HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-07-24; Planning Commission; Resolution 7111
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
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR 13-02) AND ADOPTION OF
FINDINGS OF FACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS,
AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR A
COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE (INCLUDING A HOUSING
ELEMENT UPDATE), A CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND ASSOCIATED
AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, ZONING MAP, LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM, AND CITYWIDE FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS
PLAN.
CASE NAME: GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
CASE NO.: EIR 13-02
WHEREAS, the City Planner has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad
regarding a comprehensive update to the city’s General Plan, which includes an update to the Housing
Element for the 2013 to 2021 planning period, the development of a Climate Action Plan, and associated
amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, Local Coastal Program, and Citywide Facilities and Improvements
Plan (“project”), which affect properties citywide; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public
Resources Code Section 21000, et seq., and its implementing regulations (“CEQA Guidelines”), 14
California Code of Regulations Section 15000, et seq., the City of Carlsbad prepared a Draft Environmental
Impact Report (SCH # 2011011004) (“Draft EIR”) for the project which was made available for public
review and comment as required by law beginning on April 4, 2014 and ending on June 20, 2014; and
WHEREAS, in response to comments on the Draft EIR, the City of Carlsbad prepared a
Recirculated Portions of Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Recirculated Draft EIR”) for the project
which was made available for public review and comment as required by law beginning on March 20, 2015
and ending on May 4, 2015; and
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad received comments concerning the Draft EIR and
Recirculated Draft EIR from public agencies, organizations and individuals, and pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines section 15088, the City of Carlsbad prepared responses to all written comments received on
the Draft EIR and Recirculated Draft EIR which raised environmental issues; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 7111
PC RESO NO. 7111 -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
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has determined that the comments received on the Draft
EIR and Recirculated Draft EIR did not contain any significant new information within the meaning of CEQA
Guidelines section 15088.5 and, therefore, recirculation of the Draft EIR and Recirculated Draft EIR is not
required; and
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report (“Final
EIR 13-02”) which contains the information required by CEQA Guidelines section 15132, including the
Draft EIR and Recirculated Draft EIR and the revisions and additions thereto, the technical appendices and
referenced documents, and the public comments and the city’s responses thereto, and which has been
filed with the Clerk of the City of Carlsbad; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15091, 15093 and 15097, the City of
Carlsbad has prepared Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, which have been filed with the Clerk of the City of Carlsbad; and
WHEREAS, all materials with regard to the project were made available to the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad (“Planning Commission”) for its review, consideration and
recommendation to the City Council of the project including, but not limited to: the Final EIR 13-02,
Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program; all reports, applications, memoranda, maps, letters and other planning documents prepared by
the planning consultant, the environmental consultants, and the City of Carlsbad that are before the city
decision makers; all documents submitted by members of the public and public agencies in connection
with the EIR 13-02; minutes of all public meetings and public hearings; and matters of common knowledge
to the City of Carlsbad which they may consider, including but not limited to, the Carlsbad General Plan,
Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance, Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, Carlsbad Growth Management Plan, Carlsbad
Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan, and Carlsbad Climate Action Plan; and
. . .
. . .
PC RESO NO. 7111 -3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on July 18, 2015, hold a duly noticed public
hearing and received public testimony and thereafter continued said public hearing to July 22, 23 and 24,
2015, as prescribed by law to consider the Final EIR 13-02 and the project; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments and examining the Final EIR 13-02 (Exhibit 1A on file in the Planning Division and incorporated
by this reference), Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit 1B, attached
hereto), and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit 1C, attached hereto), analyzing
the information submitted by staff and considering any written and oral comments received, the Planning
Commission considered all factors relating to the Final EIR 13-02.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad that:
A) The foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) The Final EIR 13-02 consists of the EIR, technical appendices, written comments and
responses to comments, revisions to the Draft EIR and Recirculated Portions of the Draft
EIR, revisions to the draft General Plan, and revisions to the draft Climate Action Plan,
as amended to include the comments and documents of those testifying at the public
hearing and responses thereto, and is hereby found to be in good faith and reason by
incorporating a copy of the minutes of said public hearing into the Final EIR 13-02 (Exhibit
1A), all on file in the Planning Division and incorporated by this reference.
C) The Planning Commission recommends amendments to Chapters 4 and 5 of the Final EIR
13-02 (Exhibit 1A), as shown in the memorandum to the Planning Commission, dated
July 24, 2015, titled “Errata Sheet for the General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan”,
on file in the Planning Division and incorporated by this reference.
D) The Final EIR 13-02 (Exhibit 1A), as so amended and evaluated, is recommended for
acceptance and certification as the Final Environmental Impact Report for the project and,
as recommended is adequate and provides reasonable information on the project and all
reasonable and feasible alternatives thereto, including no project.
E) Based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission
RECOMMENDS CERTIFICATION of the Final EIR 13-02 (Exhibit 1A), for the GENERAL PLAN
UPDATE, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND ASSOCIATED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING
ORIDNANCE, ZONING MAP, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, AND CITYWIDE FACILITIES AND
IMPROVEMENTS PLAN, and the Planning Commission RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit 1B), and the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit 1C), based on the following
findings.
PC RESO NO. 7111 -4-
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
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission has reviewed, analyzed, and considered Final EIR 13-02 (Exhibit 1A),
the environmental impacts therein identified for this project, the Findings of Fact and Statement
of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit 1B), and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(Exhibit 1C), prior to recommending approval of this project.
2. The Planning Commission finds that the Final EIR 13-02 reflects the City of Carlsbad's
independent judgment and analysis, the Final EIR 13-02, Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding
Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are complete and adequate in
scope and have been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of
Carlsbad and, therefore, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the Final EIR 13-02
be certified in relation to the project.
3. The Planning Commission does accept as its own, incorporate as if set forth in full herein, and
make each and every one of the findings contained in the Findings of Fact (Exhibit 1B), including
feasibility of mitigation measures pursuant to Public Resources Code 21081 and CEQA Guidelines
15091, and infeasibility of project alternatives.
4. The Planning Commission hereby finds and recommends to the City Council that the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit 1C) is designed to ensure that during project
implementation, any responsible parties will implement the project components and comply with
the feasible mitigation measures identified in the Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program.
5. The Planning Commission hereby finds that although certain environmental effects caused by the
project will remain significant or potentially significant even after the adoption of all feasible
mitigation measures, there are specific economic, social, and other considerations that render the
unavoidable significant adverse environmental effects acceptable, as set forth in the Statement
of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit 1B) and recommends its adoption to the City Council.
6. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(e),
the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings on which this
resolution are located in the City of Carlsbad, at 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive in the custody of the
City Clerk, and 1635 Faraday Avenue in the custody of the City Planner.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
Exhibit 1B
July 18, 2015
Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
for the Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate
Action Plan
SCH #2011011004
Prepared by:
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Exhibit 1B
July 18, 2015
Table of Contents
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1
2 Project Description .......................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Project Location ................................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Project Components ............................................................................................................ 2
2.3 Project Objectives................................................................................................................ 3
3 Environmental Procedures ............................................................................................... 5
3.1 Lead Agency ......................................................................................................................... 5
3.2 Environmental Impact Report ............................................................................................. 5
3.3 Public Participation .............................................................................................................. 5
3.4 Record of Proceedings ......................................................................................................... 6
4 Overview and General Findings ........................................................................................ 7
5 Findings and Recommendations Regarding Significant Impacts ......................................... 9
5.1 Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 10
5.2 Transportation ................................................................................................................... 36
6 Project Alternatives ....................................................................................................... 41
6.1 Alternative Analysis ........................................................................................................... 41
7 Statement of Overriding Consideration .......................................................................... 52
8 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 55
Carlsbad General Plan Update
ii
This page intentionally left blank.
Exhibit 1B
July 18, 2015
1 Introduction
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the City of Carlsbad (city) as the CEQA
lead agency to: (1) make written findings when it approves a project for which an environmental
impact report (EIR) was certified, and (2) identify overriding considerations for significant and
unavoidable impacts identified in the EIR.
These findings explain how the city approaches the significant and potentially significant impacts
identified in the EIR prepared for: the City of Carlsbad General Plan update, including other related
plans and programs to implement the broad direction of the General Plan; the Climate Action Plan
(CAP); amendments to the city’s Zoning Map and Local Coastal Program land use and zoning maps;
and amendment of the circulation level of service standard in the Citywide Facilities and
Improvements Plan to ensure consistency with the updated General Plan. These plans and
amendments will be collectively referred to herein as the “proposed Plan” or the “proposed
General Plan”. The statement of overriding considerations identifies economic, social,
technological, and other benefits of the proposed General Plan that override any significant
environmental impacts that would result from the proposed Plan.
As required under CEQA, the Final EIR includes the Draft EIR, the Recirculated Portions of the Draft
EIR, comments and responses to comments on the Draft EIR and Recirculated Portions of the Draft
EIR, and revisions to the Draft EIR, proposed Plan and CAP. In addition to analyzing potential
environmental effects and identifying necessary mitigation measures, the Final EIR examined five
alternatives to the proposed Plan—namely Alternative 1 (Centers Concept), Alternative 2 (Active
Waterfront Concept), Alternative 3 (Core Focus Concept), the Reduced Density Alternative, and
the No Project Alternative (representing a continuation of the existing General Plan).
The Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth below (“Findings”) are
presented for adoption by the City Council (Council) as the city’s findings under CEQA (Public
Resources Code, §21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations,
Title 14, §15000 et seq.) relating to the proposed Plan and CAP. The Findings provide the written
analysis and conclusions of this Council regarding the proposed Plan’s environmental impacts,
mitigating policies, alternatives to the proposed Plan, and the overriding considerations, which in
this Council’s view, justify approval of the proposed Plan, despite its environmental effects.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
2
2 Project Description
2.1 Project Location
The proposed Plan boundaries coincide with Carlsbad’s city limits. Carlsbad is located on the coast
of the Pacific Ocean in northwest San Diego County. In addition to the Pacific Ocean coastline
along its western boundary, Carlsbad is surrounded by the cities of Oceanside to the north,
Encinitas to the south, and Vista and San Marcos and unincorporated areas of San Diego County
to the east. Along Carlsbad’s northern edge, urban development abuts Highway 78, with the
highway and Buena Vista Lagoon acting as a boundary between Carlsbad and Oceanside. Similarly,
Batiquitos Lagoon along the city’s southern edge acts as a boundary between Carlsbad and
Encinitas. To the east, city boundaries are less distinctive, as a mix of hillsides and urban
development are located adjacent to the cities of Vista and San Marcos and unincorporated
county lands.
2.2 Project Components
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
The proposed General Plan is intended to respond directly to changes experienced in Carlsbad
since the preparation of the current General Plan (last comprehensively updated in 1994), and to
plan for city growth projected in coming decades. The proposed General Plan, which establishes
a long-range planning framework and policies, including a Housing Element update for the 2013
to 2021 planning period, would fully supplant the city’s existing General Plan when adopted by
the City Council. The General Plan update was initiated to comprehensively examine the existing
city and to create a vision for its future. Although the proposed General Plan does not specify or
anticipate when buildout of the city will occur, a horizon of year 2035 is assumed for planning
purposes.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
In addition to the proposed General Plan, a Climate Action Plan (CAP) is also proposed. The CAP
is designed to reduce Carlsbad’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and streamline environmental
review of future development projects in the city in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). The CAP includes goals, policies, and actions for Carlsbad to reduce GHG
emissions and address climate change and includes:
An inventory of Carlsbad’s citywide and local government GHG emissions;
Forecasts of future citywide and local government GHG emissions;
A comprehensive, citywide strategy and actions to manage and reduce GHG emissions,
with emission targets through year 2035; and
Actions that demonstrate Carlsbad’s commitment to achieve state GHG reduction targets
by creating enforceable measures, and monitoring and reporting processes to ensure
targets are met.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
3
The timeframe for the CAP extends from the date of adoption through 2035. The proposed
General Plan and the CAP are anticipated to be adopted concurrently, and both are evaluated in
the EIR.
ZONING MAP AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE AND ZONING MAPS
The proposed General Plan includes revisions to the General Plan Land Use Map; the city’s Zoning
Map and Local Coastal Program land use and zoning maps are proposed to be amended to ensure
consistency with the proposed General Plan Land Use Map.
ZONING ORDINANCE/LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM IMPLEMENTING PLAN AMENDMENT
The regulations of the Zoning Ordinance are proposed to be amended to ensure consistency with
the General Plan. The minimum residential density for commercial mixed use is proposed to be
amended and references to “RHNA Base” density are proposed to be deleted. Also, professional
care facilities are proposed to be added as a permitted use in the Office Zone.
CITYWIDE FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS PLAN (CFIP)
The proposed General Plan includes a provision to update the CFIP in order to ensure that the two
documents are consistent with one another. Policy 3-P.10 in the proposed General Plan Mobility
Element requires that the CFIP methodology for circulation level of service standards be updated
to reflect the multi-modal approach established in the proposed General Plan.
2.3 Project Objectives
The objectives of the proposed General Plan (as stated in Section 1.3 of the proposed General
Plan) are:
To outline a vision for Carlsbad’s long-term physical and economic development and
community enhancement;
To provide strategies and specific implementing actions that will allow this vision to be
accomplished;
To establish a basis for judging whether specific development proposals and public
projects are in harmony with General Plan policies and standards, (such as those for
density, parks, and mobility);
To allow city departments, other public agencies, and private developers to design
projects that will enhance the character of the community, preserve and enhance
important environmental resources, and minimize hazards; and
To provide the basis for establishing priorities for implementing plans and programs, such
as the Zoning Ordinance, the Capital Improvements Program, facilities plans, and specific
and area plans.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
4
The vision of the proposed General Plan is based on the core values identified in the “Carlsbad
Community Vision” (Section 1.2 of the proposed General Plan), as follows:
1. Small town feel, beach community character and connectedness. Enhance Carlsbad’s
defining attributes—its small-town feel and beach community character. Build on the
city’s culture of civic engagement, volunteerism and philanthropy.
2. Open space and the natural environment. Prioritize protection and enhancement of open
space and the natural environment. Support and protect Carlsbad’s unique open space
and agricultural heritage.
3. Access to recreation and active, healthy lifestyles. Promote active lifestyles and
community health by furthering access to trails, parks, beaches and other recreation
opportunities.
4. The local economy, business diversity and tourism. Strengthen the city’s strong and
diverse economy and its position as an employment hub in north San Diego County.
Promote business diversity, increased specialty retail and dining opportunities, and
Carlsbad’s tourism.
5. Walking, biking, public transportation and connectivity. Increase travel options through
enhanced walking, bicycling and public transportation systems. Enhance mobility through
increased connectivity and intelligent transportation management.
6. Sustainability. Build on the city’s sustainability initiatives to emerge as a leader in green
development and sustainability. Pursue public/ private partnerships, particularly on
sustainable water, energy, recycling and foods.
7. History, the arts and cultural resources. Emphasize the arts by promoting a multitude of
events and productions year-round, cutting-edge venues to host world- class
performances, and celebrate Carlsbad’s cultural heritage in dedicated facilities and
programs.
8. High quality education and community services. Support quality, comprehensive
education and life-long learning opportunities, provide housing and community services
for a changing population, and maintain a high standard for citywide public safety.
9. Neighborhood revitalization, community design and livability. Revitalize neighborhoods
and enhance citywide community design and livability. Promote a greater mix of uses
citywide, more activities along the coastline, and link density to public transportation.
Revitalize the downtown Village as a community focal point and a unique and memorable
center for visitors, and rejuvenate the historic Barrio neighborhood.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
5
3 Environmental Procedures
3.1 Lead Agency
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15367, the city is the “lead agency” for the purpose of preparing
the environmental review required by CEQA. The environmental review prepared by the city will
be used by the Council and the Planning Commission in their respective decisions regarding the
certification of the EIR and the adoption of the proposed General Plan.
Other public agencies that may have an interest in the project or resources affected by the project
include the California Coastal Commission, the California Department of Transportation, the
California Environmental Protection Agency, and the County of San Diego.
3.2 Environmental Impact Report
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15080, et seq., the city prepared an EIR to analyze the potential
impacts of the proposed Plan on the environment. The Final EIR contains all of the information
required by CEQA Guidelines §15132, including the Draft EIR and the appendices to the Draft EIR,
the recirculated Draft EIR and its appendices, all comment letters received, written responses to
all comments, and revisions to the EIR, General Plan and Climate Action Plan.
3.3 Public Participation
In 2008, the city initiated “Envision Carlsbad”, a community-wide outreach and visioning process
that helped define a set of widely-shared community values. Eight thousand members of the
Carlsbad community participated in the city-sponsored program to create a community vision for
Carlsbad’s future. The core values that emerged from this process are identified in the “Carlsbad
Community Vision,” which was accepted by the City Council in January 2010 and serves as a guide
for city leaders, staff, and community members as they implement this vision.
The NOP for the draft EIR was published on December 29, 2010. The NOP and public comment
period were advertised and a public scoping meeting was held January 17, 2011 to gather
agency and public input on the scope and content of the EIR. One community member attended
the scoping meeting. Written comments were also received during the public comment period.
In accordance with CEQA, the Draft EIR was distributed for a 45-day public review and comment
period beginning on April 4, 2015 through May 19, 2014; and on May 14, 2014, the public review
and comment period was extended to June 20, 2014. Copies of the Draft EIR or notice of
availability of the Draft EIR were sent to various state, regional, and local agencies, as well as
interested organizations and individuals. In total, 291 comment letters were received from public
agencies, organizations, and individuals.
Based on comments on the Draft EIR, the city revised portions of the Draft EIR concerning Chapter
3.2, Air Quality and Chapter 4.0, Alternatives. The revisions to the Draft EIR include a revised air
quality analysis, which concludes Impacts 3.2-1, 3.2-2, 3.2-3, and 3.2-4 will be significant and
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
6
unavoidable, and a revised alternatives analysis which evaluates a reduced density alternative
that reduces impacts to air quality and transportation. The other environmental issues raised in
public comments on the Draft EIR are addressed in the written responses to comments and other
revisions that are included in the Final EIR.
The revised chapters of the Draft EIR were recirculated for a 45-day public review and comment
period beginning on March 20, 2015 through May 4, 2015. Twelve written comment letters were
submitted on the Recirculated Portions of the Draft EIR. These comments and the city’s responses
to them are included in the Final EIR as required by CEQA Guidelines sections 15088 and 15132.
The Final EIR was completed and the city’s comments were made available for review on July 1,
2015. A public hearing concerning certification of the Final EIR was held by the City of Carlsbad
Planning Commission and City Council on July 18, 2015, at which interested agencies,
organizations, and persons were given an opportunity to comment on the Final EIR and the
proposed Plan.
3.4 Record of Proceedings
For purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth below, the administrative record of the city’s
decision concerning certification of the Final EIR for the proposed Plan include the following:
The Draft EIR (April 2014)
The Recirculated Portions of the Draft EIR (March 2015)
The Final EIR (July 2015)
The appendices to the Draft EIR, Recirculated Portions of the Draft EIR and Final EIR;
All documents and other materials listed as references and/or incorporated by reference
in the Draft EIR, Recirculated Portions of the Draft EIR, and Final EIR, including but not
limited to the materials identified in Chapters 6 (Bibliography), 7 (Organizations
Consulted), and 8 (Report Authors) of the EIR.
All reports, maps, letters, and other documents prepared by the city’s staff and
consultants for the proposed Plan which are before the City Council as determined by the
Clerk;
All documents or other materials submitted by interested persons and public agencies in
connection with the Draft EIR, Recirculated Portions of the Draft EIR, and the Final EIR;
and
The minutes, tape recordings, and verbatim transcripts, if any, of the public hearings held
by the city concerning certification of the Final EIR and approval of the proposed Plan.
All records and materials constituting the record of the proceedings upon which these Findings
are based are available at the offices of the City of Carlsbad, located at 1635 Faraday Avenue,
Carlsbad, CA 92008 (Public Resources Code § 21081.6(a)(2)).
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
7
4 Overview and General Findings
The proposed Plan includes policies and programs that are designed to avoid or to minimize the
potential environmental effects of future development. If significant impacts would occur despite
conformance with the policies and programs of the proposed Plan, CEQA requires the city to
identify feasible mitigation measures that would avoid or substantially lessen a project’s potential
significant impacts.
Table ES-3 of the Draft EIR lists a summary of potential impacts and proposed General Plan policies
that reduce the impacts. The Draft EIR and recirculated Draft EIR identify significant effects on the
environment that may occur as a result of implementation of the proposed General Plan in the
areas of air quality and transportation, which are described in detail below.
Public Resources Code Section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects
as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which
would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects” (Emphasis
added). The same statute states that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist
public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and
the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen
such significant effects” (Emphasis added). Section 21002 goes on to state that “in the event [that]
specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such
mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant
effects thereof.”
The mandate and principles set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21002 are implemented,
in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings concerning significant impacts
before approving projects for which EIRs are required. (See Pub. Resources Code Section 21081,
subd. (a); CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, subd. (a)). Specifically, Section 15091, subdivision (a)
of the CEQA Guidelines establishes the following requirements for findings:
(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which
identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency
makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief
explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1)).
This finding shall be referred to as “Finding (1).”
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other
agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (CEQA Guidelines Section
15091(a)(2)).
This finding shall be referred to as “Finding (2).”
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
8
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15091(a)(3)).
This finding shall be referred to as “Finding (3).”
Thus, for each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the
approving agency must issue a written finding making one or more of the three permissible
findings described above. These findings constitute the city’s best efforts to set forth the
evidentiary and other bases for its decision to approve the proposed Plan in a manner consistent
with the requirements of CEQA. The Facts in Support of Findings, as set forth in the following
sections, state the city’s reasons for making each finding and the evidence in support of the
findings.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
9
5 Findings and Recommendations Regarding
Significant Impacts
The Final EIR examined the environmental impacts of the proposed General Plan in the areas of
aesthetics; air quality; biological resources; energy, greenhouse gases, and climate change;
geology, soils and seismicity; hazardous materials, airport safety, and wildfires; historical,
archaeological, and paleontological resources; hydrology and flooding/water quality; land use,
housing, and population; noise; public facilities and services; public utilities and infrastructure;
transportation; agricultural resources; growth-inducing impacts; significant irreversible
environmental changes; and cumulative impacts. The Final EIR found potentially significant
impacts in the areas of air quality and transportation. Despite identifying policies and mitigation
measures that would reduce the potentially significant impacts, each of these significant impacts
was considered significant and unavoidable.
In determining the significance of the environmental effects, it is important to emphasize that in
issue areas when uncertainty surrounds impacts at a program level, the EIR analysis uses a
conservative approach to both assessment and conclusions. For instance, in the air quality
analysis, traffic data and trip generation include residential development that exceeds the city’s
Growth Management Program dwelling unit limitation in the northeast quadrant by 327 units
(which will be modified during the public hearing process to ensure compliance with the Growth
Management dwelling limit). In addition, the air quality analysis utilized the URBEMIS 2007 model,
Version 9.2.4, which used conservative default data for all inputs, including temperature, trip
characteristics, variable start information, emissions factors, and trip distances.
Due to the program level of analysis in the EIR and lack of project-specific development plans, it
is not possible at this time to define the exact extent of potential impacts, so it is not possible to
ascertain with certainty whether the identified General Plan policies and mitigation measures will
reduce impacts to levels considered “less than significant.” Future development proposals will be
subject to site-specific, project-level environmental analysis pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15168.
The following subsections list each significant or potentially significant environmental impact by
issue area in the order it appears in the Draft EIR, and includes proposed General Plan policies
which reduce the impact for each significant impact identified in the EIR; the availability of
mitigation measures; findings; and overriding considerations. A full documentation of the
environmental analysis and conclusions is in the Final EIR, which is incorporated by reference.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
10
5.1 Air Quality
Impact 3.2-1 Development under the proposed General Plan will conflict with or obstruct
the implementation of the applicable air quality plan. (Significant and
Unavoidable)
Finding:
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the proposed Plan which could avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect identified in the Final EIR as Impact 3.2-1; and, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
§15091(a)(2), such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the San
Diego Air Pollution Control District (“SDAPCD”), not the city, and such changes can and should be
adopted by the SDAPCD.
Facts in Support of Finding:
As mentioned in the recirculated Draft EIR analysis, the SDAPCD and SANDAG are responsible for
developing and implementing the clean air plan (RAQS) for attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS and CAAQS in the SDAB. The RAQS was initially adopted in 1991 and is updated on a
triennial basis (most recently in 2009). The 2009 update to the RAQS remains the most up-to-date
regional air quality plan for the SDAB. The RAQS is the primary document that accounts for
regional emission levels in the SDAB and serves as the long-term guidance tool for bringing into
attainment and maintaining adequate air emission levels in the region. The RAQS outlines the
SDAPCD’s plans and control measures designed to attain the state air quality standards,
particularly for O3 and its precursor pollutants. The RAQS relies on information from CARB and
SANDAG, including mobile and area source emissions, as well as information regarding projected
growth in San Diego County and the cities in the county, to project future emissions and then
determine from that the strategies necessary for the reduction of emissions through regulatory
controls. CARB mobile source emission projections and SANDAG growth projections are based on
population, vehicle trends, and land use plans developed by San Diego County and the cities in
the county as part of the development of their general plans.
If a project proposes development that is greater than that anticipated in the local general plan
and SANDAG’s growth projections, the project might be in conflict with the RAQS and may
contribute to a potentially significant cumulative impact on air quality. Future land uses and
development projects that occur consistent with the proposed General Plan would generate
vehicle trips and area source emissions that would result in ozone precursor emissions and
particulate matter. However, the overall premise of the proposed General Plan is to plan for
future growth in Carlsbad, which would include the efficient reconfiguration of land uses to
reduce vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) including development of compact, mixed-
use and transit-oriented development; increase non-motorized modes of travel; improve transit
corridors; and implement long-term sustainable development measures city-wide. The numerous
policies delineated in the proposed General Plan support these goals and objectives to reduce
criteria pollutant emissions. Moreover, the Climate Action Plan (CAP) is proposed concurrent with
the proposed General Plan; the CAP would further implement sustainability measures to reduce
emissions resulting from motor vehicles, electricity, solid waste generation, and water use.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
11
Additionally, although the proposed General Plan would be designed to accommodate future
growth, the proposed General Plan and CAP have been developed to effectively and sustainably
accommodate growth while creating a more efficient, sustainable land use and transportation
profile that would be consistent with the control measures and regional air quality planning
strategies as outlined in the RAQS.
Moreover, individual projects under the proposed General Plan would be required to undergo
subsequent, individual environmental review pursuant to CEQA, and as part of this review effort,
projects requiring discretionary approval would be required to demonstrate compliance with the
RAQS and SIP. Individual projects would also be required to demonstrate compliance with
SDAPCD rules and regulations governing air quality, specifically particulate matter.
While numerous measures would be taken under the proposed General Plan and CAP to support
the goals and policies of the RAQS and SIP, population projections, as anticipated under the
proposed General Plan, would not be consistent with the growth projections as assumed by
SANDAG in 2009, the year the RAQS was last updated. Therefore, because future growth
anticipated under the proposed General Plan would not be consistent with the underlying growth
projections of the RAQS, the proposed General Plan would not be consistent with the applicable
air quality plan for the region. Until the RAQS undergoes a future update to incorporate growth
projections consistent with the proposed General Plan, impacts would be considered significant.
Mitigation Measures
To ensure the proposed General Plan growth projections would be consistent with the underlying
growth projections on which the RAQS is based, the following mitigation is proposed.
MM AQ-1: The city shall request that SDAPCD revise the RAQS to include the growth projections
of the proposed General Plan in SDAPCD’s next triennial update of the RAQS.
Findings
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the council finds that:
Effects of Mitigating Policies and Remaining Impacts
As described above in the discussion of Impact 3.2-1, although the city would recommend that
SDAPCD can and should update the RAQS to include the proposed General Plan’s growth
projections, implementation of the proposed mitigation is within SDAPCD’s jurisdiction and
control, and the city cannot guarantee the timing and implementation of the proposed mitigation.
Therefore, this would represent a significant and unavoidable impact of the proposed Plan
(Finding (1); CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1) and Finding (2); CEQA Guidelines, Section
15091(a)(2)).
Overriding Considerations
The environmental, economic, social, and other benefits of the proposed General Plan, as stated
more fully in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section 1.7, override any remaining
significant adverse impact of the proposed General Plan associated with impacts to air quality.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
12
Impact 3.2-2 Development under the proposed General Plan would violate air quality
standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation. (Significant and Unavoidable)
Finding:
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the proposed Plan which could avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect identified in the Final EIR as Impact 3.2-2.
Facts in Support of Finding:
As stated previously, in San Diego County, O3 and particulate matter are the pollutants of main
concern, since exceedances of CAAQS for those pollutants are experienced here in most years.
For this reason, the SDAB has been designated as a nonattainment area for the state PM10,
PM2.5, and O3 (1-hour and 8-hour) standards. The SDAB is also a federal O3 marginal
nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour NAAQS and a CO maintenance area.
Construction
Future construction allowed under the proposed General Plan would result in a temporary
addition of pollutants to the local airshed caused by soil disturbance, fugitive dust emissions, and
combustion pollutants from on-site construction equipment, as well as from off-site trucks
hauling construction materials. Construction emissions can vary substantially from day to day,
depending on the level of activity, the specific type of operation and, for dust, the prevailing
weather conditions.
Construction activities under the proposed General Plan would occur during future residential,
commercial, industrial, and open space development. Specific project development schedules
under the proposed General Plan are not known at this time; however, build-out would occur
over an extended period of time, depending on unknown factors such as local economic
conditions, market demand, and other financing considerations. As such, it is not possible to
accurately estimate construction emissions at the plan level. To accurately quantify construction
emissions requires project-level information including size and scale of the project to be
constructed, construction schedule, equipment fleet, construction worker crew estimates,
grading quantities, etc. This level of detail is not available at the program level, and the proposed
General Plan, by nature, does not propose specific development projects. Subsequent project-
level environmental review, including quantification of construction criteria pollutant emissions,
would be required during the processing of individual applications for future projects. Therefore,
such emission levels can only be approximately estimated with a corresponding uncertainty in
precise ambient air quality impacts. Fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) emissions would primarily
result from grading and site preparation activities. NOx and CO emissions would primarily result
from the use of construction equipment and motor vehicles.
In an effort to quantify construction emissions, total proposed General Plan development was
averaged over the 20-year build-out period, and a single construction year from this scenario was
analyzed as a representative year of construction under the proposed General Plan. Emissions
from construction were estimated through the use of the URBEMIS 2007, Version 9.2.4, land use
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
13
and air emissions model (Jones & Stokes 2007). For the analysis, it was generally assumed that
heavy construction equipment would be operating at the site for approximately 8 hours per day,
5 days per week (22 days per month), during project construction. Additionally, URBEMIS model
assumptions for construction equipment were used in calculating construction emissions. The
equipment mix is meant to represent a reasonably conservative estimate of construction activity.
Future development allowed under the proposed General Plan is subject to SDAPCD Rule 55 –
Fugitive Dust Control. This requires that the project take steps to restrict visible emissions of
fugitive dust beyond the property line. Compliance with Rule 55 would limit any fugitive dust
(PM10 and PM2.5) that may be generated during grading and construction activities. To account for
dust control measures in the calculations, it was assumed that the active sites would be watered
at least two times daily, resulting in an approximately 55% reduction of particulate matter. Future
development allowed under the proposed General Plan is also subject to SDAPCD Rule 67.0 –
Architectural Coatings. This rule requires manufacturers, distributors, and end users of architectural
and industrial maintenance coatings to reduce VOC emissions from the use of these coatings,
primarily by placing limits on the VOC content of various coating categories.
Table 1.5-1, Construction Assumptions for General Plan Development Through 2035, shows the net
increase in new development that would occur under the proposed General Plan. For the
purposes of modeling, it was assumed that development under the proposed General Plan would
occur over a 20-year period between 2015 and 2035, with an equal amount of construction
occurring each year. To estimate construction emissions associated within ongoing demolition
that would occur as part of redevelopment efforts under the proposed General Plan, a plan-wide
average of 15% of existing development is assumed to be demolished over the build-out time
period. Annual average development under these assumptions is presented in Table 1.5-2.
Table 1.5-1: Construction Assumptions for General Plan Development Through
2035
Category Assumption
Total New Development
Housing Units 7,880 (394 units per year)
Commercial (sf) 2,132,200 (106,610 sf/year)
Office Space (sf) 778,500 (38,925 sf/year)
Industrial (sf) 4,600,400 (230,020 sf/year)
Hotel Rooms 2,360 (118 rooms/year)
Total Demolition 15% of existing development
Source: Land uses and associated trip generation - Fehr and Peers 2013
Table 1.5-2 shows the estimated average maximum daily construction emissions associated with
one year of development under the proposed General Plan.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
14
Table 1.5-2: Estimated Annual Average Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (pounds/day)
Emissions by Phase VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Demolition 8.87 92.89 44.15 0.14 117.33 27.10
Grading 4.09 30.45 22.04 0.00 184.38 39.64
Trenching 1.41 10.38 8.52 0.00 0.47 0.43
Building Construction 5.06 30.34 71.45 0.11 2.09 1.61
Paving 4.17 15.53 10.87 0.01 1.17 1.05
Architectural Coating 217.70 0.10 1.95 0.00 0.02 0.01
Maximum Daily Emissions1 222.76 92.89 73.40 0.14 184.38 39.64
Emission Threshold 137 250 550 250 100 55
Threshold Exceeded? Yes No No No Yes No
Source: Appendix B of the Draft EIR.
1 Maximum Daily Emissions including emissions of overlapping construction phases.
For the purposes of modeling, it was assumed an equal amount of construction activity would
occur each year; however, in some cases, greater amounts of construction activity would occur at
any given time, and construction schedules for multiple projects may overlap resulting in greater
emissions than those presented in Table 1.5-2. Similarly, over the course of the 20-year build-out
period, some years may result in fewer construction activities and thus, fewer emissions than that
presented in Table 1.5-2.
Although specific construction schedules, equipment fleets, construction phasing and
development intensity of projects that would be implemented under the proposed General Plan
are not known at this time, construction emissions generated during construction of future
development would potentially exceed SDAPCD thresholds. As shown in Table 1.5-2, construction
emissions would exceed the SDAPCD thresholds for VOC and PM10; therefore, impacts would be
considered significant.
Proposed General Plan Policy 4-P.55, listed below, would aid in reducing emissions associated
with construction activities. For example, the policy requires compliance with the city’s storm
water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) requirements, which include implementation of best
management practices (BMPs) such as dust control measures and other construction-related
measures during grading and construction activities that would reduce criteria pollutant
emissions.1 Additionally, Section 4.504 of the city’s California Green Building Standards Code
(adopted by reference as part of the city’s building code) includes measures related to pollutant
control for dust debris and architectural coating that would reduce fugitive dust and VOC content
during coating applications for new projects.2 In addition, construction-related mitigation
measures are available that can be implemented on a project-by-project basis, as needed to
1 City of Carlsbad. Construction SWPPP Standards and Requirements. June 2008. http://www.carlsbadca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=24277.
2 CBSC (California Building Standards Commission). 2010. California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen). California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. June 2010.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
15
further reduce impacts associated with construction activities below SDAPCD thresholds.
Nonetheless, because the extent to which these mitigation measures would reduce project-level
construction emissions cannot be accurately determined at this time, impacts would be
considered significant and unavoidable during construction.
Operation
Following the completion of construction activities over the course of build-out of the proposed
General Plan, operational activities would generate VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions
from mobile and stationary sources, including vehicular traffic, area sources (space heating, water
heating, landscaping), and other larger stationary sources (the Encina Power Station (EPS) is the
only existing and the replacement Carlsbad Energy Center Project (CECP) is the only anticipated
large stationary source in the city).
The net new operational emissions generated by the proposed General Plan are estimated in Table
1.5-3. The net new operational emissions from motor vehicles, area sources, and stationary sources
were estimated for year 2035 based on the net change in criteria pollutant emissions between
development of land uses without the proposed General Plan and development of land uses with
the proposed General Plan. Under both of these scenarios, it is assumed that EPS would be
decommissioned and the CECP would replace that stationary source. As a result, there is no net
change in stationary source emissions as a result of the proposed General Plan. Should any future
stationary sources be constructed, these projects would be subject to permitting review by the
SDAPCD to ensure violations of current air quality standards would not occur, as well as independent
environmental review under CEQA. Therefore, because future stationary source projects that would
occur under the proposed General Plan would be required to obtain permits issued by the SDAPCD,
and would be subject to independent environmental review, stationary source emissions other than
the CECP are not provided.
The proposed General Plan would allow for future residential, commercial, office, hotel, and
industrial development; and increases in land use densities and development intensities. Similar
to construction emissions, operational emissions were estimated using the URBEMIS 2007,
Version 9.2.4, land use and air emissions model.3
Mobile Emissions
Implementation of the proposed General Plan would impact air quality through the vehicular
traffic generated by future development. According to the project’s traffic analysis prepared by
Fehr and Peers, the net change in trips that can be attributed to build-out (2035) of the proposed
General Plan is 225,746 trips.
The URBEMIS 2007 model was utilized to estimate daily emissions from proposed vehicular
sources (refer to Appendix B of the Draft EIR). URBEMIS 2007 default data, including temperature,
trip characteristics, variable start information, emissions factors, and trip distances, were
conservatively used for the model inputs.
3 Jones & Stokes Associates. Software User’s Guide: URBEMIS2007 for Windows; Emissions Estimation for Land Use Development Projects.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
16
Proposed General Plan-related traffic was assumed to be comprised of a mixture of vehicles in
accordance with the model outputs for traffic. Emission factors representing the vehicle mix and
emissions for 2035 (full build-out) were used to estimate emissions associated with development
under the proposed General Plan.
Area Sources
In addition to estimating mobile source emissions, the URBEMIS 2007 model was also used to
estimate emissions from the proposed General Plan’s area sources, which include other natural
gas combustion, landscaping, and architectural coatings for maintenance. Refer to Appendix B of
the Draft EIR for additional information.
Summary of Operational Emissions
Table 1.5-3, General Plan Build-out (2035) Estimated Daily Maximum Operational Emissions,
shows the resulting net new operational emissions from build-out of the proposed General Plan
(2035). The values shown in Table 1.5-3 for motor vehicles and area sources are the maximum
summer or winter daily emissions. Complete details of the emissions calculations are provided in
Appendix B of the recirculated Draft EIR.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
17
Table 1.5-3: General Plan Build-out (2035) Estimated Daily Maximum Operational
Emissions (pounds/day)
Emission
Source VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Estimated Emissions without Proposed General Plan (2035)
Motor Vehicles 2,219.98 2,663.21 23,268.40 63.13 10,884.72 2,077.60
Area Sources 11,478.33 1,521.53 46,295.37 143.53 7,400.75 7,123.59
Stationary
Sources1 110.14 395.12 1,190.68 30.68 213.70 N/A
Total 13,808.45 4,579.86 70,754.45 237.34 18,499.17 9,201.19
Estimated Emissions with Proposed General Plan (2035)
Motor Vehicles 2,841.93 3,410.65 29,763.92 80.77 13,935.46 2,659.66
Area Sources 13,261.85 1,736.31 53,308.52 165.26 8,522.32 8,203.14
Stationary
Sources1 110.14 395.12 1,190.68 30.68 213.70 N/A
Total 16,213.92 5,542.08 84,263.12 276.71 22,671.48 10,862.80
Net New Emissions at General Plan Build-out (2035)
Motor Vehicles 621.95 747.44 6,495.52 17.64 3,050.74 582.06
Area Sources 1,783.52 214.78 7,013.15 21.73 1,121.57 1,079.55
Stationary Sources1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A
Total Net New
Emissions 2,405.47 962.22 13,508.67 39.37 4,172.31 1,661.61
Emission Threshold 75 250 550 250 100 55
Threshold
Exceeded? Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Emissions represent maximum of summer and winter. “Summer” emissions are representative of the conditions
that may occur during the ozone season (May 1 to October 31), and “winter” emissions are representative of
the conditions that may occur during the balance of the year (November 1 to April 30).
Source: Appendix B of the Draft EIR.
1. Stationary sources include the upgrade of the Carlsbad Energy Center. Source: California Energy Commission
(CEC). 2012. Carlsbad Energy Center Project: Commission Decision.
Due to the increase anticipated in average daily traffic (ADT) as a result of development under the
proposed General Plan and growth in area source emissions, emissions of VOC, NOx, CO, PM10, and
PM2.5 would exceed the SDAPCD’s project-level, daily thresholds. Measures in the goals and policies
of the proposed General Plan, the Climate Action Plan, the city’s SWPPP requirements and Green
Building Standards Code (listed below) would reduce impacts associated with construction and
operational emissions. However, in the absence of specific information regarding the size,
location, timing and other characteristics of future development allowed under the General Plan,
it is not possible at this time to determine whether these measures would reduce project-level
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
18
operational emissions below SDAPCD thresholds. Therefore, impacts due to increased emissions
from future development would remain significant and unavoidable during operation.
Proposed General Plan Policies that Reduce the Impacts
Land Use and Community Design Element
2-G.3 Promote infill development that makes efficient use of limited land supply, while
ensuring compatibility and integration with existing uses. Ensure that infill
properties develop with uses and development intensities supporting a cohesive
development pattern.
2-G.6 Allow a range of mixed-use centers in strategic locations that maximize access to
commercial services from transit and residential areas.
2-G.7 Ensure that neighborhood serving shopping and mixed-use centers include
shopping as a pedestrian-oriented focus for the surrounding neighborhood, are
physically integrated with the surroundings, and contain neighborhood-serving
stores and small offices. Where appropriate, include in the centers high and
medium density housing surrounding the retail core or integrated in mixed-use
buildings.
2-G.11 Provide industrial lands that can accommodate a wide range of pollution-free
industrial establishments, including those of relatively high intensity; research
and development and related uses set in campus or park-like settings; as well as
moderate to low intensity establishments capable of being located adjacent to
residential areas with minimal buffering and attenuation measures.
2-P.5 Work with SANDAG through participation in its various standing committees on
regional plans and initiatives. Adopt local implementing policies and programs
when found to be consistent with the General Plan and in the best interests of
Carlsbad’s residents and businesses.
2-P.13 Encourage medium to higher density residential uses located in close proximity
to commercial services, employment opportunities and major transportation
corridors.
2-P.31 Regulate industrial land uses on the basis of performance standards, including,
but not limited to noise, air quality, odor, and glare.
2-P.45 Evaluate each discretionary application for development of property with regard
to the following specific criteria [only applicable criteria listed below]:
g. Compliance with the performance standards of the Growth Management Plan.
h. Development proposals which are designed to provide safe, easy pedestrian
and bicycle linkages to nearby transportation corridors.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
19
Mobility Element Policies
3-P.1 Implement a comprehensive livable streets network. This network, as outlined in
Table 3-1 and shown on Figure 3-1, prioritizes transportation modes by street
typology and accessibility to users of the system.
3-P.3 Apply and update the city’s multi-modal level of service (MMLOS) methodology
and guidelines that reflect the core values of the Carlsbad Community Vision
related to transportation and connectivity. Utilize the MMLOS methodology to
evaluate impacts of individual development projects and amendments to the
General Plan on the city’s transportation system.
3-P.4 Implement the city’s MMLOS methodology by evaluating level of service (LOS) for
prioritized modes. Maintain LOS D or better only for the prioritized modes of
travel by street typology as outlined in Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1.
3-P.8 Utilize transportation demand management strategies, non-automotive
enhancements (bicycle, pedestrian, transit, train, trails, and connectivity), and
traffic signal management techniques as long-term transportation solutions and
traffic mitigation measures to carry out the Carlsbad Community Vision.
3-P.9 Develop and maintain a list of LOS exempt intersections and streets approved by
the City Council. For LOS exempt intersections and streets, the city will not
implement motor vehicle capacity improvements to maintain the LOS standard
outlined in Policy 3-P.4 if such improvements are beyond what is identified as
appropriate at build out of the General Plan; however, other non-vehicle capac-
ity-building improvements may be required to improve mobility, to the extent
feasible, and/or to implement the livable streets goals and policies of this Mobility
Element. To be considered LOS exempt, an intersection or street must be
identified as built-out by the City Council because:
a. acquiring the rights of way is not feasible; or
b. the proposed improvements would significantly impact the environment in an
unacceptable way and mitigation would not contribute to the nine core values
of the Carlsbad Community Vision; or
c. the proposed improvements would result in unacceptable impacts to other
community values or General Plan policies; or
d. the proposed improvements would require more than three through travel
lanes in each direction.
3-P.11 Require new development that adds traffic to LOS-exempt locations (consistent
with 3-P.7) to implement transportation demand management strategies that
reduce the reliance on the automobile and assist in achieving the city’s livable
streets vision.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
20
3-P.12 Update the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan to ensure consistency with
the General Plan. This includes updating the circulation LOS standards
methodologies to reflect a more balanced/multi-modal approach.
3-P.13 Evaluate implementing a road diet to three lanes or fewer for existing four-lane
streets currently carrying or projected to carry 25,000 average daily traffic
volumes or less in order to promote biking, walking, safer street crossings, and
attractive streetscapes. Before implementing a road diet, the city shall solicit and
consider public input, and evaluate the trade-offs between safety, auto service
levels, bicycle/pedestrian/transit service levels.
3-P.14 Design new streets, and explore funding opportunities for existing streets, to
minimize traffic volumes and/or speed, as appropriate, within residential
neighborhoods without compromising connectivity for emergency first
responders, bicycles, and pedestrians consistent with the city’s Carlsbad Active
Transportation Strategies. This should be accomplished through management
and implementation of livable streets strategies and such programs like the
Carlsbad Residential Traffic Management Plan.
3-P.15 Consider innovative design and program solutions to improve the mobility,
efficiency, connectivity, and safety of the transportation system. Innovative
design solutions include, but are not limited to, traffic calming devices,
roundabouts, traffic circles, curb extensions, separated bicycle infrastructure,
pedestrian scramble intersections, high visibility pedestrian treatments and
infrastructure, and traffic signal coordination. Innovative program solutions
include, but are not limited to, webpages with travel demand and traffic signal
management information, car and bike share programs, active transportation
campaigns, and intergenerational programs around schools to enhance safe
routes to schools. Other innovative solutions include bicycle friendly business
districts, electric and solar power energy transportation systems, intelligent
transportation systems, semi- or full autonomous vehicles, trams, and shuttles.
3-P.16 Support pedestrian and bicycle facilities at all Interstate-5 and State Route 78
interchanges.
3-P.22 Update the pedestrian, trails and bicycle master plans, as necessary, to reflect
changes in needs, opportunities and priorities.
3-P.26 Improve and enhance parking, connectivity, access, and utilization for
pedestrians and bicycles to COASTER stations, utility corridors, and open spaces
consistent with city planning documents.
3-P.27 Evaluate incorporating pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure within the city as
part of any planning or engineering study, private development, or capital project
where bicyclists or pedestrians are a prioritized or non-prioritized mode.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
21
3-P.28 Complete the Carlsbad Active Transportation Strategies to assist in identifying
livable street implementation parameters within the city.
3-P.30 Require developers to improve pedestrian and bicycle connectivity consistent
with the city’s bicycle and pedestrian master plans and trails master planning
efforts. In addition, new residential developments should demonstrate that a safe
route to school and transit is provided to nearby schools and transit stations
within a half mile walking distance.
3-P.31 Work with existing neighborhoods and businesses to improve pedestrian and
bicycle connectivity and safety consistent with the city’s pedestrian and bicycle
master plans and trails master planning efforts.
3-P.32 Actively pursue grant programs such as SANDAG’s Active Transportation Grant
Program and Smart Growth Incentive Program to improve non-automotive
connectivity throughout the city. The emphasis of grant-funded projects shall be
on implementation, which includes planning documents that guide and prioritize
implementation, programs that encourage the use of active transportation
modes, education for the use of active transportation modes, or physical
improvements themselves.
3-P.33 Partner with other agencies and/or developers to improve transit connectivity
within Carlsbad. As part of a comprehensive transportation demand
management (TDM) strategy and/or with transit oriented development (TOD), a
shuttle system could be established that connects destinations and employment
centers like LEGOLAND, hotels, the Village, McClellan-Palomar Airport, business
parks, the COASTER and Breeze transit stations, public activity centers (such as
senior centers, city hall, libraries, etc.), and key destinations along the coast. The
system could incorporate shuttle service in adjacent cities to maximize
connectivity.
3-P.34 Encourage NCTD, SANDAG and other transit providers to provide accessibility for
all modes of travel to the McClellan-Palomar Airport area.
3-P.37 Require new employment development to provide secure bicycle parking on-site.
Major employers should provide shower and changing rooms for employees as
appropriate.
3-P.39 Consider supporting new development and existing businesses with various
incentives (such as parking standards modifications) for implementing TDM
programs that minimize the reliance on single-occupant automotive travel during
peak commute hours.
Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element Policies
4-G.13 Protect air quality within the city and support efforts for enhanced regional air
quality.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
22
4-P.25 Locate new parks, plazas, or alternative parks (such as greenways) in existing infill
neighborhoods – the Village and Barrio – where new residential development is
contemplated.
4-P.51 Participate in the implementation of transportation demand management
programs on a regional basis.
4-P.52 To the extent practical and feasible, maintain a system of air quality alerts (such
as through the city website, internet, email to city employees, and other tools)
based on San Diego Air Pollution Control District forecasts. Consider providing
incentives to city employees to use alternative transportation modes during alert
days.
4-P.53 Provide, whenever possible, incentives for carpooling, flex-time, shortened work
weeks, and telecommunications and other means of reducing vehicular miles
traveled.
4-P.54 Cooperate with the ongoing efforts of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
the San Diego Air Pollution Control District, and the State of California Air
Resources Board in improving air quality in the regional air basin.
4-P.55 Ensure that construction and grading projects minimize short-term impacts to air
quality.
a. Require grading projects to provide a storm water pollution prevention plan
(SWPPP) in compliance with city requirements, which include standards for
best management practices that control pollutants from dust generated by
construction activities and those related to vehicle and equipment cleaning,
fueling and maintenance;
b. Require grading projects to undertake measures to minimize mono-nitrogen
oxide (NOx) emissions from vehicle and equipment operations; and
c. Monitor all construction to ensure that proper steps are implemented.
Climate Action Plan Goals and Actions that Reduce the Impacts
Measure K: Promote Transportation Demand Management Strategies
Goal: Promote Transportation Demand Management Strategies with a goal of achieving
a 10 percent increase in alternative mode use by workers in Carlsbad, for a total of 32
percent alternative mode use.
Actions:
K-1: Adopt a citywide transportation demand management (TDM) plan, as described
in the General Plan Mobility Element, detailing a mix of strategies to reduce travel
demand, specifically of single occupancy vehicles. SANDAG’s 2012 “Integrating
Transportation Demand Management Into the Planning and Development Process”
provides a guide to designing and implementing a TDM plan and will be used as a
reference document to develop the city’s TDM plan. TDM strategies evaluated in
the plan include parking ordinances, subsidized or discounted transit programs,
transit marketing and promotion, car sharing, parking pricing, and bike parking.
(Short-term)
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
23
K-2: Adopt a TDM ordinance, defining a minimum trip generation threshold for
nonresidential development projects. The city will set performance requirements
for minimum alternative mode use based on project type. All projects above the
threshold shall submit a TDM plan, which includes a description of how the
minimum alternative mode use will be achieved and maintained over the life of the
project. Potential TDM trip reduction measures can include carpool and vanpool
ride matching services; designated employees as contacts for trip reduction
programs; providing a direct route to transit in coordination with NCTD; developing
public-private transit partnerships; passenger loading zones; pedestrian
connections; showers and clothes lockers; long–term bicycle parking and shuttle
programs. (Mid-term)
Measure L: Promote an Increase in the Amount of Zero-Emissions Vehicle Travel
Goal: Promote an increase in the amount of ZEV43 miles traveled from a projected 15
percent to 25 percent of total vehicle miles traveled by 2035.
Actions:
L-1: Working with industry partners, construct a “PV to EV” pilot project to install a
PV charging station at a city facility (such as the Faraday Center), to charge city ZEVs.
The purpose of the pilot project would be to evaluate the feasibility of incorporating
more ZEV into the city’s fleet. (Short-term)
L-2: Prepare a community-wide charging station siting plan, which evaluates site
visibility and exposure, EV driving ranges, high volume destinations, locations with
high ownership or interest in EVs, and cost of construction. (Short-term)
L-3: Construct ZEV charging stations based on the community-wide charging station
siting plan described in L-1 above. The ZEV charging stations will be funded by grant
funds when available, and the city will post signage directing ZEVs to charging
stations. (Mid-term)
L-4: Offer dedicated ZEV parking, and provide charging stations adjacent to ZEV
parking as identified in the community-wide charging station siting plan. (Mid-term)
L-5: Adopt requirements for ZEV parking for new developments. (Short-term)
L-6: Adopt a residential energy conservation ordinance, similar to Palo Alto,
requiring the installation of EV chargers or pre-wiring in new residential
construction and major renovations. (Short-term)
L-7: Update the city’s Fleet Management Program to include a low and zero-
emissions vehicle replacement/purchasing policy. Increase the proportion of fleet
low and zero–emissions vehicle miles traveled to 25 percent of all city-related VMT
by 2035. (Short-term)
Green Building Standards and Measures that Reduce the Impacts
Title 24 also includes Part 11, known as California’s Green Building Standards (CALGreen). The
most recent version of the CALGreen standards took effect in January 2014, and instituted
mandatory minimum environmental performance standards for all ground-up, new construction
of commercial, low-rise residential and state-owned buildings, as well as schools and hospitals.
The mandatory standards require a 20% mandatory reduction in indoor water use as well as 50%
of construction and demolition waste must be diverted from landfills. Nonresidential mandatory
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
24
measures also include provision of bicycle parking and designated parking for low-emitting, fuel-
efficient, and carpool/van pool vehicles that would reduce criteria air pollutant emissions due to
decreased VMT.
Mandatory CalGreen Measures That Reduce Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
Chapter 4: Residential Mandatory Measures
DIVISION 4.5 – ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Section 4.503 Fire Places
Any installed woodstove or pellet stove shall comply with U.S. EPA Phase II emission limits
where applicable and any applicable local ordinances.
Section 4.54 Pollutant Control
Adhesives, sealants, and caulks meet SCAQMD Rule 1168 for VOC limits and prohibition
on the use of certain toxic compounds.
Paints and coatings will comply with VOC limits specified by CARB Architectural Suggested
Control Measure.
Aerosol paints and coatings will meet MIR limits for ROCs and prohibitions on certain toxic
compounds and ozone depleting substances.
o Actual limits for each of these are specified on page 28 of CalGreen
Carpets and flooring will meet low VOC and air quality standards from California
Department of Public Health
Composite wood products will meet CARB Air Toxics Control Measure for Composite
Wood for formaldehyde emissions.
Chapter 5: Nonresidential Mandatory Measures
DIVISION 5.1 – PLANNING AND DESIGN
Section 5.106 Site Development
Projects with less than one acre of disturbance will implement BMPs to prevent loss of
soil through wind and water erosion (reduced fugitive dust).
Division 5.4 – Material Conservation and Resource Efficiency
Same measures as for residential in addition to the following:
Finish materials VOC limits
Refrigerant leak protections
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
25
SWPPP Air Quality Reduction Measures that Reduce the Impacts
City of Carlsbad Standard Urban Storm Water Management Plan (SUSMP) and Engineering Standards
for Stormwater Best Management Practices
CONSTRUCTION SWPPP STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS:
Implementation of erosion control BMPs including hydroseeding, soil binders, geotextiles,
mats, fiber rolls, etc.
Implementation of tracking control BMPs including stabilized construction ingress/egress,
stabilized construction roadway, and ingress/egress tire washing.
Implementation of waste management and materials pollution control BMPs including
material delivery and storage, and stockpile management (enclosing or covering stored
materials).
Compliance with all “Dry Season Site Management Requirements” as delineated in the
Engineering Standards, Storm Water Standards Manual.
Minimize site disturbance including sloped areas that are susceptible to wind and water
erosion.
Landscape design to reduce wind and water erosion including vegetation stabilization.
Mitigation Measures
The goals and policies of the proposed General Plan, the Climate Action Plan, measures contained
in the Green Building Code, the city’s SWPPP requirements, and applicable federal, state, and local
air quality regulations, provide a framework for developing project-level air quality protection
measures for future development projects. The city’s process for the evaluation of future
development projects includes site-specific environmental review and documentation pursuant
to CEQA, as well as an analysis of those projects for consistency with the goals, policies, and
recommendations of the proposed General Plan.
In addition to the measures identified in the goals and policies of the proposed General Plan, the
Climate Action Plan, the city’s SWPPP requirements and the Green Building Code described above,
implementation of the mitigation measures identified below would avoid or reduce impacts
resulting from the construction and operations emissions of future development allowed under
the proposed General Plan. During project-level environmental review, if potential impacts are
determined to be significant despite conformance with the measures described above, the
mitigation measures provided below would be implemented as needed to reduce project-specific
impacts to below SDAPCD thresholds. Mitigation measures may include, but would not be limited
to, the following:
MM AQ-2: During the project-level environmental review of future development projects allowed
under the proposed General Plan, the project applicant shall prepare an air quality technical
report that analyzes all phases of project construction and operations. The technical report shall
analyze construction and operational emissions and determine whether emissions would exceed
SDAPCD thresholds. If a project’s air quality technical report determines that construction or
operations emissions exceed the SDAPCD threshold(s), site-specific mitigation measures shall be
implemented to avoid or reduce emissions to SDAPCD thresholds. Where mitigation measures
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
26
are required, the city will identify these measures in the project-level environmental document
and include them in a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) for the individual
development project.
MM AQ-3: For projects that exceed daily construction emissions thresholds established by the
SDAPCD, the following measures may be required as needed to reduce project-level impacts.
These measures may be updated, expanded, and refined when applied to specific future projects
based on project-specific design and changes in existing conditions, and local, state, and federal
laws. Measures may include but are not limited to:
A. Fugitive dust generated by grading and construction activities shall be minimized and
retained on the project site by complying with SDAPCD Rule 55, as applicable, and the
following dust control measures:
1. Prevent dust from leaving the site during construction, clearing, grading,
earthmoving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill materials by applying
water (with water trucks or sprinkler systems) to all active disturbed soil areas
and all on-site areas of vehicle movement at least twice daily (later in the
morning and after work is completed for the day) and whenever winds exceed
15 miles per hour.
2. Soil stockpiled for more than 2 days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with
soil binders to prevent dust generation.
3. Speeds on unpaved roads shall be reduced to less than 15 miles per hour.
4. All grading and excavation operations shall be halted when wind speeds exceed
25 miles per hour.
5. Prevent tracking and erosion of soil onto paved streets by utilizing any of the
following or other equally effective measures, as determined necessary by
the city: track-out grates or gravel beds at each egress point, wheel-washing
at each egress, soil binders/stabilizers, geotextiles, mulching, seeding,
sandbags, etc. Dirt and debris spilled onto paved surfaces at the project site
and on the adjacent roadways shall be swept, vacuumed, and/or washed at
the end of each workday.
6. The cargo of all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose material to and from
the construction site shall be covered and/or a minimum 2 feet of freeboard shall
be maintained.
B. The following measures may be required during project grading and construction to
reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) from
construction equipment:
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
27
1. The engine size of construction equipment shall be the minimum size required
for its intended use.
2. Construction equipment shall be maintained in tune per the
manufacturer’s specifications.
3. Catalytic converters shall be installed on gasoline-powered equipment over
50 horsepower.
4. Electric equipment or alternative fueled vehicles, such as compressed natural
gas or liquefied natural gas, shall be utilized in lieu of diesel-powered
equipment, where feasible.
5. Comply with SDAPCD Rule 67 (Architectural Coatings).
MM AQ-4: For projects that exceed daily operational emissions thresholds established by the
SDAPCD, the following measures may be required as needed to reduce project-level impacts.
These measures may be updated, expanded, and refined when applied to specific future projects
based on project-specific design and changes in existing conditions, and local, state, and federal
laws. Measures may include but are not limited to:
A. Implement CALGreen’s voluntary Tier 1 or Tier 2 standards. Tier 1 standards call for a 15%
improvement in energy requirements, more strict water conservation, 65% diversion of
construction and demolition waste, 10% recycled content in building materials, 20%
permeable paving, 20% cement reduction, and cool/solar reflective roofs. CALGreen’s
more rigorous Tier 2 standards call for a 30% improvement in energy requirements, more
strict water conservation, 75% diversion of construction and demolition waste, 15%
recycled content in building materials, 30% permeable paving, 25% cement reduction,
and cool/solar reflective roofs.
B. Include project features that encourage alternate transportation modes.
1. For pedestrians: sidewalks; safe street and parking lot crossings; shade trees;
off-street breezeways, alleys, and over crossings; placement of parking lots and
building entrances to favor pedestrians rather than cars; shower and locker
facilities.
2. For transit riders: all of the above plus safe, sheltered transit stops with
convenient access to building entrances.
3. For bicyclists: theft proof and well-lighted bicycle storage facilities with
convenient access to building entrance; on-site bikeways between buildings or
uses; shower and locker facilities.
4. For carpools and vanpools: preferential parking.
C. Use electric equipment for landscaping and property maintenance.
D. Plant shade trees in parking lots.
E. Install solar cooling/heating.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
28
MM AQ-5: To reduce ozone precursors, architectural coatings used for building maintenance shall
comply with SDAPCD Rule 67 (Architectural Coatings).
MM AQ-6: If required, new stationary sources such as diesel generators shall obtain appropriate
permits from the SDAPCD.
Additional health-related mitigation measures are provided under Impact 3.2-4.
Findings
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the council finds that:
Effects of Mitigating Policies and Remaining Impacts
As described above in the Impact 3.2-2 discussion, the proposed General Plan, the Climate Action
Plan, the city’s SWPPP requirements and the Green Building Standards Code, and implementation
of the mitigation measures identified above would reduce the severity of the impact to air quality
to the extent feasible. For impacts to air quality from construction, because the extent to which
construction-related mitigation measures would reduce project-level construction emissions
cannot be accurately determined at this time, impacts are considered significant and unavoidable
during construction. For impacts to air quality from operations, because the absence of specific
information regarding the size, location, timing and other characteristics of future development
allowed under the General Plan, it is not possible at this time to determine whether these
measures would reduce project-level operational emissions below SDAPCD thresholds. Thus, even
with implementation of policies, standards and mitigation measures listed above that would
reduce impacts to air quality, the potential remains for new development under the proposed
General Plan to exceed thresholds for emissions of PM10 and PM2.5. Therefore, impacts to air
quality resulting from construction and operations emissions would be considered significant and
unavoidable (Finding (1); CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1)).
Overriding Considerations
The environmental, economic, social, and other benefits of the proposed General Plan, as stated
more fully in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section 1.7, override any remaining
significant adverse impact of the proposed General Plan associated with impact to air quality.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
29
Impact 3.2-3 Development under the proposed General Plan will result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the General
Plan region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for O3 precursors). (Significant and Unavoidable)
Finding:
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the proposed Plan which could avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect identified in the Final EIR as Impact 3.2-3.
Facts in Support of Finding:
In analyzing cumulative impacts from the proposed General Plan, the analysis must specifically
evaluate a project’s contribution to the cumulative increase in pollutants for which the SDAB is
designated as nonattainment for the CAAQS and NAAQS. The proposed General Plan would
contribute to a significant cumulative impact on air quality if the emissions from the proposed
General Plan, in combination with the emissions from other proposed or reasonably foreseeable
future projects, are in excess of established thresholds.
The SDAB is currently in federal nonattainment for criteria pollutant O3 (VOC and NOx are the
precursors of O3) and state nonattainment area criteria pollutants O3, PM10, and PM2.5 from past
and present development.
Construction activities associated with future development under the proposed General Plan
would result in the temporary generation of construction emissions. PM10 and PM2.5 emissions
associated with construction generally result in localized impacts; therefore, construction
emissions could be considered cumulatively considerable if different construction projects within
the same vicinity are occurring simultaneously and the emissions combine to exceed SDAPCD
thresholds.
Table 1.5-3 shows that operational emissions from buildout of the proposed General Plan would
result in a net increase of: 2,405.47 pounds per day of VOC; 962.22 pounds per day of NOx;
4,172.31 pounds per day of PM10; and 1,661.87 pounds per day of PM2.5, all of which exceed
SDAPCD project-level thresholds. Although numerous measures would be taken under the
proposed General Plan and Climate Action Plan to reduce air quality impacts, buildout of the
proposed General Plan would result in operational emissions of VOC, NOx, PM10 and PM2.5 that
exceed SDAPCD project-level, daily thresholds. Therefore, the proposed General Plan would
result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in VOC and NOx (precursors of O3), for which
the SDAB is in nonattainment under state (CAAQS) and federal (NAAQS) ambient air quality
standards, and for PM10 and PM2.5, for which the SDAB is in nonattainment under state (CAAQS)
ambient air quality standards. The impacts would be considered significant and unavoidable.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
30
Proposed General Plan Policies and Other Measures that Reduce the Impacts
The General Plan policies, Climate Action Plan provisions, SWPPP requirements, Green Building
Standards Code provisions and mitigation measures MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6 listed above for
Impact 3.2-2 shall apply.
Mitigation Measures
The mitigation measures listed above for Impact 3.2-2 shall apply.
Findings
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the council finds that:
Effects of Mitigating Policies and Remaining Impacts
Conformance with the goals and policies of the proposed General Plan, the Climate Action Plan,
the city’s SWPPP requirements, and the Green Building Standards Code listed above, and
implementation of the mitigation measures identified above would reduce the proposed General
Plan’s net increase in emissions for which the SDAB is in nonattainment status. However, in the
absence of specific information regarding the size, location, timing and other characteristics of
future development allowed under the proposed General Plan, it is not possible at this time to
quantify that these measures would result in no net increase in nonattainment pollutant
emissions. Therefore, impacts would be considered significant and unavoidable (Finding (1);
CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1)).
Overriding Considerations
The environmental, economic, social, and other benefits of the proposed General Plan, as stated
more fully in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section 1.7, override any remaining
significant adverse impact of the proposed General Plan associated with impacts to air quality.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
31
Impact 3.2-4 Development under the proposed General Plan will expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. (Significant and
Unavoidable)
Finding:
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the proposed Plan which could avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect identified in the Final EIR as Impact 3.2-4.
Facts in Support of Finding:
Construction
In addition to impacts from criteria pollutants, project impacts may include emissions of
pollutants identified by the state and federal governments as toxic air contaminants (TACs) or
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). State law has established the framework for California’s TAC
identification and control program, which is generally more stringent than the federal program
and is aimed at HAPs that are a problem in California. The state has formally identified more than
200 substances as TACs, including the federal HAPs, and is adopting appropriate control measures
for sources of these TACs. As examples, TACs include acetaldehyde, benzene, 1,3-butadiene,
carbon tetrachloride, hexavalent chromium, para-dichlorobenzene, formaldehyde, methylene
chloride, perchloroethylene, and DPM. Some of the TACs are groups of compounds that contain
many individual substances (for example, copper compounds and polycyclic organic matter). The
greatest potential for TAC emissions during construction would be DPM emissions from heavy
equipment operations and heavy-duty trucks and the associated health impacts to sensitive
receptors. Sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, child care centers,
athletic facilities, long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and
retirement homes.
Health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of cancer risk. SDAPCD
Rule 1210 indicates that an incremental cancer risk threshold of 10 in 1 million or greater warrants
public notification.4 “Incremental Cancer Risk” is the likelihood that a person continuously
exposed to concentrations of TACs resulting from a project over a 70-year lifetime will contract
cancer quantified using standard risk-assessment methodology. The proposed General Plan
construction activities would be dispersed intermittently over an approximately 20-year period.
Off-road diesel construction equipment and heavy-duty diesel trucks (e.g., concrete trucks,
building materials delivery trucks), which are sources of DPM, are regulated under three airborne
toxic control measures (ATCMs) adopted by CARB. The ATCM for diesel construction equipment
specifies particulate matter emission standards for equipment fleets, which become increasingly
stringent over time. Furthermore, most newly-purchased construction equipment introduced into
construction fleets after 2013–2015, depending on the engine horsepower rating, would be
equipped with high-efficiency diesel particulate filters. One of ATCMs for heavy-duty diesel trucks
4 SDAPCD. Rules and Regulations, Regulation XII, Toxic Air Contaminants, Rule 1210, Toxic Air Contaminant Public Health Risks – Public Notification and Risk Reduction. Effective June 12, 1996.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
32
specifies that commercial trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating over 10,000 pounds are
prohibited from idling for more than 5 minutes unless the engines are idling while queuing or
involved in operational activities. In addition, starting in model year 2008, new heavy-duty trucks
must be equipped with an automatic shutoff device to prevent excessive idling or meet stringent
NOx requirements. Lastly, fleets of diesel trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than
14,000 pounds are subject to another ATCM. This ATCM requires truck fleet operators to replace
older vehicles and/or equip them with diesel particulate filters, depending on the age of the truck.
Thus, over the life of the project, the DPM emissions from off-road construction equipment and
trucks would be controlled substantially. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed General
Plan is not anticipated to result in a long-term exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial
concentration of construction-related TACs. Impacts would be less than significant.
Operation
STATIONARY SOURCES
Following construction activities, stationary sources such as boilers, diesel generators, and dry
cleaning establishments would result in TAC emissions. In San Diego County, SDAPCD Rule 1200
establishes acceptable risk levels and emission control requirements for new and modified
stationary sources that may emit additional TACs. Some stationary sources would require permits
from the SDAPCD under Rule 1200. Under Rule 1200, permits to operate may not be issued when
emissions of TACs result in an incremental cancer risk greater than 1 in 1 million without
application of T-BACT, or an incremental cancer risk greater than 10 in 1 million with application
of T-BACT, or a health hazard index (chronic and acute) greater than 1. The human health risk
analysis is based on the time, duration, and exposures expected. T-BACT would be determined on
a case-by-case basis; however, examples of T-BACT include diesel particulate filters, catalytic
converters, and selective catalytic reduction technology. In accordance with SDAPCD Rule 20, the
SDAPCD cannot issue a permit if compliance with Rule 1200 (Toxic Air Contaminants—New Source
Review) and all other applicable air quality rules and regulations is not demonstrated. The
proposed General Plan does not propose any new stationary sources within the plan area that
have not been previously operating within the area (the Encina Power Station/Carlsbad Energy
Center Project is considered an existing stationary source, the emissions from which are
calculated in Table 1.5-2).Accordingly, the incremental cancer risk to nearby sensitive receptors
from new and modified stationary sources would be at acceptable levels, and the impact to
sensitive receptors would be less than significant. Additionally, the proposed General Plan
includes policies that would reduce impacts to sensitive receptors as listed below. Therefore,
impacts would be less than significant.
EXPOSURE TO TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS FROM ROADWAYS
TACs are also generated from mobile sources, such as diesel trucks. Ten TACs have been identified
through ambient air quality data as posing the greatest health risks in California. Adverse health
effects of TACs can be carcinogenic (cancer‐causing), short‐term (acute) non-carcinogenic, and
long‐term (chronic) non-carcinogenic. Direct exposure to these pollutants has been shown to
cause cancer, birth defects, damage to the brain and nervous system, and respiratory disorders.
The risk from DPM is by far the largest, representing about 70 percent of the known statewide
cancer risk from outdoor air toxics. On a typical urban freeway, DPM also represents about 70
percent of the potential cancer risk from vehicle traffic. DPMs are also of special concern because
health studies show an association between particulate matter and premature mortality in those
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
33
with existing cardiovascular disease (CARB 2005). Therefore, health risk studies associated with
freeway proximity are primarily concerned with DPM because it comprises most of the associated
health risk.
In addition to the length of the exposure period, the location of potential emissions sources and
exposed sensitive receptors are major factors in determining the health risk of diesel exhaust. In
general, diesel exhaust has a greater potential to harm people when the source of emissions is
closer to sensitive populations (CARB 2005). However, even though sensitive receptors are at an
increased risk to diesel exhaust, exposure can adversely affect all members of the population.
CARB recommends avoiding siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban
roads with 100,000 vehicles per day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day. In general,
concentrations of pollutant emissions are typically higher near transportation corridors and
decline as distance increases from the source. The distance from the roadway and truck traffic
densities are key factors affecting the strength of the association with adverse health effects
(CARB 2005). The association of traffic‐related emissions with adverse health effects has been
noted within 1,000 feet of transportation corridors and is strongest within 300 feet (Zhu et al.
2002). There is growing evidence that proximity to heavily traveled roadways increases the
potential for adverse health effects such as child lung function and asthma, and increases medical
visits (Brunekreef 1997, Lin et al. 2000, Venn et al. 2001, Kim 2004, and English et al. 1999).
Generally, cancer risk will drop off with distance from a ground level pollution source, such as a
freeway. Freeways and busy traffic corridors are defined as having traffic volumes of over 100,000
vehicles per day in urban areas and 50,000 vehicles per day in rural areas (Education Code Section
17312). CARB studies show that air pollution levels can be significantly higher within 500 feet (150
meters) of freeways or busy traffic corridors and then diminish rapidly (CARB 2005). Actual
concentrations of DPM will vary at a particular location depending on traffic volume, vehicle mix,
prevailing winds, and other variables. A downwind distance of 328 feet (100 meters) will reduce
cancer risk by over 60 percent. If the physical downwind distance is increased to 984 feet (300
meters), the relative concentration is reduced over 80 percent (SCAQMD 2005).
There are two freeways that traverse through Carlsbad. SR‐78 presently carries an estimated
123,000–134,000 vehicles per day along the northern boundary of the city, about 6,300 of which
are trucks. The I-5 freeway carries approximately 192,000-200,000 vehicles per day in a north-
south direction through the city, about 9,000 of which are trucks. Under the proposed General
Plan, new development, including residential and commercial uses, could be constructed within
proximity of these freeways; therefore there is the potential to expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations.
Although the proposed General Plan has the potential to expose sensitive receptors to toxic air
contaminants from roadways, neither the SDAPCD nor the State of California has identified a
methodology to correlate an exposure to such contaminants with an increase in specific health
risks. The inability to quantify any potential increase in health risks was noted recently in the Air
Quality section of its Final EIR/EIS for the I-5 Coast Corridor Project, where CalTrans summarized
the credible scientific evidence relevant to evaluation of the impacts of mobile source air toxics
(MSATs). In its review, the I-5 Coast Corridor Project EIR/EIS noted that “the methodologies for
forecasting health impacts … are encumbered by technical shortcomings or uncertain science that
prevents a more complete differentiation of the MSAT health impacts among a set of project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
34
alternatives.” The EIR/EIS further concluded that “there are considerable uncertainties associated
with the existing estimates of toxicity of the various MSAT, because of factors such as low-dose
extrapolation and translation of occupational exposure data to the general population”, and that
“there is also a lack of consensus on an acceptable level of risk.”5
EXPOSURE TO SUBSTANTIAL CONCENTRATIONS OF CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS
As shown in Table 1.5-3, the proposed General Plan would result in an increase in criteria pollutant
emissions. The emissions reported in Table 1.5-3 are based on plan-wide emissions that would
be generated across the entire geographic area of the city over the buildout period ending in
2035. Even in areas where these pollutants are potentially more concentrated, the location of the
pollutants cannot be pinpointed at this time to determine specific, localized health impacts.
Moreover, air quality in the San Diego Air Basin is continually improving, and although the basin
is currently nonattainment for state ozone and particulate matter, there are very few violations
of the state standards on an annual basis, and background concentrations of these pollutants are
generally low. Because of this, air quality in the San Diego air basin is increasingly improving at a
consistent rate, and thus is expected to result in decreased health risks associated with pollutant
emissions on a regional basis. Therefore, development under the proposed General Plan is not
expected to expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of criteria air pollutants.
The potential health risks associated with criteria air pollutants are identified above in the
discussion of “Pollutants and Health Effects.” Although an increase in criteria pollutant emissions
could potentially result in increased human susceptibility to asthma and other respiratory
conditions, neither the SDAPCD nor the State of California has identified a methodology for
identifying a correlation between increased pollutant emissions and the number or type of health-
related incidents that may occur on a plan-wide basis. To effectively measure impacts to human
health from pollutant sources that may impact sensitive receptors, a site-specific health risk
assessment or similar study would be required. Health risk assessments are based on project-level
information such as: the location of existing sensitive receptors (e.g. existing hospitals, schools,
elderly care facilities, etc.) in proximity to potential future emission sources; locating new
sensitive receptors in the vicinity of existing pollution sources; the distance between the sources
of toxic air contaminants (TACs) and the sensitive receptor; the location and exhaust parameters
of stationary sources (e.g., stack height, temperature, flow rate, etc.); and pollutant source type.
Individual projects proposed under the proposed General Plan would be subject to individual
environmental review under CEQA, and a health risk assessment, if warranted, would be
conducted at the project level.
To further address effects to sensitive receptors and human health, mitigation is provided as
described below and would be implemented where applicable on a project-by-project basis.
Proposed Plan Policies that Reduce the Impacts
See General Plan policies listed above.
5 California Department of Transportation, “Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation”, 2013; p. 3.14-27. http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist11/Env_docs/I-5NCC/Final/i-5_part3_chp3.pdf#page=309
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
35
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures MMAQ-2 through MMAQ-6 above would reduce the exposure of sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and thereby reduce potential adverse health
effects associated with these pollutants. If a future development proposal would expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations even after implementation of mitigation
measures MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6, the following mitigation measure would be implemented
during project-level environmental review to further reduce exposure of sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations:
MM AQ-7: The project applicant shall prepare a site-specific health risk assessment based on
project-level information such as: the location of existing sensitive receptors (e.g. existing
hospitals, schools, elderly care facilities, etc.) in proximity to potential future emission sources;
locating new sensitive receptors in the vicinity of existing pollution sources; the distance between
the sources of toxic air contaminants (TACs) and the sensitive receptor; the location and exhaust
parameters of stationary sources (e.g., stack height, temperature, flow rate, etc.); and pollutant
source type. The health risk assessment would identify appropriate measures necessary to reduce
the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of pollutants and the impacts to
human health to below a level of significance. These measures may include, but not be limited to,
the installation of an air filtration system or the installation of vegetative landscaping at the
sensitive receptor location.
Findings
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the council finds that:
Effects of Mitigating Policies and Remaining Impacts
Conformance with the goals and policies of the proposed General Plan, the Climate Action Plan,
the city’s SWPPP requirements and Green Building Standards Code provisions, and
implementation of the mitigation measures identified above, would reduce the exposure of
sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. However, in the absence of the site-
specific information required to perform a health risk assessment, it is not possible at this time to
quantify that these measures would reduce exposure to substantial pollutant concentrations to a
level below significance. Therefore, impacts would be considered significant and unavoidable
(Finding (1); CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1)).
Overriding Considerations
The environmental, economic, social, and other benefits of the proposed General Plan, as stated
more fully in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section 1.7, override any remaining
significant adverse impact of the proposed General Plan associated with impact to air quality.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
36
5.2 Transportation
Impact 3.13-1 The proposed General Plan would exceed an applicable plan, ordinance, or
policy establishing measures of effectiveness of the circulation system,
taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and
non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system,
including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit as defined below:
Degradation of level of service to below a LOS D for a prioritized travel
mode at a facility that is not exempt from the LOS D standard; or
Adds prioritized travel mode usage to a facility that is not exempt from
the LOS D standard and is operating at a level of service below LOS D,
or
Degrades traffic on a Caltrans’ facility to a level of service below LOS C
(Caltrans’ acceptable operating standard) or adds traffic to a Caltrans’
facility operating at an unacceptable LOS D, E, or F (Significant and
Unavoidable)
Finding:
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the proposed Plan which could avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect identified in the Final EIR as Impact 3.13-1; and, pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines §15091(a)(2), such changes or alterations with respect to levels of service on a
Caltrans’ facility are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of Caltrans, not the city, and such
changes can and should be adopted by Caltrans.
Facts in Support of Finding:
To evaluate the effects of the proposed General Plan to the city’s transportation system, the
prioritized travel modes were evaluated: a) vehicles, b) pedestrians, c) bicycles, and d) transit.
The results for vehicle level of service (a) are summarized below:
a) Vehicle Levels of Service
Table 1.5-4 summarizes the future traffic volumes on vehicle-prioritized streets with build-out of
the proposed General Plan (and accounting for other regional growth in the area). The future
traffic volumes were developed using the SANDAG travel demand forecasting model (Series 12)
and incorporate the proposed General Plan land use information and the proposed General Plan
street network. As shown in the table, at buildout of the proposed General Plan, vehicle level of
service on vehicle-prioritized streets is anticipated to operate at LOS D or better, except for the
following streets that are anticipated to operate below LOS D, which is considered a significant
impact.
Two segments of Palomar Airport Road
One segment of La Costa Avenue
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
37
One segment of El Camino Real
I-5 through Carlsbad
SR-78 near the City
The facilities listed above would generally be congested during peak periods; however, during
most hours of the day, the facility would have sufficient capacity to serve the vehicle demand.
The city does not have regulatory authority over Interstate-5 or SR-78 and has no control over
managing traffic on those facilities. The Carlsbad arterial streets listed above would need to be
widened beyond their four- or six-lane cross-sections to operate at the city’s standard for vehicle
level of service on those facilities (LOS D or better); however, creating streets wider than six lanes
is inconsistent with the goals of the proposed General Plan. In addition, widening these streets
beyond six lanes creates new challenges for intersection operations, maintenance, and storm
water management. Therefore, rather than widening these arterial streets, the proposed General
Plan promotes implementation of transportation demand management (e.g., promote travel by
modes other than the single-occupant vehicle), transportation system management (e.g. signal
timing coordination and improved transit service), and livable streets techniques to better
manage the transportation system as a whole. The impacts to I-5 and SR-78 are considered
significant and unavoidable, as the city cannot guarantee implementation of improvements to
reduce impacts to a facility they do not control. While the proposed General Plan policies would
reduce these impacts, they would remain significant and unavoidable.
Table 1.5-4: Future Street Operations
Street From To Number
of Lanes
Classificatio
n
Future
ADT
Future
LOS
City of Carlsbad Streets
Cannon Road I-5 El Camino Real 4 Arterial 33,420 LOS D
Cannon Road El Camino Real College Blvd 4 Arterial 17,770 LOS B
College Blvd Palomar Airport
Rd
El Camino Real 4 Arterial 16,410 LOS B
College Blvd N. City Limits Cannon Rd 4 Arterial 34,570 LOS D
Palomar
Airport Road
I-5 College Blvd 6 Arterial 58,430 LOS E
Palomar
Airport Road
College Blvd El Camino Real 6 Arterial 45,360 LOS C
Palomar
Airport Road
El Camino Real Melrose Dr 6 Arterial 69,190 LOS F
Palomar
Airport Road
Melrose Dr W. City Limits 6 Arterial 46,580 LOS C
La Costa Ave I-5 El Camino Real 4 Arterial 39,180 LOS E
El Camino
Real
N. City Limits Tamarack Ave 6 Arterial 37,150 LOS C
El Camino
Real
Tamarack Ave Cannon Rd 6 Arterial 35,020 LOS C
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
38
Table 1.5-4: Future Street Operations
Street From To Number
of Lanes
Classificatio
n
Future
ADT
Future
LOS
El Camino
Real
Cannon Rd College Blvd 6 Arterial 35,600 LOS C
El Camino
Real
College Blvd Palomar
Airport Rd
6 Arterial 49,980 LOS C
El Camino
Real
Palomar Airport
Rd
La Costa Ave 6 Arterial 63,600 LOS F
El Camino
Real
La Costa Ave Olivenhain Rd 6 Arterial 43,600 LOS C
Rancho Santa
Fe Rd/
Olivenhain Rd
Melrose Dr El Camino Real 6 Arterial 31,440 LOS B
Melrose Dr City boundary
north of
Lionshead Ave
Rancho Santa
Fe Rd
6 Arterial 25,210 LOS B
Caltrans Roadways
Interstate 5
(mixed flow
lanes)
Las Flores Dr Carlsbad
Village Dr
8 Freeway 207,800 LOS F
Interstate 5
(mixed flow
lanes)
Carlsbad Village
Dr
Tamarack Ave 8 Freeway 207,500 LOS F
Interstate 5
(mixed flow
lanes)
Tamarack Ave Cannon Rd 8 Freeway 216,000 LOS F
Interstate 5
(mixed flow
lanes)
Cannon Rd Palomar
Airport Rd
8 Freeway 221,700 LOS F
Interstate 5
(mixed flow
lanes)
Palomar Airport
Rd
Poinsettia Ln 8 Freeway 213,800 LOS F
Interstate 5
(mixed flow
lanes)
Poinsettia Ln La Costa Ave 8 Freeway 204,700 LOS F
SR-78 (mixed
flow lanes)
I-5 Jefferson 6 Freeway 174,900 LOS F
SR-78 (mixed
flow lanes)
Jefferson El Camino Real 6 Freeway 155,300 LOS E
SR-78 (mixed
flow lanes)
El Camino Real College Blvd 6 Freeway 172,100 LOS F
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
39
Proposed General Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact
Mobility Element Policies
3-P.4 Implement the city’s MMLOS methodology by evaluating level of service (LOS) for
prioritized modes. Maintain LOS D or better only for the prioritized modes of
travel by street typology as outlined in Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1 [of the proposed
General Plan].
3-P.6 Require developers of projects, which are determined to have a significant impact
on Caltrans freeway facilities (I-5 and SR-78), to enter into a traffic mitigation
agreement with Caltrans for implementation of the necessary improvements and
the payment of fair-share fees to be determined by Caltrans based on the
increase in freeway traffic directly attributable to the proposed project.
3-P.7 Encourage Caltrans to identify and construct necessary improvements to improve
service levels on Interstate-5 and State Route 78.
3-P.8 Utilize transportation demand management strategies, non-automotive
enhancements (bicycle, pedestrian, transit, train, trails, and connectivity), and
traffic signal management techniques as long-term transportation solutions and
traffic mitigation measures to carry out the Carlsbad Community Vision.
3-P.9 Develop and maintain a list of LOS exempt intersections and streets approved by
the City Council. For LOS exempt intersections and streets, the city will not
implement motor vehicle capacity improvements to maintain the LOS standard
outlined in Policy 3-P.4 if such improvements are beyond what is identified as
appropriate at build out of the General Plan; however, other non-vehicle capacity-
building improvements may be required to improve mobility, to the extent
feasible, and/or to implement the livable streets goals and policies of this Mobility
Element. To be considered LOS exempt, an intersection or street must be
identified as built-out by the City Council because:
1. Acquiring the rights of way is not feasible; or
2. The proposed improvements would significantly impact the environment
in an unacceptable way and mitigation would not contribute to the nine
core values of the Carlsbad Community Vision; or
3. The proposed improvements would result in unacceptable impacts to
other community values or General Plan policies; or
4. The proposed improvements would require more than three through
travel lanes in each direction.
3-P.10 After the College Boulevard extension and Poinsettia Lane connections are
completed as identified in Policy 3-P.17, allow the following streets to be LOS
exempt facilities from the LOS standard identified in Policy 3-P.4, subject to the
requirements described in Policy 3-P.7:
La Costa Avenue between Interstate-5 and El Camino Real
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
40
El Camino Real between Palomar Airport Road and La Costa Avenue
Palomar Airport Road between Interstate-5 and College Boulevard
Palomar Airport Road between El Camino Real and Melrose Drive
3-P.11 Require new development that adds traffic to LOS-exempt locations (consistent
with 3-P.7) to implement transportation demand management strategies that
reduce the reliance on the automobile and assists in achieving the city’s livable
streets vision.
3-P.12 Update the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan to ensure consistency with
the General Plan. This includes updating the circulation LOS standards
methodologies to reflect a more balanced/multimodal approach.
3-P.17 Encourage Caltrans, SANDAG, NCTD, and adjacent cities to improve regional
connectivity and service consistent with regional planning efforts. This includes
expansion of Interstate-5 with two HOV lanes in each direction and associated
enhancements, a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route along Palomar Airport Road,
shuttle bus services from COASTER stations, and other enhancements to improve
services in the area.
Mitigation Measures
The city shall implement all policies identified in the Mobility Element to reduce the demand for
vehicles on I-5. However, even with implementation of these policies, the impact will remain
significant and unavoidable.
Findings
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the council finds that:
Effects of Mitigating Policies and Remaining Impacts
As described above in the discussion of Impact 3.13-1, the proposed General Plan contains
numerous policies that would reduce the severity of the impact to transportation, namely impacts
to Interstate-5 and State Route-78 to the extent feasible. However, the timing, design and
implementation of improvements to Caltrans’ facilities is within the exclusive jurisdiction of
Caltrans, not the city, and the city cannot guarantee that implementation of improvements to
reduce impacts to a Caltrans’ facility will be occur as and when needed. Therefore, the impact is
considered significant and unavoidable (Finding (1); CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1) and
Finding (2); CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(2)).
Overriding Considerations
The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the proposed General Plan, as stated
more fully in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section 1.7, override any remaining
significant adverse impact of the proposed General Plan associated with impacts to
transportation.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
41
6 Project Alternatives
An EIR is required to identify a “range of potential alternatives to the project [which] shall include
those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic purposes of the project and could avoid or
substantially lessen one of more of the significant effects” (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6,
subd. (c)). Section 1.5 (below) and Chapter 2 of the Draft EIR state the proposed Plan objectives.
6.1 Alternative Analysis
The following is a brief summary of the alternatives to the proposed General Plan considered in
Chapter 4 of the recirculated Draft EIR (Chapter 4 contains a complete discussion of the
alternatives, a comparative impact analysis of alternatives, and identification of an
environmentally superior alternative).
NO PROJECT
The purpose of evaluating the No Project Alternative is to allow decision-makers to compare the
potential impacts of approving the project with the potential impacts of not approving the project.
The No Project analysis discusses both the existing conditions at the time the NOP is published as
well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were
not approved. The No Project alternative is depicted in Figure 4.2-4 of the Draft EIR.
The No Project scenario represents the continuation of the current General Plan (adopted in 1986,
last comprehensively updated in 1994) land use designations. It assumes that the existing General
Plan and Zoning Ordinance would continue to guide development in Carlsbad until build-out in
2035. There are many differences between the proposed General Plan and the No Project
Alternative. In relationship to the proposed General Plan, the No Project Alternative:
Has different land uses that would not accommodate the city’s long-term physical and
economic development and community enhancement;
Has lower densities/intensities, and mixed-use development and development of centers and
walkable communities are not promoted to the level in the proposed General Plan;
Is based on a different set of core values/goals and objectives than those represented in the
city’s current conditions;
Has lower residential capacity that would not satisfy the required number of additional
housing units currently provided by the regional housing needs assessment requirements by
2021 plus the additional units anticipated as part of the update, as required by state law;
Has reduced alternate modes of transportation, connectivity, and street capacity; and
Lacks elements addressing the city’s economy, business diversity and tourism; and
sustainability; and corresponding goal and policies.
The No Project Alternative assumes continuation of land development under the existing General
Plan and the current Zoning Ordinance.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
42
Findings
The No Project Alternative is rejected as infeasible because it would not achieve the proposed
General Plan’s objectives. Though it may appear to be environmentally superior to the proposed
General Plan, as it would result in slightly fewer annual vehicle miles traveled compared to the
proposed General Plan and thereby result in slightly less significant impacts to air quality and
transportation, it would still result in significant impacts related to air quality, as threshold levels
for VOC, NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 would be exceeded; likewise, transportation-related impacts for
portions of El Camino Real, Palomar Airport Road, and La Costa Avenue would also still be
considered significant, and this alternative is also anticipated to result in an increase in peak
period commuter trips out of Carlsbad (compared to the proposed General Plan) since the No
Project Alternative provides for fewer residential units and employment opportunities within the
city than the proposed General Plan.
Explanation
This alternative would not realize the benefits of the proposed General Plan and fails to achieve
some of the proposed General Plan objectives. As it relates to the Community Vision (described
in the Draft EIR, Section 2.2, Purpose and Objectives of the Proposed General Plan), the No Project
Alternative would only partially achieve some of the Community Vision core values, while
conflicting with others. Thus, this alternative may conflict with or prevent attainment of the
following objectives of the General Plan:
To provide strategies and specific implementing actions that will allow Carlsbad’s long-term
physical and economic development and community enhancement to be accomplished,
because it does not include the same core values/goals and objectives that would allow it to
achieve the city’s current and future needs;
To establish a basis for judging whether specific development proposals and public projects
are in harmony with the Carlsbad Community Vision and updated General Plan policies and
standards, as it does not include updated values and policies by which to evaluate new
development proposals in relation to the Carlsbad Community Vision;
To allow city departments, other public agencies, and private developers to design projects
that will enhance the character of the community, preserve and enhance important
environmental resources, and minimize hazards, as the projects would be reviewed pursuant
to policies that are outdated and do not align with the Carlsbad Community Vision; and
To provide the basis, which is consistent with the Carlsbad Community Vision and current
laws, to establish priorities for implementing plans and programs, such as the Housing
Element, Zoning Ordinance, the Capital Improvements Program, facilities plans, and specific
and area plans, as updated values and policies would not be considered.
Though the No Project Alternative would result in a lower percent change of VMT from baseline
than the proposed General Plan, the increase of VMT from the No Project Alternative is still
considered a significant impact to air quality. Additionally, modeling conducted for the Draft EIR
projected greater annual VMT per service population for the No Project Alternative than for the
proposed General Plan. Thus, impacts related to transportation would not be substantially
reduced by selecting the No Project Alternative and remain significant.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
43
ALTERNATIVE 1 – CENTERS CONCEPT
Alternative 1 is based on the concept of centers, which directs development to the Village and
several new neighborhood commercial centers. The centers are placed in strategic, visible
locations along transit corridors, and distributed to maximize accessibility from residential
neighborhoods. Each center would include local shopping as a pedestrian-oriented focus for the
surrounding neighborhood, accessible to local residents. High and medium density housing, in
addition to new parks and open spaces, would surround the retail centers or be integrated in
mixed-use buildings. Although some centers would be neighborhood-oriented, others—such as
the Village and the redeveloped Plaza Camino Real—would be citywide and have regional draws.
A significant majority of the city’s future housing needs would be accommodated in the centers,
enabling people to live close to shops and services and along transit corridors. All centers would
have transit access—bus or rail—and pedestrian connections between the centers and the
surrounding neighborhoods would be improved to enhance walkability.
New centers would be located along El Camino Real, Palomar Airport Road and adjacent to the
Poinsettia COASTER Station. Residential uses are located along the eastern city limits, in proximity
to local shopping in adjacent cities. The Village and Barrio would see increases in housing and
amenities, while the Power Plant would be redeveloped with hotels, retail, and other non-
residential uses. This redevelopment would include enhanced beach and lagoon access as well as
additional open space along the lagoon. Quarry Creek would include new housing as well as a new
campus and ample open space.
Table 4.2-1 of the Draft EIR presents a summary of the residential capacity and reasonably
anticipated non-residential development on the opportunity sites within the focus areas in
Alternative 1. Figure 4.2-1 of the Draft EIR shows the proposed land use under this alternative.
Findings
Alternative 1 is rejected as infeasible because it would not as effectively achieve the objectives of
the proposed General Plan. It is not the environmentally superior alternative and would not avoid
or substantially lessen the significant air quality or transportation impacts of the proposed Plan.
Explanation
This alternative would not realize the benefits of the proposed General Plan and fails to achieve
some of the proposed General Plan’s objectives. As it relates to the Carlsbad Community Vision
(described in Section 2.2, Purpose and Objectives of the Proposed General Plan), Alternative 1
would only partially achieve some of the Carlsbad Community Vision core values, while conflicting
with others. Thus, this alternative may conflict with or prevent attainment of the following
objectives of the General Plan:
To provide strategies and specific implementing actions that will allow Carlsbad’s long-
term physical and economic development and community enhancement to be
accomplished, as it would result in a substantially greater number of vehicle miles
traveled—thus resulting in greater air quality and transportation impacts—without
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
44
providing a significantly greater number of additional housing units or potential for job
opportunities compared to the proposed General Plan;
To establish a basis for judging whether specific development proposals and public
projects are in harmony with General Plan policies and standards because the proposed
development build-out totals allowed under Alternative 1 would be based on levels that
exceed significance thresholds by a greater extent than the proposed General Plan
without providing a corresponding level of benefits;
To allow city departments, other public agencies, and private developers to design
projects that will enhance the character of the community, preserve and enhance
important environmental resources, and minimize hazards because additional
environmental impacts would result unnecessarily, as the proposed General Plan would
be capable of achieving those same goals with fewer impacts.
Furthermore, Alternative 1 is not considered the environmentally superior alternative and would
not avoid or substantially lessen the significant air quality or transportation impacts of the
Proposed Plan. Alternative 1 would result in a greater percent increase in VMT from baseline
compared to the proposed Plan, and would substantially exceed thresholds of VOC, NOx, CO,
PM10 and PM2.5. Additionally, modeling conducted for the Draft EIR projected greater annual
VMT per service population for Alternative 1 than for the proposed General Plan.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
45
ALTERNATIVE 2 – ACTIVE WATERFRONT CONCEPT
Alterative 2, the active waterfront alternative, would place greater development along the ocean
waterfront, enabling residences, hotels, and other uses to be close to the ocean. Residents and
visitors would enjoy waterfront dining, shopping, and lingering experience in clusters of
restaurants, cafés, and smaller stores up and down the coast. The Power Plant would be
developed with a mix of residential, hotel, and retail uses, with community-accessible open spaces
along Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The redevelopment of the Power Plant site would result in
enhanced access to the beach and lagoon and reinforce Carlsbad’s beach community character.
New development along the coast would enhance connections for existing neighborhoods to the
east by providing access points and linkages to the beach. About half of the city’s new residential
growth would be in the waterfront focus areas (Focus Areas 1, 8, and 9).
Plaza Camino Real Commercial Corridor would have a mix of uses, while Quarry Creek would have
new residential uses. These focus areas would accommodate most of the other new residential
growth and would locate residents near Carlsbad’s natural amenities such as lagoons and open
spaces. Palomar Corridor would continue to contain only employment uses.
Table 4.2-2 of the Draft EIR presents a summary of residential capacity and reasonably anticipated
non-residential development on the opportunity sites within the focus areas in Alternative 2.
Figure 4.2-2 of the Draft EIR shows the proposed land use under this alternative.
Findings
Alternative 2 is rejected as infeasible because it would not as effectively achieve the objectives of
the proposed General Plan. It is not the environmentally superior alternative and would not avoid
or substantially lessen the significant air quality or transportation impacts of the proposed Plan.
Explanation
This alternative would not realize the benefits of the proposed General Plan and fails to
thoroughly achieve some of the proposed General Plan objectives. As it relates to the Carlsbad
Community Vision (described in Section 2.2, Purpose and Objectives of the Proposed General
Plan), Alternative 2 would only partially achieve some of the Carlsbad Community Vision core
values, while conflicting with others. Thus, this alternative may conflict with or prevent
attainment of the following objectives of the General Plan:
To provide strategies and specific implementing actions that will allow Carlsbad’s long-
term physical and economic development and community enhancement to be
accomplished, as it would result in a substantially greater number of vehicle miles
traveled—thus resulting in greater air quality and transportation impacts—without
providing a significantly greater number of additional housing units or potential for job
opportunities compared to the proposed General Plan;
To establish a basis for judging whether specific development proposals and public
projects are in harmony with General Plan policies and standards because the proposed
development build-out totals allowed under Alternative 2 would be based on levels that
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
46
exceed significance thresholds by a greater extent than the proposed General Plan
without providing a corresponding level of benefits;
To allow city departments, other public agencies, and private developers to design
projects that will enhance the character of the community, preserve and enhance
important environmental resources, and minimize hazards because additional
environmental impacts would result unnecessarily, as the proposed General Plan would
be capable of achieving those same goals with fewer impacts.
Furthermore, Alternative 2 is not considered the environmentally superior alternative and would
not avoid or substantially lessen the significant air quality or transportation impacts of the
proposed Plan. Alternative 2 would result in a greater percent increase in VMT from baseline
compared to the proposed Plan, and would substantially exceed thresholds of VOC, NOx, CO,
PM10 and PM2.5. Additionally, modeling conducted for the Draft EIR projected greater annual
VMT per service population for Alternative 2 than for the proposed General Plan.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
47
ALTERNATIVE 3 – CORE FOCUS CONCEPT
In Alternative 3, the core focus alternative, new residential and commercial uses would be placed
at strategic locations at the edges of Carlsbad’s employment core in the geographic center of the
city—enabling workers to live close to jobs, and stores and restaurants to enjoy patronage from
both residents and workers. Shuttles and enhanced bicycle and pedestrian paths would link
residential and employment clusters. Although some sites currently envisioned for employment
uses would be developed with residential and commercial uses, there remains enough area to
accommodate office and industrial uses, ensuring enough capacity for continued employment
growth.
Just over a third of the new housing growth would be in central Carlsbad, while the rest would be
dispersed at different locations. The Power Plant and southern portion of Carlsbad Boulevard
would primarily accommodate hotel and visitor-serving commercial uses and would provide
access to the beach and lagoon for the community.
Table 4.2-3 of the Draft EIR presents a summary of residential capacity and reasonably anticipated
non-residential development on the opportunity sites within the focus areas in Alternative 3.
Figure 4-3 of the Draft EIR shows the proposed land use under this alternative.
Findings
Alternative 3 is rejected as infeasible because it would not as effectively achieve the objectives of
the proposed General Plan. It is not the environmentally superior alternative and would not avoid
or substantially lessen the significant air quality or transportation impacts of the proposed Plan.
Explanation
This alternative would not realize the benefits of the proposed General Plan and fails to
thoroughly achieve some of the proposed General Plan objectives. As it relates to the Carlsbad
Community Vision (described in Section 2.2, Purpose and Objectives of the Proposed General
Plan), Alternative 3 would only partially achieve some of the Carlsbad Community Vision core
values, while conflicting with others. Thus, this alternative may conflict with or prevent
attainment of the following objectives of the General Plan:
To provide strategies and specific implementing actions that will allow Carlsbad’s long-
term physical and economic development and community enhancement to be
accomplished, as it would result in a substantially greater number of vehicle miles
traveled—thus resulting in greater air quality and transportation impacts—without
providing a significantly greater number of additional housing units or potential for job
opportunities compared to the proposed General Plan;
To establish a basis for judging whether specific development proposals and public
projects are in harmony with General Plan policies and standards because the proposed
development build-out totals allowed under Alternative 3 would be based on levels that
exceed significance thresholds by a greater extent than the proposed General Plan
without providing a corresponding level of benefits;
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
48
To allow city departments, other public agencies, and private developers to design
projects that will enhance the character of the community, preserve and enhance
important environmental resources, and minimize hazards because additional
environmental impacts would result unnecessarily, as the proposed General Plan would
be capable of achieving those same goals with fewer impacts; and/or
Furthermore, Alternative 3 is not considered the environmentally superior alternative and would
not avoid or substantially lessen the significant air quality or transportation impacts of the
proposed Plan. Alternative 3 would result in a greater percent increase in VMT from baseline
compared to the proposed Plan, and would substantially exceed thresholds of VOC, NOx, CO, PM10
and PM2.5. Additionally, modeling conducted for the Draft EIR projected greater annual VMT per
service population for Alternative 3 than for the proposed General Plan.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
49
REDUCED DENSITY ALTERNATIVE
The Reduced Density Alternative would avoid or substantially lessen the significant impacts on air
quality and traffic impact, and would otherwise be substantially the same as the proposed General
Plan. The Reduced Density Alternative would have the same features as the General Plan
discussed in Chapter 2 of the Draft EIR, Project Description, and would generally include the same
goals and policies as those defined in the proposed General Plan. The Reduced Density Alternative
would allow the same categories of future development as the proposed General Plan, but land
use densities and intensities for developable vacant, underutilized, and mixed-use sites would be
scaled back by forty percent (40%) compared to the proposed General Plan, resulting in less future
residential, commercial, office, industrial and hotel development.
Table 4.2-3a of the recirculated Draft EIR shows the future potential development allowed under
the Reduced Density alternative as compared to the proposed General Plan.
Findings
The Reduced Density Alternative is rejected as infeasible because it would not achieve the
proposed General Plan’s objectives and would inhibit the city from meeting the number of
affordable housing units set forth in the regional housing needs assessment (RNHA), as required
by state housing law. Though it is the environmentally superior alternative, as it would reduce the
overall air quality and transportation-related impacts below those of the proposed General Plan
and the other alternatives, it would still result in significant impacts related to air quality. Likewise,
transportation-related impacts for portions of El Camino Real, Palomar Airport Road, and La Costa
Avenue would also still be considered significant, and this alternative is also anticipated to result
in an increase in peak period commuter trips out of Carlsbad since the Reduced Density
Alternative provides for fewer residential units and employment opportunities within the city
than the proposed General Plan.
Explanation
The Reduced Density Alternative is not feasible for the following reasons, each of which provides
a separate and independent basis for the finding of infeasibility. The number of residential units
allowed under the Reduced Density Alternative would impede the city’s ability to meet its regional
housing needs assessment (RHNA) for lower income housing (“affordable housing”). As discussed
in the Housing Element, state housing law requires the city to accommodate an additional 3,728
housing units by 2021 (General Plan, Chapter 10, Housing, Table 10-25, p. 10-43.) This number is
expected to increase when SANDAG determines the RHNA for the 2021-2030 housing planning
period. The increase in the number of residential units allowed under the proposed General Plan
is intended to accommodate the City’s obligation to provide affordable housing as well as the
anticipated demand for market rate housing that would result from future population and
employment growth in Carlsbad. The unmet RHNA obligation for low and very low income
housing is 1,436 units, while the unmet need for moderate income housing is 895 units.
To meet this need, the city must demonstrate that there is sufficient land available at densities
high enough to facilitate lower and moderate income housing. The draft Housing Element has
determined that a minimum density of 23 dwelling units per acre is necessary to accommodate
very low and low income housing, and 15 dwelling units per acre is necessary to accommodate
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
50
moderate income housing (Table 10-28). Under the existing General Plan there is insufficient land
designated at the appropriate densities without re-designating sites to higher densities in order
to meet the minimum densities described above. The reduced number of residential units allowed
under the Reduced Density Alternative would result in densities below these required minimums,
and therefore would impair the city’s ability to meet its current RHNA obligation and other
housing objectives (such as encouraging mixed-use and transit-oriented development, and
promoting a better jobs-housing balance) through the period for General Plan build-out (2035).
Further, to achieve the reduced future dwelling units in the Reduced Density Alternative would
require lowering planned densities below the existing General Plan on vacant and underutilized
properties throughout the city. This reduced capacity could increase competition for the best
available vacant sites, while at the same time discourage redevelopment of underutilized, infill,
and potential mixed-use sites.
As it relates to the Carlsbad Community Vision (described in Section 2.2, Purpose and Objectives
of the Proposed General Plan), the Reduced Density Alternative would only partially achieve some
of the Carlsbad Community Vision core values, while conflicting with others.
For the reasons described above, the Reduced Density Alternative may conflict with or prevent
attainment of the following objectives of the General Plan:
To provide strategies and specific implementing actions that will allow Carlsbad’s long-
term physical and economic development and community enhancement to be
accomplished, as significantly reducing the number of housing units, hotel rooms, and
available employment space would impair the city’s ability to: accommodate housing to
meet the needs of all community members: attract, retain and facilitate expansion of
businesses; and revitalize neighborhoods.
To establish a basis for judging whether specific development proposals and public
projects are in harmony with General Plan policies and standards, as those policies and
standards may not feasibly be achieved through this alternative;
To allow city departments, other public agencies, and private developers to design
projects that will enhance the character of the community, preserve and enhance
important environmental resources, and minimize hazards because development will be
significantly limited by this alternative and will not allow for full enhancement of the
community and its resources; this alternative will impede the ability to achieve the
character of the community expressed through the Carlsbad Community Vision, as it will:
impair the ability to accommodate demand for business and employment growth; will
impair the ability to provide multiple modes of travel to improve connectivity, which
depends on a balance of land uses at a range of densities and intensities; impair the ability
to achieve the communities sustainability values, as sustainable development relies on a
mix of land uses that include compact building design, ranges of housing choices, walkable
neighborhoods, and a variety of housing choices that promote alternatives to the
automobile; and impedes the community’s vision for revitalizing neighborhoods,
promoting a greater mix of uses, and encouraging more activities along the coastline; and
To provide the basis for establishing priorities for implementing plans and programs, such
as the Housing Element, Zoning Ordinance, the Capital Improvements Program, facilities
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
51
plans, and specific and area plans, as the reduced development densities and intensities
of this alternative would conflict with the ability to achieve housing objectives, implement
zoning regulations, and implement the improvements identified in the CIP.
This alternative would also result in significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality and
transportation. In the case of air quality, though the alternative would result in a lower
percent increase in VMT from baseline compared to the proposed General Plan, it would
exceed thresholds of VOC, NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 and be considered a significant impact. In
the case of transportation, the Reduced Density Alternative may result in incrementally less
of an impact than the proposed General Plan, but the reduction would not be sufficient to
reduce impacts to freeway traffic volumes to a level below significant.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
52
7 Statement of Overriding Consideration
The City of Carlsbad has: (1) independently reviewed the information in the EIR and the record of
proceedings; (2) made a reasonable and good faith effort to avoid or substantially lessen the
significant impacts resulting from the proposed General Plan to the extent feasible by including
policies and actions in the proposed General Plan and mitigation measures in the EIR that
effectively mitigate potential environmental impacts to the greatest extent feasible; (3)
considered the alternatives evaluated in the EIR and determined that each of them is infeasible
for the reasons stated in Section 6.1 above; and (4) balanced the proposed General Plan’s benefits
against the proposed General Plan’s significant unavoidable impacts.
The city finds that the proposed General Plan most fully implements the objectives (as stated in
Section 1.3 of the proposed General Plan):
To outline a vision for Carlsbad’s long-term physical and economic development and
community enhancement;
To provide strategies and specific implementing actions that will allow this vision to be
accomplished;
To establish a basis for judging whether specific development proposals and public
projects are in harmony with General Plan policies and standards, (such as those for
housing, parks, mobility, and economic diversity);
To allow city departments, other public agencies, and private developers to design
projects that will enhance the character of the community, preserve and enhance
important environmental resources, and minimize hazards; and
To provide the basis for establishing priorities for implementing plans and programs, such
as the Zoning Ordinance, the Capital Improvements Program, facilities plans, and specific
and area plans.
The City Council declares that it has adopted all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the
proposed General Plan’s environmental impacts to an insignificant level; considered the entire
administrative record, including the Final EIR; and weighed the proposed General Plan’s benefits
against its environmental impacts. After doing so, the City Council has determined that the
proposed General Plan’s benefits outweigh its significant environmental impacts on air quality
and transportation, and deems them acceptable.
The City Council identified the following public benefits in making this determination. Each of
these public benefits serves as an independent basis for overriding all unavoidable significant
adverse environmental impacts identified in these Findings and the Final EIR. The City Council
considers these impacts to be acceptable, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15093.
The City Council finds adoption and implementation of the proposed General Plan would provide
the following economic, social, legal, and other considerable benefits:
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
53
1. Small town feel, beach community character and connectedness. The proposed General Plan
enhances Carlsbad’s defining attributes of small-town feel and beach community character,
and builds on the city’s culture of civic engagement, volunteerism and philanthropy. The
proposed General Plan’s land use goals and policies promote well-planned, connected
neighborhoods with a diversity of land uses, housing choices, and convenient access to goods
and services. The proposed General Plan also emphasizes access to the coast, preservation of
its natural and scenic value, and enhancement of recreational opportunities.
2. Open space and the natural environment. The proposed General Plan prioritizes protection
and enhancement of open space and the natural environment. The proposed General Plan
fosters strong partnerships with resource agencies and non-governmental organizations to
actively and adaptively manage open space to maintain and improve ecological function. The
proposed General Plan also supports and protects Carlsbad’s unique open space and
agricultural heritage.
3. Access to recreation and active, healthy lifestyles. The proposed General Plan promotes active
lifestyles and community health by furthering access to trails, parks, beaches and other
recreation opportunities.
4. The local economy, business diversity and tourism. The proposed General Plan strengthens
the city’s strong and diverse economy and its position as an employment hub in north San
Diego County. The proposed General Plan also promotes business diversity, increased
specialty retail and dining opportunities, and Carlsbad’s tourism.
5. Walking, biking, public transportation and connectivity. The proposed General Plan increases
travel options through enhanced walking, bicycling, and public transportation systems. The
proposed General Plan also enhances mobility through increased connectivity and intelligent
transportation systems and demand management.
6. Sustainability. The proposed General Plan builds on the city’s sustainability initiatives to
emerge as a leader in green development and sustainability. The proposed General Plan also
pursues public/ private partnerships, particularly on sustainable water, energy, recycling and
foods.
7. History, the arts and cultural resources. The proposed General Plan emphasizes the arts by
promoting a multitude of events and productions year-round, cutting-edge venues to host
world-class performances, and celebrating Carlsbad’s cultural heritage in dedicated facilities
and programs.
8. High quality education and community services. The proposed General Plan supports quality,
comprehensive education and life-long learning opportunities, provides housing and
community services for a changing population, and maintains a high standard for citywide
public safety.
9. Neighborhood revitalization, community design and livability. The proposed General Plan
contains policies to revitalize neighborhoods and enhance citywide community design and
livability. The proposed General Plan promotes a greater mix of uses citywide, more activities
along the coastline, and links density to public transportation. The proposed General Plan
revitalizes the Village as a community focal point and a unique and memorable center for
visitors, and rejuvenate the historic Barrio neighborhood.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
54
10. The proposed General Plan upholds the city’s Growth Management Program by ensuring that
public facilities and services are provided in a timely manner to preserve the quality of life for
residents. The proposed General Plan requires new development to meet public facility
performance standards as specified in the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan, and
ensures that citywide and quadrant dwelling unit limitations are adhered to.
11. The proposed General Plan, in combination with the CAP, combats climate change by reducing
greenhouse gas emissions from transportation, residential, commercial, industrial, solid
waste, and wastewater community sectors, as well as from government operations. The
proposed General Plan and CAP help the state achieve greenhouse gas emission targets by
reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020; and 49 percent below 1990 levels by 2035,
consistent with the requirements of the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB32) and the
goals of Governor’s Executive Order S-3-05,
12. The proposed General Plan fulfills the city’s obligations under state housing element law
through strategies and programs that: conserve and improve existing affordable housing
stock; maximize housing opportunities throughout the community; assist in the provision of
affordable housing; remove governmental and other constraints to housing investment; and
promote fair and equal housing opportunities. The proposed General Plan meets its regional
housing needs assessment (RHNA) by demonstrating availability of residential sites at
appropriate densities and development standards to accommodate at least 866 units for very
low income households; 570 units for low income households; 895 units for moderate income
households; and 1,397 units for above-moderate income households.
13. The proposed General Plan supports future community and regional demand for products,
services, and jobs by accommodating approximately 4,600,400 square feet of additional
industrial space, 2,132,200 square feet of additional commercial space, 778,500 square feet
of additional office space, 1,895 additional hotel rooms, and 23,217 new jobs. This future
development will add to the city’s tax base and increase tax revenues, thereby contributing
positively to the fiscal health of the city.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Carlsbad General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan
55
8 Conclusion
In summary, after balancing the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits
of the proposed General Plan, the City Council finds that the unavoidable adverse environmental
impacts identified may be considered “acceptable” due to the specific considerations listed
above, which outweigh the unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts of the proposed project.
The City Council has considered information contained in the EIR prepared for the proposed Plan
as well as the public testimony and record of proceedings in which the project was considered.
Recognizing that significant unavoidable air quality and transportation impacts may result from
implementation of the proposed General Plan, the Council finds that the benefits of the General
Plan and overriding considerations outweigh the adverse effects of the General Plan. Having
included all feasible mitigation measures as policies and actions in the General Plan, and
recognized all unavoidable significant impacts, the City Council hereby finds that each of the
separate benefits of the proposed General Plan, as stated herein, is determined to be unto itself
an overriding consideration, independent of other benefits, that warrants adoption of the
proposed General Plan and outweighs and overrides its unavoidable significant effects, and
thereby justifies the adoption of the proposed General Plan.
In reaching this conclusion and approving the proposed Plan:
1. The City Council has considered the information contained in the Final EIR and fully reviewed
and considered all of the public testimony, documentation, exhibits, reports, and
presentations included in the record of these proceedings. The City Council specifically finds
and determines that this Statement of Overriding Considerations is based upon and
supported by substantial evidence in the record.
2. The City Council has carefully weighed the benefits of the proposed General Plan against any
adverse impacts identified in the Final EIR that could not be feasibly mitigated to a level of
insignificance. While the Council have required all feasible mitigation measures, some impacts
remain potentially significant.
3. This Statement of Overriding Considerations applies specifically to those impacts found to be
potentially significant and unavoidable as set forth in the Final EIR and the record of these
proceedings.
EXHIBIT 1C
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
July 18, 2015
1 | P a g e
Mitigation Measures Timing and Methods Responsible Parties
AIR QUALITY
MM AQ-1: The city shall request that SDAPCD revise the RAQS to include the growth
projections of the proposed General Plan in SDAPCD’s next triennial update of the RAQS.
Timing:
During public agency comment on the
next triennial update of the RAQS.
Implementation:
City of Carlsbad
Method:
Update RAQS to ensure the General
Plan does not conflict with an applicable
air quality plan.
Monitoring and
Reporting:
City of Carlsbad
Verification:
City of Carlsbad
The goals and policies of the proposed General Plan, the Climate Action Plan, measures contained in the Green Building Code, the city’s SWPPP
requirements, and applicable federal, state, and local air quality regulations, provide a framework for developing project-level air quality protection
measures for future development projects. The city’s process for the evaluation of future development projects includes site-specific environmental review
and documentation pursuant to CEQA, as well as an analysis of those projects for consistency with the goals, policies, and recommendations of the
proposed General Plan.
In addition to the measures identified in the goals and policies of the proposed General Plan, the Climate Action Plan, the city’s SWPPP requirements and
the Green Building Code, implementation of the mitigation measures (MM AQ-2 to MM AQ-6) identified below would avoid or reduce impacts resulting
from the construction and operations emissions of future development allowed under the proposed General Plan. During project-level environmental
review, if potential impacts are determined to be significant despite conformance with the measures described above, the mitigation measures provided
below would be implemented as needed to reduce project-specific impacts to below SDAPCD thresholds. Mitigation measures may include, but would not
be limited to, the following:
EXHIBIT 1C
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
July 18, 2015
2 | P a g e
Mitigation Measures Timing and Methods Responsible Parties
AIR QUALITY
MM AQ-2: During the project-level environmental review of future development projects
allowed under the proposed General Plan, the project applicant shall prepare an air
quality technical report that analyzes all phases of project construction and operations.
The technical report shall analyze construction and operational emissions and determine
whether emissions would exceed SDAPCD thresholds. If a project’s air quality technical
report determines that construction or operations emissions exceed the SDAPCD
threshold(s), site-specific mitigation measures shall be implemented to avoid or reduce
emissions to SDAPCD thresholds. Where mitigation measures are required, the city will
identify these measures in the project-level environmental document and include them in
a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) for the individual development
project.
Timing:
Identify during environmental
review of development projects;
require prior to discretionary
project approval; implement during
project construction and
operations.
Implementation:
Applicant, developer or
project proponent
Method:
Identify air quality impacts resulting
from emissions associated with
proposed development projects
and require project-level mitigation
measures to reduce emissions and
significant impacts.
Monitoring and
Reporting:
Qualified agent,
approved by the City of
Carlsbad, of the
applicant, developer or
project proponent
Verification:
City of Carlsbad
EXHIBIT 1C
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
July 18, 2015
3 | P a g e
Mitigation Measures Timing and Methods Responsible Parties
AIR QUALITY
MM AQ-3: For projects that exceed daily construction emissions thresholds established by
the SDAPCD, the following measures may be required as needed to reduce project-level
impacts. These measures may be updated, expanded and refined when applied to
specific future projects based on project-specific design and changes in existing
conditions, and local, state and federal laws. Measures may include but are not limited to:
A. Fugitive dust generated by grading and construction activities shall be minimized and
retained on the project site by complying with SDAPCD Rule 55, as applicable, and the
following dust control measures:
1. Prevent dust from leaving the site during construction, clearing, grading,
earthmoving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill materials by applying
water (with water trucks or sprinkler systems) to all active disturbed soil areas
and all on-site areas of vehicle movement at least twice daily (later in the
morning and after work is completed for the day) and whenever winds exceed 15
miles per hour.
2. Soil stockpiled for more than 2 days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with
soil binders to prevent dust generation.
3. Speeds on unpaved roads shall be reduced to less than 15 miles per hour.
4. All grading and excavation operations shall be halted when wind speeds exceed
25 miles per hour.
5. Prevent tracking and erosion of soil onto paved streets by utilizing any of the
following or other equally effective measures, as determined necessary by the
city: track-out grates or gravel beds at each egress point, wheel-washing at each
egress, soil binders/stabilizers, geotextiles, mulching, seeding, sandbags, etc. Dirt
and debris spilled onto paved surfaces at the project site and on the adjacent
roadways shall be swept, vacuumed, and/or washed at the end of each workday.
6. The cargo of all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose material to and from
the construction site shall be covered and/or a minimum 2 feet of freeboard shall
be maintained.
Timing:
Identify during environmental
review of development projects;
require prior to discretionary
project approval; implement
during project construction
Implementation:
Applicant, developer or
project proponent
Method:
Identify, require and implement
appropriate measures to reduce
construction emissions
associated with development
projects.
Monitoring and Reporting:
Qualified agent, approved
by the City of Carlsbad, of
the applicant, developer or
project proponent
Verification:
City of Carlsbad
EXHIBIT 1C
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
July 18, 2015
4 | P a g e
Mitigation Measures Timing and Methods Responsible Parties
AIR QUALITY
MM AQ-3 (continued):
B. The following measures may be required during project grading and construction to
reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx)
from construction equipment:
1. The engine size of construction equipment shall be the minimum size required for
its intended use.
2. Construction equipment shall be maintained in tune per the
manufacturer’s specifications.
3. Catalytic converters shall be installed on gasoline-powered equipment over
50 horsepower.
4. Electric equipment or alternative fueled vehicles, such as compressed natural gas
or liquefied natural gas, shall be utilized in lieu of diesel-powered equipment,
where feasible.
5. Comply with SDAPCD Rule 67 (Architectural Coatings).
MM AQ-4: For projects that exceed daily operational emissions thresholds established by
the SDAPCD, the following measures may be required as needed to reduce project-level
impacts. These measures may be updated, expanded and refined when applied to
specific future projects based on project-specific design and changes in existing
conditions, and local, state and federal laws. Measures may include but are not limited to:
A. Implement CALGreen’s voluntary Tier 1 or Tier 2 standards. Tier 1 standards call for a
15% improvement in energy requirements, more strict water conservation, 65%
diversion of construction and demolition waste, 10% recycled content in building
materials, 20% permeable paving, 20% cement reduction, and cool/solar reflective
roofs. CALGreen’s more rigorous Tier 2 standards call for a 30% improvement in
energy requirements, more strict water conservation, 75% diversion of construction
and demolition waste, 15% recycled content in building materials, 30% permeable
paving, 25% cement reduction, and cool/solar reflective roofs.
Timing:
Identify during environmental
review of development projects;
require prior to discretionary
project approval; implement
during project operations
Implementation:
Applicant, developer or
project proponent
Method:
Identify, require and implement
appropriate measures to reduce
operational emissions
associated with development
projects.
Monitoring and Reporting:
Qualified agent, approved
by the City of Carlsbad, of
the applicant, developer or
project proponent
Verification:
City of Carlsbad
EXHIBIT 1C
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
July 18, 2015
5 | P a g e
Mitigation Measures Timing and Methods Responsible Parties
AIR QUALITY
MM AQ-4 (continued):
B. Include project features that encourage alternate transportation modes.
1. For pedestrians: sidewalks; safe street and parking lot crossings; shade trees;
off street breezeways, alleys, and over crossings; placement of parking lots and
building entrances to favor pedestrians rather than cars; shower and locker
facilities.
2. For transit riders: all of the above plus safe, sheltered transit stops with
convenient access to building entrances.
3. For bicyclists: theft proof and well-lighted bicycle storage facilities with
convenient access to building entrance; on-site bikeways between buildings or
uses; shower and locker facilities.
4. For carpools and vanpools: preferential parking.
C. Use electric equipment for landscaping and property maintenance
D. Plant shade trees in parking lots
MM AQ-5: To reduce ozone precursors, architectural coatings used for building
maintenance shall comply with SDAPCD Rule 67 (Architectural Coatings).
Timing:
Require prior to discretionary
project approval; implement
during project operations
Implementation:
Applicant, developer or
project proponent
Method:
Require and implement
measures to reduce operational
emissions from architectural
coatings.
Monitoring and Reporting:
Qualified agent, approved
by the City of Carlsbad, of
the applicant, developer or
project proponent
Verification:
City of Carlsbad
EXHIBIT 1C
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
July 18, 2015
6 | P a g e
Mitigation Measures Timing and Methods Responsible Parties
AIR QUALITY
MM AQ-6: If required, new stationary sources such as diesel generators shall obtain
appropriate permits from the SDAPCD.
Timing:
Prior to discretionary permit approval
Implementation:
Applicant, developer
or project proponent
Method:
Obtain permit from air pollution control
district to operate a new stationary
source
Monitoring and
Reporting:
Applicant, developer
or project proponent
Verification:
City of Carlsbad
Mitigation measures MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6 above would reduce the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and
thereby reduce potential adverse health effects associated with these pollutants. If a future development proposal would expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations even after implementation of mitigation measures MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6, the following mitigation measure
would be implemented during project-level environmental review to further reduce exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations:
MM AQ-7: The project applicant shall prepare a site-specific health risk assessment
based on project-level information such as: the location of existing sensitive receptors
(e.g. existing hospitals, schools, elderly care facilities, etc.) in proximity to potential
future emission sources; locating new sensitive receptors in the vicinity of existing
pollution sources; the distance between the sources of toxic air contaminants (TACs)
and the sensitive receptor; the location and exhaust parameters of stationary sources
(e.g., stack height, temperature, flow rate, etc.); and pollutant source type. The health
risk assessment would identify appropriate measures necessary to reduce the exposure
of sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of pollutants and the impacts to
human health to below a level of significance. These measures may include, but not be
limited to, the installation of an air filtration system or the installation of vegetative
landscaping at the sensitive receptor location.
Timing:
Submit to the city during environmental
review of development projects;
implement during project construction
and/or operations.
Implementation:
Applicant, developer
or project proponent
Method:
Identify and implement measures to
reduce exposure of sensitive receptors
to substantial concentrations of air
pollutants and the associated impacts to
human health
Monitoring and
Reporting:
Qualified agent,
approved by the City
of Carlsbad, of the
applicant, developer
or project proponent
Verification:
City of Carlsbad
EXHIBIT 1C
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
July 18, 2015
7 | P a g e
Mitigation Measures Timing and Methods Responsible Parties
TRANSPORTATION
MM TR-1: The city shall implement all policies identified in the Mobility Element to
reduce demand for vehicles on I-5.
Timing:
Require, as applicable, prior to
discretionary project approval; and
during design and construction of
mobility improvements.
Implementation:
City of Carlsbad,
applicant, developer
or project proponent
Method:
Implement policies to reduce demand
for vehicles on I-5, including Mobility
Element policies 3-P.4, 3-P.6 thru 3-P.10
and 3-P.15
Monitoring and
Reporting:
City of Carlsbad,
applicant, developer
or project proponent
Verification:
City of Carlsbad