condominium standards) regulations. Table 2 (below) illustrates how the project
complies with the applicable BAOZ, RD-M zoning, and PD development regulations.
Table 2: BAOZ, RD-M ZONING, AND PD (CONDOMINIUM)
STANDARDS COMPLIANCE
Setbacks:
Front Setback (RD-M)
ZC OI-12ILCPA 01-12iCT OZ-lliCP 02-07r’SDP Ol-13iCDP 01-38 -VLLLA PARADIS10
January 15,2003
Table 2: BAOZ, RD-M ZONING, AND PD (CONDOMINIUM)
Assessory Structure Setback
Resident Parking (BAOZPD)
[RD”)
Visitor Parking (PD)
Recreational Space (PD)
Private:
Common:
Storage Space (PD)
rANDARDS COMPLIANCE
5’ side
2 spacesidu -
(covered/l uncovered)
5 spaces required
60 sf balconyiunit
200 sfiunit (2,600 req’d)
392 cubic feet/unit
(continued)
5’side
26 covered spaces II
60 sf or greater balconyiunit
Approx 3,200 sf of noise
attenuated area (rec. room, sun
deck, and portions of
landscaped deck)
E. Local Coastal Program compliance
The proposed project site is located outside the appeal area of the City’s Coastal Zone and lies
within the Mello I1 segment of the LCP.
Mello I1 Segment
The proposed project is consistent with the Mello I1 segment of the LCP which contains land use
policies for development and conservation of coastal land and water areas within the segment
boundaries. The policies of the Mello 11 segment emphasize topics such as preservation of
agriculture and scenic resources, protection of environmentally sensitive resources, provision of
shoreline access and prevention of geologic instability and erosion.
The project is consistent with the coastal act policies as follows: a) no agricultural lands exist on
the project site, therefore no impacts to such will occur; b) the site does not contain
environmentally sensitive habitats, water or marine resources; c) the site is geologically stable
and the proposed grading for the site has been limited to the area necessary to develop the site; d)
the project has been designed to reduce the amount of off-site runoff by surface drains and has
been conditioned to implement the NPDES standards to ensure the quality of the water leaving
the site; e) the project meets the parking requirements for condominiums; f) the project does not
preclude any recreational opportunities or shoreline access as the property is located on the south
side of Tamarack Avenue; and g) the development does not obstruct views of the coastline as
seen from public lands or public right-of-way. Since the project is in an area of very low risk of
impact to sensitive costal resources, an extension of the grading season beyond the normal
November 15th deadline may be permitted and included as a condition of approval in resolution
No. 5334. Given the above, the project is consistent with the Mello I1 segment land use policies.
ZC 01-12ILCPA 01-12/CT UZ-ll/CP 02-O7/SDP 01-13/CDP 01-38 -VLLLA PARADISIO
January 15,2003
F. Subdivision Ordinance
The Engineering Department reviewed the proposed tentative map and concludes that the
subdivision complies with all applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and the City’s
Subdivision Ordinance. The project is conditioned to install all infrastructure improvements
concurrent with development and to dedicate additional right-of-way along Tamarack Avenue so
that the sidewalk will be located entirely within the City’s right-of-way. Access to the site will
be from a private driveway off of Tamarack Avenue. The proposed building setbacks will allow
for adequate air circulation and the opportunity for passive heating and cooling.
G. Inclusionary Housing
The City’s Inclusionary Housing regulations require that a minimum of 15% of all approved
units in any residential project be made affordable to lower income households. The
inclusionary housing requirement for this project would be 1.95 dwelling units. The applicant
proposes to satisfy this requirement by designating two 2-bedroom units (Units 11 and 12) as
affordable to lower income households. The developer has been conditioned to enter into an
Affordable Housing Agreement to deed-restrict these two units as either “for sale” units
affordable to lower-income households at 80% of the Average Median Income (AMI) or as
rental units affordable to lower-income households at 70% of the AMI.
H. Growth Management
The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 1 in the Northwest
quadrant of the City. The impacts on public facilities created by the project, and its compliance
with the adopted performance standards, are summarized in Table 3 below.
Table 3: GROWTH MANAGEMENT
STANDARD COMPLIANCE IMPACTS
City Administration
Library
Yes 45.20 sf
Yes Basin B Drainage
Yes 0.09 ac Parks
Yes 13 EDU Waste Water Treatment
Yes 24.1 1 sf
Circulation 104 ADT Yes
Fire Stations No. 1 & 3 Yes
Open Space da
Yes CUSD Schools
Yes
Elem. = 1.17, JH = 0.52, HS = 0.64
Sewer Collection System
2,860 GPD Water
Yes 13 EDU
Yes
13.3 dwelling units for the subject property.
ZC 01-12ILCPA 01-12iCT 02-1 1iCP 02-07iSDP 01-13iCDP 01-38 -VLLA PARADlSlO
Januarv 15.2003
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff has conducted an environmental impact assessment to determine if the project could have a
potentially significant impact on the environment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Ordinance (Title 19) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. As a result of
said review, the initial study (EM Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the
environment, but mitigation measures agreed to by the applicant would avoid or mitigate the
effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and there is
no substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the project “as revised” may have a
significant impact on the environment.
An Average Daily Trip (ADT) rate of 104 trips would be generated by the proposed project.
This ADT is consistent with the generation rate analyzed for the site in the MEIR. All feasible
mitigation measures identified in the MEIR which are appropriate to this project have been
incorporated into the site design. No additional mitigation measures in the form of roadway
improvements are necessary. The project site has been disturbed by previous grading. The
adjacent properties are developed with residential land uses and all the support utilities and
infrastructure has been constructed or has been conditioned to be constructed.
Since the project is subject to noise impacts, an acoustical analysis was prepared for the project.
Certain portions of the common and private recreation areas will be subjected to exterior noise
levels exceeding 60 dBA. However, the required square footage of common recreation area has
been located or designed so that it will not be subjected to exterior noise levels exceeding 60
dBA CNEL. Additionally, each unit has been provided with private open space. Each unit
contains a minimum 60 sq ft balcony which has been designed so that it is buffered by the
buildings and will not be subjected to noise levels exceeding 60 dBA. The project will also be
required to implement the recommendations outlined in the Acoustical Analysis to ensure that
interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dBA CNEL. In addition to noise impacts, the project was
identified as being impacted by ground-born vibration and noise transmission from railway
operations. The Railroad Vibration Impact Evaluation prepared for the project indicates that
with the incorporation of vibration dampening into the building design, the effects of ground-
born vibration can be mitigated to a less than significant impact.
In consideration of the foregoing, on November 29, 2002, the Planning Director issued a
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project. The environmental document was
noticed in the newspaper and sent to the State Clearinghouse for public agency review. NO
public comments were received during the 30-day public review and comment period.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5328 (Mit. Neg. Dec.)
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5329 (ZC)
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5330 (LCPA)
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5331 (CT)
5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5332 (CP)
6. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5333 (SDP)
7. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5334 (CDP)
56
ZC 01-12LCPA 01-12ICT 02-1 liCP 02-07ISDP 01-13ICDP 01-38 -VILLA PARADISIO
Janw 15,2003
8. Location Map
9. Background Data Sheet
10. Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
11. Disclosure Statement
12. Existing Zoning Illustration
13. Reduced Exhibits
14. Exhibits “A” - “0” dated January 15, 2003
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: ZC Ol-l2/LCPA 01-12/CT 02-11/CP 02-07/SDP 01-13/CDP 01-38
CASE NAME: VILLA PARADISIO
APPLICANT: Randall K. Lockett
REQUEST AND LOCATION: 13-unit air-space condominium proiect located on the south
side of Tamarack Avenue, west of the railroad right-of-wav.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That portion of Lot 6 in Block S of Palisades Number Two. in
the City of Carlsbad. County of San Diego. State of California. according to Map thereof NO.
1803. filed in the Office of the Countv Recorder of San Diego County. on August 25.1924
APN: 206-020-08 Acres: 0.7 Proposed No. of LotsiUnits: 13 unitdl lot
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: RH
Density Allowed 19 ddac Density Proposed: 18.4 ddac
Existing Zone: R-1 Proposed Zone: RD-M
Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use:
Zonina
Site R- 1
North R-1
South RD-M
East T-C
West RD-M
General Plan Current Land Use
RH SFR
RH SFR
RH Multi-family
TC SD Northern Railroad
RH Multi-family
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: Carlsbad Unified Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 13 EDU
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
[XI Mitigated Negative Declaration, issued November 29.2002
0 Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
0 Other,
5-8
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO: VILLA PARADISIO - ZC Ol-l2/LCPA 01-12/CT 02-1 l/CP 02-071
SDP 01-13/CDP 01-38
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 1 GENERAL PLAN: RH
ZONING: R-1 (proposed RD-M)
DEVELOPERS NAME: Randall K. Lockett
ADDRESS: 391 Tamarack Avenue Carlsbad. CA 92008
PHONE NO.: 760-729-7540 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: 206-020-08
QUANTITY OF LAND USEDEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 0.7 acres/l3-units
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE:
A.
B.
C.
E.
D.
F.
G.
H.
I.
City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage =
Library: Demand in Square Footage =
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer)
Drainage: Demand in CFS =
Park Demand in Acreage =
Identify Drainage Basin =
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
Circulation: Demand in ADT =
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. =
Open Space: Acreage Provided =
Schools: E=1.17,JH=0.52,HS=0.64
Demands in EDU
Identify Sub Basin =
J. Sewer:
45.20 sf
24.1 1 sf
13 EDU
2.56 CFS
0.09 acres
Basin B
104 ADT
1&3
da
Carlsbad Unified
13 EDU
VistdCarIsbad
Interceptor Sewer
Drainage Basin
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
K. Water: Demand in GPD = 2,860 GPD
L. The project is 0.3 units below the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance.
i t c City of Carkbad
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require
discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee.
The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot
be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print.
Note:
Person is defmed as "Any individual, fm co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal
organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, city and county, city municipality, disfict or other political subdivision of any other group or combination acting as a unit."
Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be
provided below.
1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant's agent)
Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of persons having a financial
interest in the application. If the applicant includes a comoration or uartnershin, include the
names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDMDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-
APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW If a publiclv-owned comoration, include the . names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if
2. OWNER (Not the owner's agent)
Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of persons having any ownership
interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i,e,
partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a
comoration or DartnershiD, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more
than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES,
PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE @/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv-
owned comoration, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate
page may be attached if necessaw.)
Title Title
Address 991 mm/ntr Address
1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad. CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 @ loo
3. NON-PROFIT d ANEATION OR TRUST
If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonurofit organization or a trust, list the
names and addresses of person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the.
Non ProfiWTrust Non ProfitTrust
Title Title
Address Address
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff,
Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months? 0 Yes No If yes, please indicate person(s):
NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. n
e and correct to the best of m
&nature .of ap{Iicant/date
Print or type name of owner .. ’. ..
+nt or type name of applicant . . .. e. .. .. .. .
Signature of owner/applicant:s agent if applicablddate
Print or fype name of owner/applicant’s agent
H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/98 Page 2 of 2 1,l
EXISTING ZONING
VILLA PARADISIO
ZC 01 -1 2/LCPA 01 -1 2
.. Ii
i
3 P a P
i
li tf
fl lii 1
iiii
L/ I/
I
73
~ t t
I
74
75
"t
!
!
"' "". -IN
t
77