HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-08-21; Planning Commission; Resolution 7518PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 7518
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT, EIR 2022-0005, FOR THE THREE ON GARFIELD PROJECT,
AND ADOPTING THE CANDIDATE FINDINGS OF FACT, A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING THREE-
UNIT, RESIDENTIAL AIR-SPACE CONDOMINIUM AND THE DEVELOPMENT
OF NEW THREE-UNIT, RESIDENTIAL AIR-SPACE CONDOMINIUM PROJECT
ON A 0.16-ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 2685, 2687, AND 2689 GARFIELD
STREET, WITHIN THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM AND LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: THREE ON GARFIELD
CASE NO.: EIR 2022-0005 (DEV2020-0205)
WHEREAS, Renee Wailes, "Developer/Owner," has filed a verified application with the
City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
PARCEL 1, IN THE CTY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP NO. 12124, FILED IN THE
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MAY 20,
1982
("the Property"); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources
Code section 21000 et. seq.) and its implementing regulations (the State CEQA Guidelines), Article 14 of
the California Code of Regulations section 15000 et. seq., the city is the Lead Agency for the project, as
the public agency with the principal responsibility for approving the proposed project; and
WHEREAS, a Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR 2022-0005) was prepared in
conjunction with said project; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15082, the city distributed a
Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of an EIR to the State Clearinghouse, local and regional responsible
agencies, and other interested parties on Nov. 17, 2022, for a 30-day comment period which ended on
Dec. 19, 2022;and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR for the proposed Project was then prepared in accordance with
CEQA Guidelines sections 15120 through 15131 and circulated for review and comment by the public,
agencies, and organizations and was circulated for public review and comment pursuant to the State CEQA
Guidelines by filing a Notice of Availability ("NOA") of the Draft EIR for review with the County Clerk of
San Diego. The NOA was also mailed to organizations and parties expressing interest in the Project on
Oct. 30, 2023, notifying the general public, public agencies, and interested individuals and organizations
that a 45-day public review period would end on Dec. 14, 2023. The NOA was also filed with the City Clerk,
published in the Coast News, and posted on the City's website; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion the Draft EIR was circulated to State agencies for
review through the State Clearinghouse, Office of Planning and Research (SCH No. 2022110423) on Oct.
26,2023;and
WHEREAS, the City received comments concerning the Draft EIR from public agencies,
organizations, and individuals, and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15086 and 15088. The city
received three comment letters during the 45-day public comment period, two of which were submitted
by members of the public or public organizations and one of which was submitted by a public agency, the
California Department of Toxic Substances Control. A response to comments document was prepared and
responds to all of the comment letters received on the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, the city has determined that the comments received on the 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 is not required; and
WHEREAS, CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines provide that no public agency shall approve or
carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed that identifies one or more significant effects of
the project unless the public agency makes certain written findings for each of the significant effects,
accompanied by a statement of facts supporting each finding; and
WHEREAS, CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines require that where an agency approves a
project that would allow the occurrence of significant environmental effects which are identified in an
EIR, but are not mitigated to a level of insignificance; the Lead Agency state in writing the specific reasons
supporting its action based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the record; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15091, 15093, and 15097, the city has
prepared CEQA Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a MMRP, which have been
filed with the city (Attachments "B" and "C," which are incorporated herein by this reference as though
fully set forth herein); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on Aug. 21, 2024, hold a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, examining the Project EIR, Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding
Considerations, and MMRP, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written
comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Project EIR.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That the Final Project Environmental Impact Report, dated March 2024, consists of the
Draft Project Environmental Impact Report, EIR 2022-0005, appendices, written
comments and responses to comments, as amended to include the comments and
documents of those testifying at the public hearing and responses thereto, is hereby
found to be in good faith and reason by incorporating a copy of the minutes of said public
hearing into the report, all on file in the Planning Division incorporated by this reference,
and collectively referred to as the "Report."
C) The Planning Commission independently and jointly reviewed and analyzed the Final EIR,
and these documents reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission and
the city as the Lead Agency for the Project. The Planning Commission considered all
significant impacts, mitigation measures, project alternatives identified in the Final EIR,
and considered all written and oral communications from the public regarding the
environmental analysis, and found that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or
other considerations, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives
identified in the Final EIR. The Planning Commission finds the Final EIR environmental
document is complete and the valid environmental review for this Project.
D) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission
hereby CERTIFIES the Final EIR, "Attachment A," and ADOPTS the Candidate Findings of
Fact ("CEQA Findings"), AND THE Statement of Overriding Considerations
("Statement"), attached hereto marked as "Attachment B" and incorporated by this
reference and the MMRP ("Program"), attached hereto marked as "Attachment C" and
incorporated by this reference; based on the following findings and subject to the
following conditions.
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find that the Final Project EIR 2022-
0005, the Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the MMRP,
have been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act,
the State EIR Guidelines, and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Carlsbad.
2. The Developer/Owner has agreed to implement all mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR
in order to reduce all potentially significant environmental impacts to a less-than-significant level,
in accordance with the MMRP.
3. That the Final EIR is adequate and provides good-faith disclosure of available information on the
project and all reasonable and feasible alternatives thereto. The Final EIR has determined that any
remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable under CEQA Guidelines
section 15091 are acceptable due to overriding concerns as described in section 15093.
4. The Planning Commission has balanced the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable
environmental risks in making its decision on this Project, has analyzed the information submitted
by city staff and considered any written and oral comments received at the public hearing,
including all factors relating to the Project, and has determined that any remaining unavoidable
significant impacts are outweighed by specific economic, legal, social, or other benefits of the
Project.
5. 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 CEQA Findings ("Attachment B"),
including feasibility of mitigation measures pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081 and
CEQA Guidelines section 15091, and infeasibility of project alternatives.
6. The Record of Proceedings for this Project includes, but is not limited to: (1) the Final EIR and the
appendices and technical reports cited in and/or relied upon in preparing the Final EIR and MMRP;
(2) the staff reports, city files and records and other documents, prepared for and/or submitted
to the city relating to the Final EIR, MMRP, and the project itself; (3) the evidence, facts, findings
and other determinations set forth in herein; (4) the General Plan, Carlsbad Municipal Code, and
Local Facility Management Plan; (5) all designs, plans, studies, data and correspondence
submitted to the city in connection with the Final EIR, the MMRP, and the Project itself; (6) all
THREE ON GARFIELD PROJECT
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
SCH No. 2022110423
March 2024
Prepared for:
Community Development Department
Planning Division
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Attachment A
Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 13 of 128
-------
C cityof
Carlsbad
Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 14 of 128
Three on Garfield Project City of Carlsbad
Final EIR March 2024 i
THREE ON GARFIELD PROJECT
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
CONTENTS
Page
1.Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Format of the Final EIR .............................................................................................................. 1-1
2.Responses to Comments ...................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2 Comments and Responses ........................................................................................................ 2-2
2.3 Agency Letters ........................................................................................................................... 2-3
2.3.1 Letter A1: California Department of Toxic Substances Control ................................... 2-3
2.4 Organizations Letters ................................................................................................................ 2-6
2.4.1 Letter O1: San Diego County Archaeological Society, Inc. ........................................... 2-6
2.5 Individuals Letters ..................................................................................................................... 2-9
2.5.1 Letter I1: Armistead Smith ........................................................................................... 2-9
3.Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ............................................................................... 3-1
Tables
Table RTC-1 List of Commenting Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals .................................................... 2-2
Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 15 of 128
Contents
City of Carlsbad Three on Garfield Project
March 2024 Final EIR ii
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 16 of 128
Three on Garfield Project City of Carlsbad
Final EIR March 2024 1-1
THREE ON GARFIELD PROJECT
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Overview
This Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been prepared in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq.) and
the CEQA Guidelines (California Administrative Code Section 15000 et seq.).
According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the FEIR shall consist of the following:
a) The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) or a revision of the DEIR;
b) Comments and recommendations received on the DEIR, either verbatim or in summary;
c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the DEIR;
d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review
and consultation process; and
e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency.
In accordance with these requirements, the Three on Garfield Project Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) includes the following:
• This FEIR document, dated March 2024, that incorporates the information required by CEQA
Guidelines Section 15132, including responses to comments received on the DEIR; and
• The DEIR document, dated October 2023 (SCH #2022110423).
1.2 Format of the Final EIR
This document is organized as follows:
Section 1: Introduction: This section describes CEQA requirements and the contents of this
FEIR.
Section 2: Response to Comment Letters Received on the DEIR. This section provides
copies of the written comment letters received and individual responses to comments. In
accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, copies of the written responses to
public agencies will be forwarded to the agencies at least 10 days prior to certifying an EIR. The
responses will conform to the legal standards established for responses to comments on EIRs.
Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 17 of 128
Chapter 1. Introduction
City of Carlsbad Three on Garfield Project
March 2024 Final EIR 1-2
Section 3: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: This section includes the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), which identifies the mitigation
measures for the project, timing, and responsibility for implementation of the measures.
Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 18 of 128
Three on Garfield Project City of Carlsbad
Final EIR March 2024 2-1
2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
2.1 Introduction
Letters of comment to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) were received from agencies,
organizations, and individuals (see below table) during the 45-day public review from October 30, 2023, to
December 15, 2023. There were three comment letters and/or e-mails received by the city during the DEIR
public review period. No late letters were received after the public review period closed at 5 p.m. on
December 15, 2023.
In addition, during the public review period, consistent with the requirements of Carlsbad Municipal Code
(CMC) Section 2.42.040, the City of Carlsbad Historic Preservation Commission (Commission) reviewed the
DEIR to provide any DEIR feedback to staff. This regularly scheduled meeting was conducted on
November 13, 2023. During the Historic Preservation Commission meeting, a presentation regarding the
project was provided by city staff. Commission members asked questions regarding the construction date
of the structure and asked for clarification regarding criterion used for determination of the structure’s
historic status. A Commission member indicated that the DEIR has been completed consistent with the
purposes of CEQA and identifies a significant and unavoidable impact to historic resources, provides
mitigation for the identified impact, and concludes that the impact to historic resources would remain
significant and unavoidable after implementation of mitigation. A second Commission member agreed
with these comments; however, another Commission member requested additional time to review the
document. A special meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was held on November 30, 2023, to
complete the Historic Preservation Commission’s review of the DEIR. During the November 30, 2023,
meeting, a Commissioner asked for clarifications regarding mitigation and alternatives. Additional
comments from the Commissioners addressed the proposed mitigation, and whether the building is
special or architecturally significant. No comments from the two Historic Preservation Commission
meetings raised issues or concerns regarding the adequacy of or the content of the DEIR.
Comments that address environmental issues related to the DEIR are addressed in full in this Final EIR
(FEIR). Comments that (1) do not address the adequacy or completeness of the DEIR; (2) do not raise
environmental issues; or (3) request the incorporation of additional information not relevant to
environmental issues, do not require a response, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a). Individual
comments within each letter are bracketed and subsequently numbered in the margin of the comment
letter. Bracketed/numbered comment letters are placed before the responses to the letter. Table RTC-1,
List of Commenting Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals, provides a list of each of the comment letters
received, organized by type commenter (i.e., agencies, organizations, and individuals).
Information provided in the response to comments (RTC) clarifies or amplifies information included in the
DEIR; however, the RTC did not require changes to the information contained in the DEIR. No significant
new information has been added that would require recirculation of the document, per CEQA Guidelines
Section 15088.5.
Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 19 of 128
Chapter 2. Responses to Comments
City of Carlsbad Three on Garfield Project
March 2024 Final EIR 2-2
Table RTC-1
LIST OF COMMENTING AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS
Letter Commenter Date Page
Agencies
A1 California Department of Toxic Substances Control December 14, 2023 RTC-2-3
Organizations
O1 San Diego County Archaeological Society, Inc. December 2, 2023 RTC-2-6
Individuals
I1 Armistead Smith December 8, 2023 RTC-2-9
2.2 Comments and Responses
Responses to specific comments in the letters received by the city during public review are provided in
this section of the FEIR. The bracketed letters and corresponding responses are arranged in the order
presented in Table RTC-1.
Opinions concerning issues not within the purview of CEQA, as well as expressions of opposition or
support for a project, are made a part of the administrative record and forwarded to the decision makers
for their consideration but they do not require a response in a CEQA document.
Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 20 of 128
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
Chapter 2. Responses to Comments
Comments Responses
Three on Garfield Project City of Carlsbad
Final EIR March 2024 2-3
2.3 Agency Letters
2.3.1 Letter A1: California Department of Toxic Substances Control
A1-1
DTSC’s summary of the project description is acknowledged.
Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 21 of 128
,,,,., A1-1
YanaGMcia
~ctf'!:lfylol
Enwtw'IIIM-,t:IIProtKton
December 14, 2023
Kyle Van Leeuwen
Associate Planner
Ctty of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Meredith Williams, Ph.D.
Director
6800 Cal Center Drive
Sacramenlo, ca!iforma 95826-3200
SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
kyle. vanleeuwen@ca rlsbadca .gov
Letter A1
RE: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE THREE ON
GARFIELD PROJECT DATED OCTOBER 30, 2023 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
NUMBER2022110423
Dear Kyle Van LeelN/en,
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) received an EIR for the Three on
Garfield project (Project). The Project proposes demolttion of an existing three-story
structure, containing three attached residential air-space condominiums, each with a
first-floor, two-car garage, accessed from Beech Avenue, and the construction of three
attached, three-story residential air-space condominiums wtth first-floor garages.
Vehicular access is proposed to be provided via Beech Avenue. Each residential unit
includes an attached two-car garage with direct entrance into the unit. The units range
in size from 1,701 square feet to 1,713 square feet.
After reviewing the project, DTSC recommends and requests consideration of the
following comment:
Chapter 2. Responses to Comments
Comments Responses
City of Carlsbad Three on Garfield Project
March 2024 Final EIR 2-4
A1-2
As described in the DEIR, the structure is proposed for demolition and was
constructed in 1982. This comment from the DTSC recommends surveys for
the presence of lead-based paints or products, mercury, asbestos-
containing materials, and polychlorinated biphenyl caulk; however, per
DTSC’s referenced guidance (DTSC 2006), residential structures with paint
or surface coatings constructed on or after January 1, 1979, are excepted
from the presumed presence of lead-based paint. Similarly, due to the age
of the existing structure, mercury, asbestos-containing materials, and
polychlorinated biphenyl caulk are not expected to be present. Hazardous
materials and hazardous wastes are highly regulated, and the project would
be required to adhere to applicable regulations regarding hazardous
materials and hazardous waste, including appropriate demolition and
material removal procedures, to ensure that demolition of the existing
structure and the construction of the project would not result in a release of
hazardous materials, including those identified in the comment. The project
would adhere to all applicable regulations regarding hazardous materials
and hazardous waste, including those associated with the demolition of the
existing structure. Therefore, as stated in DEIR Section 6.5.7, the project
would result in less than significant impacts related to hazards and
hazardous materials.
A1-3
As discussed in DEIR Section 3.5, the project would require 140 cubic yards
of soil export. The project site has previously been developed with a
residential use, and the import of fill material is not expected or proposed.
Thus, the recommended soil sampling would not be necessary.
Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 22 of 128
A1-2
Kyle Van Leeuwen
December 14, 2023
Page 2
1. If buildings or other structures are to be demolished on any project sites included
in the proposed project, surveys should be conducted for the presence of lead-
based paints or products, mercury, asbestos containing materials, and
polychlorinated biphenyl caulk. Removal, demolrtion, and disposal of any of the
above-mentioned chemicals should be conducted in compliance wrth Calfornia
environmental regulations and policies. In addtt:ion, sampling near current and/or
former buildings should be conducted in accordance with DTSC's 2006 Interim
Guidance Evaluation of School Sites with Potential Contamination from Lead
Based Paint Termiticides snd Electrical Transformers
2. DTSC recommends that all imported soil and fill material should be tested to
ensure any contaminants of concern are within approved screening levels for the
intended land use. To minimize the possibility of introducing contaminated soil
A1-3 and fill material there should be documentation of the origins of the soil or fill
material and. if applicable. sampling be conducted to ensure that the imported
soil and fill material meets screening levels for the intended land use. The soil
sampling should include analysis based on the source of the fill and knowledge
of the prior land use.
DTSC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the EIR for the Three on Garfield
project. If you have any questions or concerns, simply respond to this email for
guidance.
Sincerely,
Dave Ke reazis
Associate Environmental Planner
HWMP-Permitting Division -CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Dave. Ke reazis@dtsc.ca .gov
Chapter 2. Responses to Comments
Comments Responses
Three on Garfield Project City of Carlsbad
Final EIR March 2024 2-5
Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 23 of 128
Kyle Van Leeuwen
December 14, 2023
Page3
cc: (via email)
Governor's Office of Planning and
Research State Clearinghouse
State.Clearinqhouse@opr.ca.gov
Tamara Purvis
Associate Environmental Planner
HWMP -Permitting Division -CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Tamara.Purvis@dtsc.ca.gov
Scott Wiley
Associate Governmental Program Analyst
HWMP -Permitting Division -CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Scott.Wiley@dtsc.ca.qov
Chapter 2. Responses to Comments
Comments Responses
City of Carlsbad Three on Garfield Project
March 2024 Final EIR 2-6
2.4 Organizations Letters
2.4.1 Letter O1: San Diego County Archaeological Society, Inc.
O1-1
Each of the objectives listed in the DEIR, (stated in DEIR Sections 3.3 and
5.2.1), are project objectives identified by the project applicant for the
project. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b), “the statement of objectives
should include the underlying purpose of the project and may discuss
benefits.” Demolition of the existing structure is a primary objective of the
project. The specific comments regarding the intent of the listed
objectives 1, 4–6, 9, and 10 do not raise issues regarding the adequacy of
the DEIR, but rather indicate the commentor’s disagreement with the
project objectives identified by the project applicant. The DEIR analysis of
historical resources is based on the Historical Resources Assessment Report
(HRAR) (Appendix B) and concludes that the proposed demolition of the
existing structure would result in significant and unavoidable impacts.
Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 24 of 128
Letter 01
o'E.CO Co(/
~· +>,.
.,~·. ► San Diego County Archaeological Society, Inc. ,. ...
"C'I O 4-, Environmental Review Committee
,s. c,'
-ff'. -,0 2 Dect:mber 2023
01-1
0toc, cP.'-
To: Mr. Kyle Van Leeuwen, Associate Planner
Plam1ing Division
City of Carlsbad
I 635 Faraday A venue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Subjt:ct: Uraft Environmental Impact Report
Thret: on Garfield
PUfl 2021-0003, SflP 2021-0008, CflP 202 1-0010, MS 2023-0002,
NCP 2021-0001, EIR 2022-0005
Dear Mr. Van Lt!euwen:
J have reviewed the cultural resources aspects of the subject DEIR on behalf of this commiuee or
lht: San Dic.::go County Archat:ological Society.
Based on the information contained in the DErR and its Appendices B, C and n, we have the
following comments:
Section 5.2.1 of tht:: DEIR lists Project Objectives whi<..:h \.Vere overtly inten<le<l tu justify tht:
demolition of the current structures, which have been recommended (in Appendix B) as digible
for inclusion in the California Register. For example:
O'ojt:clive 1 explicitly says lhat an u'ojective is tu remove the existing: struclu~.
• Objt:ctiYt: 4 is moot, as any new const.J.\lction or other «ction wiH have to comply with
applicable codes and standards.
• Objective 5 is not applicable as the project is not intill, it is purely replacement of three
with three dwelling units.
• Objective 6 is an obvious statement that the applicant docs not like the historic design
and uses that lo justify demolition of the historic structure.
Objective 9 is unncccssaT}' as nothing prohibits internal changes to historic private
residences.
• Objective IO is another attempt to justif)' the destruction of an historic structure. The
current structures presumably complied with, and continue to comply with, all
requirements imposed by the City of Carlsbml.
The deliberate, intentional demolition uf an historic resource is nut a legitimate project objective
and should be rejected by the City.
P.O. Box B1106 San Diego, CA 92138-1106 {858) 538-0935
Chapter 2. Responses to Comments
Comments Responses
Three on Garfield Project City of Carlsbad
Final EIR March 2024 2-7
O1-2
Appendix D, Victor Condo Building Feasibility Study, of the DEIR incorrectly
references a “Conceptual Opinion of Probable Costs” prepared by
Campbell-Anderson & Associates; however, an Economic Analysis for the
project was prepared by Worden Williams, LLP, utilizing a market valuation
(Eshelman Appraisals, Inc. 2023) and construction costs estimates (WNC
Contractors, Inc. 2024). An Economic Analysis is not required as part of the
CEQA analysis or as components of the DEIR. The omission of the economic
analysis does not affect the adequacy or content of the DEIR and does not
alter the environmental impacts of the project or the conclusions of the
DEIR. CEQA Guidelines Section 15131 specifically states that economic
effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the
environment. However, economic factors shall be considered by public
agencies in deciding whether changes in a project are feasible to reduce or
avoid a project’s significant effects. If economic information is not
presented in the EIR, the information can be added to the record in a
manner to allow the public agency to consider economics (and other social,
technological, and environmental factors) when reaching a decision on the
project. As such, the economic analysis referenced in the appendix will be
disclosed in the future, should the city choose to use economics when
deciding to approve or deny the project.
O1-3
This comment is correct, the HRAR states that implementation of identified
mitigation would not reduce the impacts of demolition to a historic
structure to a less-than-significant level. The text of the DEIR also indicates
that implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3 would
not reduce impacts to historical resources to a less-than-significant level
(refer to Section 4.3.7 in DEIR Section 4.3, Historical, Cultural, and Tribal
Cultural Resources). As discussed in Section 4.3.7, the identified measures
would not be enough to avoid, rectify, or reduce or compensate for the loss
of the building. A substantial adverse change to a historic resource would
occur which would be inconsistent with the Secretary of the Interior
Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 25 of 128
01-2
01-3
01-4
Appendix Dis u feasibility study ofpre.serv1.1tion alternatives. The version ofthul report posted
for public review omits the inforrnation in the "Conceptual Opi1lion of Probable Costs", prepared
by Campbell-Anderson & /\ssociatcs, (nc. While the financial aspects of the project should
generally not be a factor in the City's decision-making, the analysis which the appendix
contained is rdevunt lo the public review and should be disclosed.
/\s /\ppcndix B, on page 60, states, the proposed HA8S rccordation of the existing structures
(Mitigation Measure CR-I, and the related CR-2 and CR-3) does not mitigate the impacts of
demolition to I.he level of insignificance. Therefore. the City must produce findings oveiTiding
the impacts of demolition. Section S of the DEIR demonstrates that there are feasible alternatives
to demolition. muking overriding findings unsupportable.
Regarding J\1litigation :Vlcasure CR•4, any historic period material recovered, such as related to
agricultural operations or the construction of the present st'11crures, would presumably not l.x:
subject to repatriation. This can likely be resolved between the Tribal and archaeological
monitors.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the posted documents as part of the public review
process for this project.
cc: ASM Affiliates
SDCAS President
Pile
Sincerely,
~7~,
~es W. Royle, Jr., C~so~
Envinmmt:ntul Review Committee
P.O. Uo,c 81106 • San Diego, CA 92138-1106 • (858) 538-0935
Chapter 2. Responses to Comments
Comments Responses
City of Carlsbad Three on Garfield Project
March 2024 Final EIR 2-8
Standards, and the DEIR concludes that the impact would be significant and
unavoidable.
Because of this impact conclusion, the city acknowledges that it would be
required to produce Candidate Findings and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations in order to approve the project. CEQA (Public Resources
Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of
Regulations Section 15000 et seq.) require that no public agency shall
approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified that
identifies one or more significant environmental impacts of the project
unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of
those significant impacts, accompanied by a brief explanation of the
rationale for each finding. CEQA further requires the decision-making
agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological,
or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable
environmental effects when determining whether to approve the project. If
the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a
proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects,
the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable" (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15093(a)). The City, as lead agency, is responsible for
making the findings for the project, in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA
Guidelines.
O1-4
This comment is correct, repatriation of history-period materials would not
occur, and any repatriation issues related to archaeological materials would
be resolved between the Tribal and archaeological monitors.
Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 26 of 128
Chapter 2. Responses to Comments
Comments Responses
Three on Garfield Project City of Carlsbad
Final EIR March 2024 2-9
2.5 Individuals Letters
2.5.1 Letter I1: Armistead Smith
I1-1
Comment noted. However, as indicated in project objectives outlined in
DEIR Chapter 3, the project applicant’s proposal is to demolish and not
remodel the existing structure. To clarify, there is no mitigation proposed
for the project that retains or preserves the historic facade of the building at
its current location, but Mitigation Measure CR-3 would allow for salvage of
character-defining features of the building. The Partial and Full
Rehabilitation Alternatives identified in DEIR Chapter 5, Alternatives, would
allow for the possible retention of the facade through reconstruction of the
false front facade, in kind, due to significant dry rot documented to occur
throughout the facade.
I1-2
Comment noted, attachments were received. This comment does not
address the adequacy or content of the DEIR. Refer to response to
comment O1-2, which describes the role of economics in the CEQA process,
as outlined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15131.
I1-3
Although this comment identifies an “omission in the report”, the
background information regarding the development of GoHomes and
programs teaching architects strategies to stop urban sprawl are not
relevant in the context of or conclusions reached in the DEIR discussion. The
Historical Resources Assessment Report (HRAR), located in DEIR
Appendix B, does contain a brief discussion of the GoHomes program
Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 27 of 128
11-1 I
11-2
Smith and Others Architects
1910 State Street n 208
San Diego, CA 92101
December 8, 2023
City of Carlsbad
Community Development Department
Planning Division
1635 Faraday Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Attention Kyle Van Leeuwen
Re: Three on Garfield project ( Victor Condo) Draft EIR
Good morning Mr. Van Leeuwen,
Letter 11
I wanted to be sure those who are reviewing this demolition permit, are aware of the offer we
have made to provide pro bona architectural design services as regards accomplishing one of
the proposed means of mitigation out lined in the EIR, a remodel that saves the historic facades
of the building.
Attached please find:
1. An economic analysis provided by our office to determine a cost to remcxtel the portion
of the building impacted by the neighboring view blocking new building to the West,
that partially instigated the owners interest in demolishing the three condos and
replacing them with another three condos of the same size. The analysis prepared and
presented to the owner's representative, the ex-husband of the petitioner, in June of
2022 outlines how a remodel of the structure to solve the issue caused by the view
blockage could be close to free given the Mills Act tax advantage closely matching the
financed cost of the remodel. Although interest rates are higher today, a similar
advantage, if not break even would be possible. Smith and Others is a development
firm as well as architects, with extensive experience preparing economic analysis, and
construction cost estimating.
2. Plans of the proposed remodel showing the addition in plan and section
In addition, we would like to place in the record an omission in the report. The central thesis
behind our development work over the last 40 years has been the invention and development
of "GoHomes", which are market rate affordable housing where bedroom suites in a unit are
11-3 designed to be shared by unrelated adults. Victor Condo is the first built example of the
strategy where these suites are provided with private exterior doors and the option to use a
master bedroom vanity as a mini kitchenette or for roommates to live together using the main
kitchen. The suit is flexible so that it can be used as a third bedroom or an affordable rental
Chapter 2. Responses to Comments
Comments Responses
City of Carlsbad Three on Garfield Project
March 2024 Final EIR 2-10
in the “Historic Context” section of the HRAR, as part of the overall
discussion of the architect’s background. As discussed in DEIR
Section 4.3.4.1, both the HRAR and the DEIR identify the Victor Condo as a
structure recommended as eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources under Criterion 3 (it embodies the distinctive
characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or
represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values).
Additionally, the HRAR and DEIR Section 4.3.4.1 recommend the Victor
Condo as eligible for listing as a Carlsbad Historic Resource, provided there
was owner consent, under local criteria a and c because it exemplifies
special elements of the city’s architectural history, specifically Postmodern
architecture. The additional information provided regarding the GoHomes
program and programs teaching architects strategies to stop urban sprawl
would not affect or alter the resource’s eligibility or the conclusions of the
HRAR or DEIR, which identifies Victor Condo as a historical resource for the
purposes of CEQA.
I1-4
The Feasibility Study prepared for Victor Condo, included in DEIR
Appendix D, documents the condition of the property based on a field
investigation conducted in July 2023. The field investigation was conducted
by two surveyors, including one that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualification Standards for Architecture and Historic
Architecture (refer to page 1 of DEIR Appendix D, Victor Condo Building
Feasibility Study). The field investigation included a visual survey of
accessible exterior and interior areas of the property. Photographs of the
existing conditions of the property are included in pages 17 through 36 of
the Feasibility Study. While it is unclear if the commentor has the expertise
for evaluating the condition of the property, the preparer of the Feasibility
Study does have expertise in the field of historic preservation. CEQA
Guidelines Section 15151, Standards for Adequacy of an EIR, states that
“Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the
EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the
experts.” In this case, it is assumed that the commenter does not have the
Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 28 of 128
11-3
cont.
11-4
11-s j
providing financial benefit to both the sub tenant and the owner. We have gone on to build
many such housing opportunities that have mostly been constructed in the City of San Diego.
The most notable example is the Via Donada project where six suites share a kitchen. The
project was extensively published most notably in Art and Architecture, article attached.
I founded Woodbury University's Master's in Real Estate Development program primarily to
teach this strategy to architects hoping to stop sprawl, density the suburban condition, and
provide affordability. The program ran successfully for 14 years graduating over a hundred
trained architect developers who have gone on to build the majority of San Diego first ring
housing in Hilk rest, North Park, South Park, University Heights, Normal Heights and Golden
Hills as well as many projects in the urban core.
The first project in this rather long history was Victor Condo. I am hoping that accomplishment
can add further credence to the report's conclusion that the project is a significant example
worth saving.
We also would like to take exception to the reports structural condition report. When we
presented the Mills Act remodel proposal. We were invited into the building where the interior
framing had been examined and uncovered exposing a structural frame showing no damage at
all to the wood in the interior from leakage. They were no on-going leak pointed out and if
there was any noticeable mold at all, ( I did not see any mold or smell anything) it was not
serious enough to cause demolition. We also observed a slight calcification of lime on the
interior of the retaining walls, that is very normal in buildings even a year old, and easily
mitigated. There were no visible structural deficiencies. We disagree whole heartedly with the
report's description of the structural integrity posing any problem approaching a need to
demolish.
Anc:I finally, please make it be known that we are willing and able to help the owner in any way
possible to remodel or even purchase or market the property on their behalf.
Thank you for attaching this letter and attached illustrations as responses to the EIR.
Sincerely,
(?J()O,,, "--
Armistead Smith
Chapter 2. Responses to Comments
Comments Responses
Three on Garfield Project City of Carlsbad
Final EIR March 2024 2-11
Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for
Architecture and Historic Architecture expertise for evaluating the condition
of the property. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary or have been made
in response to this comment; however, the commentor’s disagreement with
the conclusions of the expert’s Feasibility Report are noted.
I1-5
Comment noted; as noted in DEIR Chapter 3, the project objectives do not
state the applicant’s desire to remodel the Victor Condo building. This
comment does not address the adequacy or content of the DEIR.
Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 29 of 128
Victor Condo Property Tax Reduction, Mills Act
Current Tax estimate
$ 1,265,202.00
$ 893,499.00
$ 959,842.00
$ 3,118,543.00 total assessment ( purchase price)
tax rate 0.0125 $ 38,981.79 current yearly tax estimate
Mills Act Tax estimate
or more?
tax rate
s 5,500.00 market rental rate each for Mills Act?
$ 16,500.00 assume all three the same
$ 198,000.00 yearly Gross Scheduled Income
30% $ 59,400.00 typical operating expenses and vacancy
$ 138,600.00 Net Operating Income
Mills Act cap Rate
6.75% interest component
4% Hstoric Property risk component
1.67¾ Amortization component
1.24% pre>perty tax component
13.66% total Cap rate
$ 1,014,641.29 Mills Act determination of value for Taxes
0.0125 $ 12,683.02 ~arly tax
$ 26,298.77 ~arly tax savings
Calculation of potential matching borrowed budget
rate 4¾ $ (26,294.59) yearly mortgage portion of refi or 2nd TD
($2,191.22) Refurbish budget monthly payment@
1504 Existing Square footage ( no garage)
4512 Total Three Buildings
S 108.15 Loan Budget per foot tax savings would finance
$ 487,972.80 remodel and refurbish budget
Chapter 2. Responses to Comments
Comments Responses
City of Carlsbad Three on Garfield Project
March 2024 Final EIR 2-12 Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 30 of 128
REFURBISH BUDGET
HARD
SOFT
9 Bathrooms
3 kitchens
strip to studs $ 6,500.00
$ 30,000.00
wa ter proof. Front retaining wall
new roof deck ( recent new roof )
new floor coverings
most windows newly replaced
new window coverings
repaint
contingency
Contractor
consultants reduced
permit
misc.
subtotal
10%
construction peric:x:l insurance
carry empty building
financing
Soft Contingency
Total Refurbish Budget
Budget based man Mills Act Tax Savings
Assumed Estimate of Existing Equity
$ 893,499.00
$ 959,842.00
$ 1,265,202.00
$ 3,118,543.00
20¾ $ 623,708.60
$ 264,603.73
$ 58,500.00
$ 90,000.00
$ 20,000.00
$ 35,000.00
$ 45,000.00
$ 15,000.00
$ 20,000.00
$ 25,000.00
$ 75,000.00
$ 383,500.00
$ 38,350.00
$ 421,850.00
$ 10,000.00
$
s 5,000.00
$ 15,000.00
$ 15,000.00
$ 15,000.00
$ 481,850.00
$ 487,972.80
Condo 1
Condo2
Condo 3
Total Purchase
assumed equity
equity required
Chapter 2. Responses to Comments
Comments Responses
Three on Garfield Project City of Carlsbad
Final EIR March 2024 2-13 Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 31 of 128
-.. •·,,.·.,
--:-----:=<,i----,7.T,-;'
.P
I !"'··.
Chapter 2. Responses to Comments
Comments Responses
City of Carlsbad Three on Garfield Project
March 2024 Final EIR 2-14 Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 32 of 128
Chapter 2. Responses to Comments
Comments Responses
Three on Garfield Project City of Carlsbad
Final EIR March 2024 2-15 Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 33 of 128
She I Horn
From:
Sent:
Kyle Van Leeuwen <Kyle.VanLeeuwen@carlsbadca.gov>
Thursday, December 14, 2023 8:49 AM
To: Sheryl Horn
Kim Baranek Cc,
Subje-ct: FW: Three on Garfield GoHome information and plans
Second email,
-KVL
Fram: A B SM!™ ,csm1thandotl!ers9<X>xcnot>
Sant: Thursday, o ... mber 14 2023 8:28 AM
To: K~ Van l.ffuwen <1(¥e.YanLeeuwanOCilrlsbadcii.tpV>
Sllbllct: Three on Garfield GoHome informitiOn and phms
Sometimes thi1jpeJ111 don\ fflliil ~11. P14Ue let me know ~u recei\edr th""i•c.c•~nc.dth..=•Y._•~"''-------.
arts architecture
Chapter 2. Responses to Comments
Comments Responses
City of Carlsbad Three on Garfield Project
March 2024 Final EIR 2-16 Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 34 of 128
Chapter 2. Responses to Comments
Comments Responses
Three on Garfield Project City of Carlsbad
Final EIR March 2024 2-17 Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 35 of 128
Chapter 2. Responses to Comments
Comments Responses
City of Carlsbad Three on Garfield Project
March 2024 Final EIR 2-18 Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 36 of 128
Chapter 2. Responses to Comments
Comments Responses
Three on Garfield Project City of Carlsbad
Final EIR March 2024 2-19Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 37 of 128
Chapter 2. Responses to Comments
City of Carlsbad Three on Garfield Project
March 2024 Final EIR 2-20
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 38 of 128
Three on Garfield Project City of Carlsbad
Final EIR March 2024 3-1
3. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Project Name: Three on Garfield
Project Location: 2685, 2687, and 2689 Garfield Street, Carlsbad, California
Project Description: Three attached, three-story residential air-space condominiums
City Contact: Kyle Van Leeuwen, Associate Planner, Carlsbad Planning Division; Phone Number: 442.339.2611
Mitigation Measure
Responsible
for Mitigation
Responsible
for Verification
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Verification
Date Comments
Historical, Cultural, and Tribal Cultural Resources
MM CR-
1-
Historic American Building Survey (HABS)
Documentation
Prior to the issuance of the demolition permits, the Victor
Condo building shall be documented to Historic
American Buildings Survey (HABS) Level 2 standards
according to the outline format described in the Historic
American Building Survey Guidelines for Preparing
Written Historical Descriptive Data. The documentation
shall be undertaken by a qualified professional who
meets Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualification Standards (36 CFR, part 61) for architectural
history. The documentation shall consist of the following:
• Photographic Documentation: Documentation
should follow the Photographic Specification–
Historic American Building Survey, including 15 to
20 archival quality, large-format photographs of the
exterior and interior of the building and its
architectural elements. Construction techniques and
architectural details should be documented,
especially noting the measurements, hardware, and
other features that tie architectural elements to a
specific date.
Applicant City of Carlsbad
Planning
Department
Review and
approval of
HABS
documentation
package
Prior to
issuance of
demolition
permit
Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 39 of 128
Chapter 3. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Carlsbad Three on Garfield Project
March 2024 Final EIR 3-2
Mitigation Measure
Responsible
for Mitigation
Responsible
for Verification
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Verification
Date Comments
• HABS Historical Report: A written historical narrative
and report completed according to the HABS
Historical Report Guidelines.
• Original architectural plans shall be archivally
reproduced, following HABS standards, or included
as figures in the HABS historical report.
Three copies of the HABS documentation package, with
one copy including original photo negatives, shall be
produced, with at least one copy placed in an archive or
history collection accessible to the general public, such
as the Carlsbad Public Library and San Diego History
Center.
MM CR-2 Interpretation
Prior to the issuance of demolition permits, the project
applicant, in coordination with, and subject to approval
by the City Planner, shall develop an interpretative
opportunity that would communicate the significance of
the Victor Condo building to the local community. The
opportunity could consist of a permanent plaque or sign
with general information at the project site with an
opportunity for the public to digitally link to additional
information, such as historic photographs, HABS
documentation or other materials that are maintained by
the city or other organization, such as the Historical
Society. The interpretive exhibit shall be developed by a
qualified team including a historian and graphic designer
or other professional with demonstrated experience in
displaying information and graphics to the public in a
visually interesting manner. The exhibit should be located
at the project site, or at some other location determined
as appropriate by the qualified team and the City
Planner.
Applicant City of Carlsbad
Planning
Department
Review and
approval of
interpretation
opportunity
Prior to
issuance of
demolition
permit
Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 40 of 128
Chapter 3. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Three on Garfield Project City of Carlsbad
Final EIR March 2024 3-3
Mitigation Measure
Responsible
for Mitigation
Responsible
for Verification
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Verification
Date Comments
MM CR-3 Architectural Salvage
Prior to the issuance of demolition permits that would
remove character-defining features of the building, the
developer shall consult with city Planning Department
staff as to whether any such features may be salvaged.
This could include both interior and exterior features for
preservation on or off-site or for sale or use in another
structure. The developer shall make a good faith effort to
salvage materials of historical interest to be utilized as
part of the interpretative program. The developer shall
prepare a salvage plan for review and approval by the
City Planner prior to issuance of any site demolition
permit.
Applicant City of Carlsbad
Planning
Department
Submittal of
salvage plan
Prior to
issuance of
demolition
permit
MM CR-4 Construction Monitoring
Prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing
activities, the project developer shall enter into a Pre-
Excavation Agreement, otherwise known as a Tribal
Cultural Resources Treatment and Tribal Monitoring
Agreement, with a Traditionally and Culturally Affiliated
Luiseño tribe (TCA Tribe). This agreement will contain
provisions to address the proper treatment of any tribal
cultural resources and/or Luiseño Native American
human remains inadvertently discovered during the
course of the project. The agreement will outline the
roles and powers of the Luiseño Native American
monitors and the archaeologist. Such agreement shall
include at minimum, that, if a possible tribal cultural
resource is uncovered during ground disturbing
activities, all work shall cease within a minimum distance
of 50 feet from the find until a Qualified Tribal Monitor
and Archaeological Monitor have had the opportunity to
evaluate the find. If a Qualified Tribal Monitor or
Archaeological Monitor determines that the object or
artifact appears to be a potentially significant tribal
cultural resource, the City of Carlsbad shall notify the
Applicant’s
Construction
Contractor
City of Carlsbad
Planning
Department
Pre-Excavation
Agreement,
Tribal and
Archaeological
Monitor
Contract, and
Site inspections
Prior to
issuance of
grading
permit.
During site
preparation
and grading
Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 41 of 128
Chapter 3. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Carlsbad Three on Garfield Project
March 2024 Final EIR 3-4
Mitigation Measure
Responsible
for Mitigation
Responsible
for Verification
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Verification
Date Comments
affiliated Tribes to conduct a site visit and make
recommendations to the City regarding the monitoring
of future ground disturbance activities and the treatment
and disposition of any discovered tribal cultural
resources. A copy of said archaeological contract and
Pre-Excavation Agreement shall be provided to the City
of Carlsbad prior to the issuance of a grading permit. A
Luiseño Native American monitor shall be present during
all ground disturbing activities. Ground disturbing
activities may include, but are not be limited to,
archaeological studies, geotechnical investigations,
clearing, grubbing, trenching, excavation, preparation for
utilities and other infrastructure, and grading activities.
Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21083.2,
the handling, treatment, preservation, and recordation of
tribal cultural resources should occur as follows:
The find should be preserved in place or left in an
undisturbed state unless the project would damage
the resource.
All collected artifacts, if not human remains or other
mortuary objects, shall be repatriated to the
affiliated Tribes for reburial on the project site.
MM CR-5 Discovery of Human Remains
In the event human remains are encountered, State
Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5(e)(1) state that no further
disturbance shall occur to the area of the find until the
County Coroner has made a determination of origin and
disposition of the human bone pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner
shall be notified of the find immediately and shall make
their determination within two working days of being
notified. If the remains are determined to be Native
American, the County Coroner shall notify the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by phone within
Applicant’s
Construction
Contractor
City of Carlsbad
Planning
Department
Site inspections During site
preparation
and grading
Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 42 of 128
Chapter 3. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Three on Garfield Project City of Carlsbad
Final EIR March 2024 3-5
Mitigation Measure
Responsible
for Mitigation
Responsible
for Verification
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Verification
Date Comments
24 hours, and the NAHC shall then immediately
determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant. With the
permission of the landowner or his/her authorized
representative, the Most Likely Descendant may inspect
the site of the discovery. The Most Likely Descendant
shall complete the inspection and make
recommendations or preferences for treatment of the
remains within 48 hours of being granted access to the
site. The Most Likely Descendant’s recommendations
may include scientific removal and nondestructive
analysis of human remains and items associated with
Native American burials, preservation of Native American
human remains and associated items in place,
relinquishment of Native American human remains and
associated items to the descendants for treatment, or
any other culturally appropriate treatment.
Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 43 of 128
Chapter 3. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Carlsbad Three on Garfield Project
March 2024 Final EIR 3-6
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 44 of 128
Page 1 of 17
August 2024
Attachment B
CANDIDATE FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE
THREE ON GARFIELD PROJECT
SCH No. 2022110423
INTRODUCTION
A. Findings of Fact
The following Candidate Findings are made for the Three on Garfield Project (hereinafter referred to
as "project"). The environmental impacts of the project are addressed in the Final Environmental
Impact Report (FEIR) dated March 2024 (State Clearinghouse No. 2022110423), which is
incorporated by reference herein.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Res. Code §§21000, et seq.) and the State
CEQA Guidelines (Guidelines) (14 Cal. Code Regs §§15000, et seq.) require that no public agency shall
approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more
significant environmental impacts of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written
findings for each of those significant impacts, 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 impact as identified in the
FEIR.
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.
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained
workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in
the FEIR.
CEQA also requires that the findings made pursuant to §15091 be supported by substantial
evidence in the record (§15091(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines). Under CEQA, substantial evidence
means that enough relevant information has been provided (and reasonable inferences from this
information may be made) that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though
other conclusions might also be reached. Substantial evidence may include facts, reasonable
assumptions predicted upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts (§15384 of the State CEQA
Guidelines).
CEQA further requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal,
social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental
effects when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse
environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable"
(§15093(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines). When the lead agency approves a project which will result
Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 45 of 128
Page 2 of 17
August 2024
in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the FEIR but are not avoided or
substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its actions
based on the FEIR and/or other information in the record.
B.Record of Proceedings
For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the Project consists of the
following documents and other evidence, at a minimum:
•The Notice of Preparation (NOP), dated Nov. 18, 2022 and all other public notices
issued by the city in conjunction with the project;
The Draft EIR (DEIR), dated October 30, 2023;
The FEIR, dated March 2024;
•All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public
review comment period on the DEIR;
•All responses to written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during
the public review comment period on the DEIR and included in the FEIR;
•The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP);
•The reports and technical memoranda included or referenced in the FEIR;
•All documents, studies, EIRs, or other materials incorporated by reference in the DEIR and
the FEIR;
•Matters of common knowledge to the city, including but not limited to federal, state and
local laws and regulations;
•Any documents expressly cited in these Findings; and
•Any other relevant materials required to be included in the Record of Proceedings pursuant
to Public Resources Code §21167.6(e).
C.Custodian and Location of Records
The documents and other materials which constitute the administrative record for the City of
Carlsbad (city’s) actions related to the project are located at the City of Carlsbad, Community
Development Department, Planning Division, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008. The city
Community Development Department is the custodian of the administrative record for the project.
Copies of these documents, which constitute the Record of Proceedings, are and at all relevant times
have been and will be available upon request at the offices of the city Community Development
Department. The DEIR and FEIR was also placed on the city's website at
https://www.carlsbadca.gov/departments/community-development/planning/agendas-minut es-
notices. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code §21081.6(a)(2) and
CEQA Guidelines §15091(e).
Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 46 of 128
Page 3 of 17
August 2024
PROJECT SUMMARY
A.Project Location
The subject 0.16-acre infill site is located at 2685, 2687, and 2689 Garfield Street in the northwestern
portion of the city. The city is bordered to the north by the city of Oceanside, to the south by the city
of Encinitas, to the east by the cities of Vista and San Marcos, and on the west by the Pacific Ocean.
The project site is located approximately 250 feet east of the beach and cliffs along the Pacific Ocean
and immediately west of the Carlsbad Downtown Village. Regional access to the project site is
provided by Interstate 5 (I-5) and State Route 78 (SR-78) with local access provided by Carlsbad
Village Drive and Carlsbad Boulevard. The property is situated at the northwest corner of Garfield
Drive and Beech Avenue.
B.Project Objectives and Description
Project Objectives
The objectives of the Three on Garfield Project are as follows:
1.Demolish the existing structure and construct three condominium units with an updated
architectural design.
2.Eliminate ongoing structural deterioration of the building and façade, foundation
degradation and mold that have been caused by age and documented moisture intrusion.
3.Eliminate roof and deck leaks and site drainage problems associated with the current
building.
4.Construct condominiums that fully comply with current building code and development
standards.
5.Redevelop an infill residential site that retains the city’s housing supply.
6.Utilize contemporary project design features to reflect a modernized appearance while
ensuring compatibility with adjacent residential land uses.
7.Increase the amount of window area and natural light entering each condominium unit.
8.Update the design to adjust for obstructed views and take better advantage of views that
remain.
9.Update internal configuration of the condominiums to improve accessibility and to allow for
a more contemporary design that incorporates a traditional floor plan for each of the three
units.
10.Construct a structure that would not obstruct views of the coastline from public lands or
public rights-of-way in the Coastal Zone.
Project Description
The Three on Garfield Project proposes the construction of three attached, three-story residential
air-space condominiums to replace the existing units on site. Each home includes an attached two-
car garage with direct entrance into the unit for a total of six parking spaces. In addition, one guest
Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 47 of 128
Page 4 of 17
August 2024
parking space would be provided along the building exterior on the north side of the site. Two
residential units would contain two bedrooms, while the third unit would feature three bedrooms.
The units would range in size from 1,701 square feet (SF) to 1,713 SF, for a total structure size of
5,118 SF. All units would feature private balconies on the third floor. The units’ entry doors and
porches would be oriented toward Garfield Street on the building’s eastern elevation. Vehicular
access would be provided via a new driveway along the western side of the lot connecting to Beech
Avenue.
The project proposes a contemporary architectural style that is commonly seen in southern
California coastal communities and has been designed to better protect against future water
intrusion. Design elements include a new foundation and drainage system, sloped roofs and
exterior decks with additional slope, drainage features, and materials to prevent leaks. The project
interior has a more contemporary and open style. The interior layout of each unit would include
larger rooms and fewer small spaces. Bathroom sinks, showers and toilets are combined into one
room, rather than being on different floors in some instances. Additional windows are included on
the east side to create views towards Magee Park, and windows in other locations are located to
take advantage of view opportunities between and around existing development. The building
would be finished with complementary building materials, fiber-concrete panels, synthetic wood-
grain siding, stone veneer, and stucco. Other finishes include glass balcony railings, black vinyl
recessed windows, and a 3:12 pitch asphalt-shingle roof. The proposed roofline would be below the
30-foot height limit for sloped rooflines and lower in elevation than the existing 35- to 43-foot-high
flat rooftop on the existing structure. Figure 36, Renderings, provides images of the project from
several public vantage points.
Landscaping, consisting of various native and/or drought tolerant trees, shrubs, and ground cover
species, would be installed along walls and in raised planters throughout the common areas
surrounding the building and along the driveway. Decorative pavement or permeable pavers would
be used to reconstruct the on-site drive aisle which would connect to a wider curb cut and concrete
apron constructed at the driveway connection with Beech Avenue. The existing sidewalk and
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ramp at the northwest corner of Beech Avenue and Garfield
Street would be reconstructed as part of the project. The building would receive services from
existing utility connections on the site. Trash and recycling containers would be individually stored
inside each unit’s garage and staged for pick-up along the driveway.
The project would comply with all applicable development standards for Planned Unit
Developments (CMC Chapter 21.45). The project requires the city to issue a number of permits
which are listed below under Project Approvals and Regulatory Requirements.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The lead agency approving the project and conducting environmental review under CEQA (California
Public Resources Code §§21000, et seq.), and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder in California
Code of Regulations, Title 14, §§15000 et seq. (CEQA Guidelines), shall be the city. The city as lead
agency shall be primarily responsible for carrying out the project.
In compliance with §15082 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the city published an NOP on Nov. 17,
2022, which began a 30-day period for comments on the appropriate scope of the EIR. The city
Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 48 of 128
Page 5 of 17
August 2024
received comments on the NOP which were taken into consideration during the preparation of the
DEIR (refer to Appendix A of the FEIR).
The city published a DEIR addressing the project on October 30, 2023, in compliance with CEQA.
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15085 and upon publication of the DEIR, the city made the DEIR
available for review and comment by the public for a period of 45 days. The city also posted a Notice
of Availability of the DEIR at this time pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15087. During the public
review period, the city received three comment letters on the environmental document; no
comment letters were received after the close of the public review period. The city provided
responses in writing to all comments received on the DEIR.
Information provided in the response to comments (RTC) clarifies or amplifies information included
in the DEIR; however, the RTC did not require changes to the information contained in the DEIR. No
significant new information was added that would require recirculation of the document, per CEQA
Guidelines Section 15088.5. The FEIR for the project was published on March 2024. The FEIR has been
prepared in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines (§15132).
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
Impacts associated with specific issue areas resulting from approval of the project are discussed
below.
The FEIR concludes the project would have no impacts with respect to the following issue areas:
•Agriculture and Forestry Resources
•Land Use and Planning
•Mineral Resources
The FEIR concludes the project would have less than significant impacts and require no mitigation
measures with respect to the following issue areas:
•Aesthetics
•Air Quality
•Biological Resources
•Energy
•Geology
•Greenhouse Gas Emissions
•Hazards and Hazardous Materials
•Hydrology/Water Quality
•Noise
•Paleontological Resources
•Population and Housing
•Public Services
•Recreation
•Transportation/Circulation
•Utilities and Service Systems
•Wildfire
Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 49 of 128
Page 6 of 17
August 2024
The FEIR concludes the project would potentially have a significant impact but mitigated to below
a level of significance with respect to the following issue areas:
•Historic, Cultural, and Tribal Cultural Resources (Archaeological Resources and Human
Remains)
•Historic, Cultural, and Tribal Cultural Resources (Tribal Cultural Resources)
The FEIR concludes the project would have significant unavoidable impacts for the following CEQA
issue areas:
•Historic, Cultural, and Tribal Cultural Resources (Historic Resources)
FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
The Findings incorporate the facts and discussions in the FEIR for the project as fully set forth
therein.
A.Findings Regarding Impacts That Will be Mitigated to Below a Level of Significance
(CEQA §21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(1)
The city, having independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the FEIR and
the public record for the project, finds, pursuant to Public Resource Code §21081(a)(1) and State
CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(1), that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which would mitigate, significantly lessen or avoid the significant effects on the
environment related to the following issues:
HISTORIC, CULTURAL, AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Archaeological Resources
Impact
The project has the potential for grading to occur in undisturbed on-site areas and the potential to
encounter unknown buried historic or prehistoric resources.
Finding
Implementation of actions pursuant to Mitigation Measure CR-4 would reduce impacts to unknown
buried historic and prehistoric resources to less than significant.
Facts in Support of Finding
The project area was surveyed by an archaeologist and Native American monitor and no cultural
material was observed during the survey. No previously recorded cultural resources are recorded in
the project area. However, the 1887 Magee House, now the home of the Carlsbad Historical Society
and located east across Garfield Drive approximately 100 feet from the project area, exhibits local
significance. The presence of the 1887 Magee House less than 100 feet from the current project area
suggests the possibility that buried resources may exist in the project area. Although the project site
has been previously disturbed and graded during the original development of the project site with
the existing structure, there is potential for project grading to occur within undisturbed on-site areas
and potential to encounter unknown buried historic or prehistoric resources.
Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 50 of 128
Page 7 of 17
August 2024
Mitigation Measures
The potentially significant impact to unknown buried historic or prehistoric resources through
disturbance of previously undisturbed sediments would be mitigated to below a level of significance
with implementation of the Mitigation Measure CR-4, as identified in Section 4.3.6.2 of the FEIR,
Mitigation Measure CR-4 requires implementation of construction monitoring, which includes steps
to be taken prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities and in the event a cultural
resource is uncovered. Mitigation Measure CR-4 also requires that a Luiseño Native American
monitor is present during all ground-disturbing activities.
Reference
See FEIR Section 4.3 for a complete discussion of the historic, cultural, and tribal cultural resources
(archaeological) impacts associated with the project.
HISTORIC, CULTURAL, AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Human Remains
Impact
The construction of the project has the potential to extend into previously undisturbed native
sediment, resulting in the potential to encounter unknown human remains.
Finding
Implementation of actions pursuant to Mitigation Measure CR-5 would reduce impacts associated
with the discovery of unknown human remains to less than significant.
Facts in Support of Finding
Although the project would not disturb any known human remains, grading associated with the
project has the potential to extend into previously undisturbed native sediment. As such, there is the
possibility, although it is unlikely given the previous disturbance on the project site, that unknown
human remains may be encountered.
Mitigation Measures
The potentially significant impact to unknown human remains would be mitigated to below a level of
significance with implementation of the Mitigation Measure CR-5, as identified in Section 4.3.6.3 of
the FEIR. Mitigation Measure CR-5 identifies procedures to implement in the event human remains
are encountered during project construction. These procedures include halting ground disturbance
in the area of the find until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition
of the remains, notifying the Native American Heritage Commission if remains are determined to be
Native American, inspection of the site by a Most Likely Descendant, and recommendations for
culturally appropriate treatment.
Reference
See FEIR Section 4.3 for a complete discussion of the historic, cultural, and tribal cultural resources
(human remains) impacts associated with the project.
Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 51 of 128
Page 8 of 17
August 2024
HISTORIC, CULTURAL, AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact
Ground disturbance associated with the construction of the project has the potential to encounter
unknown buried tribal cultural resources.
Finding
Implementation of actions pursuant to Mitigation Measures CR-4 and CR-5 would reduce impacts to
tribal cultural resources to less than significant.
Facts in Support of Finding
In response to the Notice of Preparation, The Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians requested to
accompany the archaeologist for the pedestrian survey, which was completed on March 7, 2023.
Per Assembly Bill 52, the city provided formal notification of the project to the San Luis Rey Band of
Mission Indians, Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, and Mesa
Grande Band of Diegueno Mission Indians on June 13, 2023.. Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians and
San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians requested consultation, correspondence was made with both
tribes and consultation was concluded in October 2023.,. There are no known Native American
resources in the project site that are listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in by the Public Resources Code.
Additionally, no specific tribal cultural resources were identified in the project site as a result of
Native American consultation conducted for the project per Assembly Bill 52. If any artifacts are
inadvertently discovered during ground-disturbing activities, existing federal, state and local laws
and regulations would require construction activities to cease until such artifacts are properly
examined and determined not to be of significance by a qualified cultural resources professional.
Although the project site has been previously disturbed and graded during the original development
of the project site with the existing structure, there is potential for project grading to occur within
undisturbed on-site areas and potential to encounter unknown buried tribal cultural resources.
Mitigation Measures
The potentially significant impact to tribal cultural resources would be mitigated to below a level of
significance with implementation of the Mitigation Measures CR-4 and CR-5, as identified in Section
4.3.6.4 of the FEIR.
Reference
See FEIR Section 4.3 for a complete discussion of the tribal cultural resource impacts associated with
the project.
Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 52 of 128
Page 9 of 17
August 2024
B.Findings Regarding Impacts That Are Found to be Significant and Unavoidable
The city hereby finds that the following environmental impact is significant and unavoidable and
although there is mitigation required for the impact to historic resources, that there is no feasible
mitigation to fully reduce the impact to historic resources to a less than significant level. "Feasible" is
defined in §15364 of the CEQA Guidelines to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful
manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal,
social, and technological factors." The city may reject a mitigation measure if it finds that it would be
infeasible to implement the measure because of specific economic, legal, social, technological, or
other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for
highly trained workers. These findings are based on the discussion of impacts in Section 4.3 of the
EIR.
HISTORIC, CULTURAL, AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Historic Resources
Impact
The project would result in demolition of the Victor Condo building, which is considered a
substantial adverse change to the historical resource pursuant to CEQA Section 21084.1. Therefore,
according to CEQA Guidelines, this action constitutes a significant effect on the environment and
material impairment on a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Section 15064.5(b). Impacts would
be significant.
Finding
Implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3 would partially compensate for the
historic resource impacts associated with the project; however, these measures would not be
enough to avoid, rectify or reduce or fully compensate for the loss of the building. No additional
feasible mitigation measure exist and a substantial adverse change would still occur; therefore, the
impact would be significant and unavoidable even after implementation of CR-1, CR-2 and CR-3.
Facts in Support of Finding
The Victor Condo was evaluated for eligibility for listing in the California and local registers.
Constructed in 1982, the building is an example of the Postmodern style and was evaluated within
the context of Postmodernism in San Diego County. Although the Victor Condo is less than 50 years
old and is not the only example of postmodern architecture in the San Diego region, it is the first
example of the style in Carlsbad. Some project features, such as exterior windows and the garage
doors, are no longer original, reducing to some degree the integrity of the buildings historic value.
However, the primary east-facing façade of the Victor Condo remains a distinct feature of the
building’s Postmodern style. Because Victor Condo embodies distinct characteristics of the style
and was recognized by both scholarly and popular publications, the building is recommended as
eligible for the CRHR under Criterion 3. Provided there was an owner application and consent, the
Planning Commission could determine that the Victor Condo is eligible as a Carlsbad Historic
Resource under criteria a and c because it exemplifies special elements of the city’s architectural
history, specifically Postmodern architecture. Additionally, although the building is less than 50
Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 53 of 128
Page 10 of 17
August 2024
years old, sufficient time has passed to understand the authenticity, integrity, and value of the
building to meet the special considerations at the state and local level. The existing building on the
project site, Victor Condo, does not qualify as a historic resource under the first two criteria
outlined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(1) and (2). The Victor Condo is not listed, or
determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission for listing, in the CRHR. The
Victor Condo is not included in a local register of historical resources or identified as significant in
an historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(g).
However, under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3) and (4), the lead agency retains discretion
to make its own determination that the Victor Condo qualifies as an historical resource, provided it
is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. As such, Victor Condo is identified
as a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA.
Mitigation Measures
Implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3 would be required in order to
document and interpret the significance of the Victor Condo for the public, as identified in Section
4.3.6.1 of the FEIR. These mitigation measures would create preservation materials available to the
public to inform future research. The mitigation would partially compensate for the historic resource
impacts associated with the project; however, these measures would not be enough to avoid, rectify,
reduce or compensate for the loss of the historic building.
Reference
See FEIR Section 4.3 for a complete discussion of the historic resource impacts associated with the
project.
C.Findings Regarding Alternatives (CEQA §21081(a)(3) and CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(3))
In accordance with §15126.6(a) of the Guidelines, an EIR must contain a discussion of "a range of
reasonable alternatives to a project, or the location of a project, which would feasibly attain most of
the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant
effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." The CEQA Guidelines
§15126.6(f) further states that "the range of alternatives in an EIR is governed by the 'rule of reason'
that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice."
Thus, the following discussion focuses on alternatives to the project that are capable of eliminating
significant environmental impacts or substantially reducing them as compared to the project, even if
the alternative would impede the attainment of some project objectives, or would be more costly. In
accordance with §15126.6(f)(1) of the Guidelines, among the factors that may be taken into account
when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are: (1) site suitability; (2) economic viability; (3)
availability of infrastructure; (4) general plan consistency; (5) other plans or regulatory limitations; (6)
jurisdictional boundaries; and (7) whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control, or
otherwise have access to the alternative site.
As required in §15126.6(a), in developing the alternatives to be addressed in the FEIR, consideration
was given to an alternative's ability to meet most of the basic objectives of the project but would
substantially lessen or avoid any of the significant effects of the project. Because the project will
cause a significant and unavoidable environmental effect, the city must consider the feasibility of
any environmentally superior alternatives to the project, evaluating whether these alternatives could
avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects while achieving most of
the objectives of the project.
Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 54 of 128
Page 11 of 17
August 2024
The city, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the FEIR and the Record of
Proceedings, and pursuant to Public Resource Code §21081(a)(3) and State CEQA Guidelines
§15091(a)(3), makes the following findings with respect to the alternatives identified in the FEIR.
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for
the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the
alternatives identified in the FEIR (SCH No. 2022110423) as described below.
"Feasible" is defined in §15364 of the CEQA Guidelines to mean "capable of being accomplished in
a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic,
environmental, legal, social, and technological factors." The CEQA statute (§21081) and Guidelines
(§15019(a)(3)) also provide that "other considerations" may form the basis for a finding of
infeasibility.
Alternatives under Consideration
The FEIR evaluated the following alternatives in detail:
•No Project Alternative;
•Full Rehabilitation Alternative; and
•Partial Rehabilitation Alternative.
These project alternatives are summarized below, along with the findings relevant to each
alternative.
1. No Project Alternative
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(e), consideration of a no project alternative is required. The
analysis of a no project alternative must discuss the existing conditions at the time the NOP was
published (i.e., Nov. 18, 2022), as well as “what would be reasonably expected to occur in the
foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with
available infrastructure and community services” [CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)]. Under the
No Project Alternative, the existing condominium building would remain and require ongoing efforts
to address the structural and water-related problems that currently exist on site.
Potentially Significant Impacts
There would be no significant environmental impacts associated with the No Project Alternative as
described in Section 5.4.1 of the FEIR. The existing condominium building would remain at the
project site and would require ongoing efforts to address the structural and water-related problems
that currently exist on site. All impacts associated with the project would be avoided, and no impacts
would occur. No significant impacts associated with demolition of a historic resource would occur.
No potentially significant impacts to historical resources associated with unknown archaeological
resources, unknown human remains, or unknown buried tribal cultural resources would occur.
Finding
The No Project Alternative is rejected because specific economic, social, or other considerations
including matters of public policy make this alternative infeasible.
Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 55 of 128
Page 12 of 17
August 2024
Facts In Support of Finding
While the No Project Alternative would eliminate three significant and mitigatable impacts
(archaeological resources, human remains, and tribal cultural resources) and the significant and
unavoidable impact to historic resources resulting from the project, it would not meet any of the
project objectives listed in Section 3.3 of the EIR. The No Project Alternative would not accomplish
any of the project objectives, which are directed towards demolition of the existing structure,
eliminating ongoing structural deterioration and documented moisture intrusion associated with
the existing building, development of completely new condominiums with a more contemporary
design that complies with current building and development standards for the area and
constructing a structure that would not obstruct views of the coastline from public lands or public
rights-of-way in the Coastal Zone.
Rationale
Although the No Project Alternative would eliminate significant and unavoidable impacts to historic
resources and would eliminate significant but mitigable impacts to archaeological resources, human
remains, and tribal cultural resources associated with the project, it does not meet the project
objectives outlined in Section 3.3 of the FEIR.
Reference
See FEIR Section 5.4.1 for a complete analysis of this alternative.
2. Full Rehabilitation Alternative
Under the Full Rehabilitation Alternative, the existing residence would be preserved and
rehabilitated in accordance with the Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties. The rehabilitation of the building would focus on the structural issues, repair of
foundation and stabilization of the site. Repair of water damage and prevention of future moisture
infiltration would also be addressed. The paint scheme of the Victor Condo is part of the character-
defining features of the structure, thus, the Full Rehabilitation Alternative would require a retention
of the existing paint scheme, although fresh paint would be used after reconstruction of the façade.
The Full Rehabilitation Alternative would require replacement, repair, and/or stabilization of many of
the features at the project site, most notably, the reconstruction of the wood-framed false front
façade, and the wood deck and front stairs at the east façade. This alternative would require the
stabilization and partial reconstruction of the existing curved glass block walls, intervention to
stabilize the foundation of the building, and replacement of existing wood-framed stucco-clad
structural columns on the garage level of the west façade. Replacement of all existing windows
(excluding the six original windows that remain) and all exterior doors would be required, along with
repair of interior damage related to water leaks and various interior improvements to rehabilitate
the structure. The three existing residential units would be retained.
Potentially Significant Impacts
There would be no significant environmental impacts associated with the Full Rehabilitation
Alternative as described in Section 5.4.2 of the FEIR. The Full Rehabilitation Alternative would avoid
the project’s significant and unavoidable impacts to historical resources caused by the proposed
demolition of the structure. The Full Rehabilitation Alternative would avoid the project’s significant,
but mitigable impacts associated with unknown buried archaeological resources, human remains,
Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 56 of 128
Page 13 of 17
August 2024
and tribal cultural resources because ground disturbance would be limited to discrete locations
where structural repairs would be implemented.
Finding
The Full Rehabilitation Alternative is rejected because specific economic, social, or other
considerations including matters of public policy make this alternative infeasible.
Facts In Support of Finding
While the Full Rehabilitation Alternative would eliminate the project’s potentially significant but
mitigable impacts to archaeological resources, human remains, and tribal cultural resources and
would eliminate significant and unavoidable impacts to historic resources, the Full Rehabilitation
Alternative would not accomplish most of the project objectives. The Full Rehabilitation Alternative
would accomplish two of the ten project objectives, which include elimination of ongoing structural
deterioration of the building and façade, foundation degradation, and mold, and would also
eliminate roof and deck leaks. The remaining eight project objectives would not be accomplished
under the Full Rehabilitation Alternative.
Additionally, the Full Rehabilitation Alternative would require implementation of a number of
additional treatments, as detailed in Appendix D. Feasibility Study including the repair of the
foundation, stabilization of the site, repair of water damage, prevention of future moisture
infiltration, and reconstruction of the historic façade, that would not be required under the project.
Per the Economic Analysis prepared for the project, the estimated cost of implementing the required
repairs and rehabilitation for the Full Rehabilitation Alternative would have a negative financial
impact, with the cost of implementing the Full Preservation Alternative exceeding the market value
of the rehabilitated structure by more than a million dollars making this alternative infeasible.
(Worden Williams LLP 2024; Eshelman Appraisals, Inc. 2023; WNC General Contractors, Inc. 2024).
Rationale
The Full Rehabilitation Alternative would not fully meet the project objectives outlined in Section 3.3
of the FEIR and would be economically infeasible due to the extensive rehabilitation work that would
be required and its associated cost.
Reference
See FEIR Section 5.4.2 for a complete analysis of this alternative.
3. Partial Rehabilitation Alternative
The Partial Rehabilitation Alternative would require reconstruction of the wood façade of the Victor
Condo for use when finishing the new building. A new building would be constructed behind the
reconstructed façade. The unique design of Victor Condo, which involves a clear separation between
the façade and the rest of the structure, allows for possible retention of the façade, the most
significant character-defining feature of the building; however, based on the current condition of the
façade, reconstruction of the false front façade, in kind, would be required. The façade would be
detached and reconstructed while the existing building behind the façade would be demolished. The
paint scheme of the Victor Condo is part of the character-defining features of the structure, thus,
the Partial Rehabilitation Alternative would require a retention of the existing paint scheme,
Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 57 of 128
Page 14 of 17
August 2024
although fresh paint would be used following reconstruction of the façade. A new building,
containing three air-space condominiums consistent with the requirements of the BAOZ and R-3
zone, would be constructed behind the reconstructed façade. The design of the proposed building
would have to be modified in order to provide surfaces on the east elevation for the reattachment of
the Victor Condo façade. The east elevation would also be redesigned to incorporate or reference
character-defining features visible to the public, such as the glass block, and skylight “chimneys,”
provided the new structure conforms to the 30-foot building height requirement in the city
regulations.
Potentially Significant Impacts
The Partial Rehabilitation Alternative would eliminate the project’s significant and unavoidable
impact to historic resources as described in Section 5.4.3 of the FEIR. The demolition of the historic
building would result in a potentially significant impact to a historic resource and mitigation
measures would be required. Mitigation measures would include Historic American Building Survey
(HABS) documentation and an interpretative opportunity that would communicate the significance
of the structure to the local community. With the reconstruction and retention of the front façade,
incorporation of or reference to existing character-defining features of the Victor Condo building in
the new design, and the two mitigation measures, the project’s significant and unmitigable impact to
historical resources would be reduced to less than significant (with mitigation) under the Partial
Rehabilitation Alternative. The Partial Rehabilitation Alternative would result in significant, but
mitigable impacts associated with unknown buried archaeological resources, human remains, and
tribal cultural resources, similar to the project.
Finding
The Partial Rehabilitation Alternative is rejected because specific economic, social, or other
considerations including matters of public policy make this alternative infeasible.
Facts In Supporting Finding
The Partial Rehabilitation Alternative would eliminate the significant and unavoidable impact
associated with demolition of the historic structure; however, mitigation measures would be required
to reduce impacts to historic resources to a less than significant level. Although this alternative
would reduce the project’s significant and unavoidable impact to a significant and mitigable impact
and although it would meet most of the project objectives, it would not meet all of the project
objectives. The Partial Rehabilitation Alternative would not fully meet the project objectives to
demolish the existing structure and construct three condominium units with an updated
architectural design, nor would it construct a structure that would not obstruct views of the coastline
from public lands or public rights-of-way in the Coastal Zone. Further, the Partial Rehabilitation
Alternative would only partially accomplish two of the project objectives related to contemporary
project features and increasing the amount of window area and natural light entering each
condominium unit. Additionally, the Partial Rehabilitation Alternative would have a negative financial
impact, based on the estimated cost of rehabilitation and construction compared to the expected
market value of the completed structure. The Partial Rehabilitation Alternative is financially
infeasible because it would result in a negative financial impact on the applicant with a loss of
property value of approximately $235,000 as compared to the project making it infeasible (Worden
Williams LLP 2024; Eshelman Appraisals, Inc. 2023; WNC General Contractors, Inc. 2024). The Partial
Rehabilitation Alternative would reduce the significant and unavoidable impact to historic resources
to a significant and mitigable impact and would result in the same significant but mitigable impact
Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 58 of 128
Page 15 of 17
August 2024
associated with unknown buried archaeological resources, human remains, and tribal cultural
resources.
Rationale
The Partial Rehabilitation Alternative would eliminate the significant and unavoidable impact to
historic resources but would still result in significant but mitigable impacts to historic resources,
buried archaeological resources, human remains, and tribal cultural resources. The Partial
Rehabilitation Alternative does not meet all of the project objectives outlined in Section 3.3 of
the FEIR because of its economic infeasibility for the applicant.
Reference
See FEIR Section 5.4.3 for a complete analysis of this alternative.
Environmentally Superior Alternative
The Environmentally Superior Alternative is the Full Rehabilitation Alternative; but the alternative does not
meet the Project Objectives (provided Section 2.3). The applicant has collaborated with the city, engineers,
and experts; using extensive experience in real estate development and rehabilitation projects, and
knowledge of anticipated construction costs; to develop a reasonable, desired, and feasible development
project. The Full Rehabilitation Alternative is cost prohibitive, would not be pursued by the applicant, and
ultimately would not eliminate existing hazards currently associated with the building.
FINDINGS REGARDING OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
A.Growth Inducement
The §15126.2(e) of the CEQA Guidelines mandates that the growth-inducing impact of a project be
discussed. This discussion is presented in Section 6.2 of the FEIR. The city finds that the project
would not result in growth-inducing impacts.
The project would replace the three existing condominium units with three new condominium units.
The city’s General Plan and Local Coastal Plan (LCP) designate the project site R-15 Residential (8 to
15 dwelling units per acre [du/ac]), while the property is zoned Multiple-Family Residential (R-3).
Based on the size of the lot (0.16 acres) and the allowed density on the property’s land use
designation (R-15, or 8 to 15 du/ac), a maximum of two units are allowed on the property. However,
the existing three-unit structure on the project site is nonconforming and the project would be
subject to the Carlsbad Municipal Code, (CMC) Chapter 21.48, Nonconforming Lots, Structures and
Uses. Approval of a Nonconforming Construction Permit would allow the continuation of the legally
established use of three dwelling units on the property. As such, since the project is replacing the
existing condominium units with an equal number of units, its implementation would not result in
the alteration of growth patterns within the city from those anticipated in the adopted General Plan.
In addition, the proposed project is located in an urbanized area and is adequately served by the
existing infrastructure with no expansion required.
The project would provide new employment opportunities, through the employment of temporary
construction workers. The short-term nature of the construction jobs is not anticipated to lead to
significant long-term population growth in the region. These jobs would be limited in number; it
would be expected that these employees are already present in the region. The project would not
Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 59 of 128
Page 16 of 17
August 2024
need to recruit substantial numbers of new employees living elsewhere in or outside of the region.
Construction of the proposed project would not cause direct population growth as the workforce
already exists in the region. No cumulative growth inducing impacts would occur.
B.Significant Environmental Effects that Cannot Be Avoided if the Project is
Implemented
CEQA Guidelines §15126.2(c) requires an EIR to identify significant environmental effects that cannot
be avoided if the project is implemented (14 CCR §15000 et seq.). As discussed in Chapter 4,
Environmental Impact Analysis, of the FEIR, implementation of the project would result in a
significant and unavoidable impact to historic resources.
FINDINGS REGARDING RESPONSES TO COMMENTS AND REVISIONS IN THE FEIR
The FEIR includes comments received on the DEIR and responses to those comments. The focus of
the responses to comments is on the disposition of significant environmental issues that are raised
in the comments, as specified by CEQA Guidelines §15088(c). Information provided in the response
to comments clarifies or amplifies information included in the DEIR; however, the response to
comments did not require changes to the information contained in the DEIR.
Finding/Rationale: Responses to comments made on the DEIR do not require revisions to the
analysis presented in the document, and do not trigger the need to recirculate per CEQA Guidelines
§15088.5(b).
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Public Resources Code §21081(b) prohibits approval of a project with significant, unmitigable
adverse impacts resulting from infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives unless the agency
finds that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project
outweigh the significant effects on the environment. CEQA Guidelines §15093 adds that the
decision-making agency must "balance, as applicable, economic, legal, social, technological, or other
benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to
approve the project." CEQA further requires that, when the Lead Agency approves a project which
will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the FEIR, but are not avoided
or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its actions
based on the FEIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding
considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record (§15093[b] of the State
CEQA Guidelines). This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings
required pursuant to §15091 (§15093[c] of the State CEQA Guidelines).
The Planning Commission, (i) having independently reviewed the information in the FEIR and the
Record of Proceedings; (ii) having made a reasonable and good faith effort to eliminate or
substantially lessen the significant impacts resulting from the project to the extent feasible by
adopting the mitigation measures identified in the FEIR; and (iii) having balanced the benefits of the
Three on Garfield Project against the significant environmental impacts, chooses to approve the
Three on Garfield Project, despite its significant environmental impacts, because in its view, specific
economic, legal, social, and other benefits of the project render the significant environmental impact
acceptable.
Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 60 of 128
Page 17 of 17
August 2024
The following statements identify why, in the Planning Commission’s judgment, the benefits of the
Three on Garfield Project as approved outweigh the unavoidable and unmitigable significant
impacts. Each of these public benefits serves as an independent basis for overriding all significant,
unavoidable and unmitigable impacts. Substantial evidence supports the various benefits. Such
evidence can be found either in the preceding sections, which are incorporated by reference into
this section, the FEIR, or in documents that comprise the Record of Proceedings in this matter.
The following benefits outweigh the significant impacts of the proposed project:
•Implementation of the project will maintain the number of dwelling units existing at the site
to retain the city’s housing supply.
•Implementation of the project with the mitigations proposed will provide a historical marker
to commemorate the Victor Condo. Although implementation of the project demolishes what
is considered a historic resource and the mitigations measures proposed are not sufficient to
reduce the impacts to less than significant, the historic marker would educate the public with
information about the site and previous events. Currently, the multi-unit building has no
identifying marker or information.
•Implementation of the project will construct condominiums that fully comply with the General
Plan, Subdivision Ordinance, and relevant building and zoning regulations of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code (CMC).
•The Feasibility Study substantiates the presence of one or more Health and Safety Code
violations on the property, as well as other violations relating to building and fire codes and/or
lack of proper maintenance in the dwelling units. Given the existing hazards currently
associated with the building, the property owner proposes to demolish all units on the
property and replace them with a new multi-family housing development. The Project provides
the property owner with the opportunity to remove the hazards and improve the condition of
the property without inflicting economic hardship. After the Project’s implementation, there
would be reduced risks to life and property.
•A substandard condition in one or more units, as documented in the Feasibility Study, indicates
an increased risk of substandard conditions in other units on the same property or presence
of blight to adjacent homes. The Project provides the property owner with the opportunity to
remove the building, which is documented to be in poor condition, and improve the visual
appearance of the property without inflicting economic hardship.
•Implementation of the project will redevelop an infill residential site.
•Implementation of the project will utilize contemporary project design features to reflect a
modernized appearance while ensuring compatibility with adjacent residential uses.
•Implementation of the project will construct a structure that would remove existing
obstructions of views of the coastline from public lands or public rights-of-way in the Coastal
Zone.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the city finds in accordance with Public Resources Code 21081(b) and
21085.5 and CEQA Guidelines 15093 and 15043, that the project's adverse, unavoidable
environmental impacts are outweighed by the above-referenced benefits, any one which individually
would be sufficient to outweigh the adverse environmental effects of the project. Therefore, the city
has adopted these Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 61 of 128
City of Carlsbad Three on Garfield MMRP Page 1 of 5
MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM
Project Name: Three on Garfield
Project Location: 2685, 2687, and 2689 Garfield Street, Carlsbad, California
Project Description: Three attached, three-story residential air-space condominiums
City Contact: Carlsbad Planning Division; Phone Number: 442.339.2600; Email: planning@carlsbadca.gov
Mitigation Measure
Responsible
for Mitigation
Responsible
for Verification
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Verification
Date Comments
Historical, Cultural, and Tribal Cultural Resources
MM CR-
1-
Historic American Building Survey (HABS)
Documentation
Prior to the issuance of the demolition permits, the
Victor Condo building shall be documented to Historic
American Buildings Survey (HABS) Level 2 standards
according to the outline format described in the
Historic American Building Survey Guidelines for
Preparing Written Historical Descriptive Data. The
documentation shall be undertaken by a qualified
professional who meets Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualification Standards (36 CFR, part 61)
for architectural history. The documentation shall
consist of the following:
• Photographic Documentation: Documentation
should follow the Photographic Specification–
Historic American Building Survey, including 15 to
20 archival quality, large-format photographs of
the exterior and interior of the building and its
architectural elements. Construction techniques
and architectural details should be documented,
especially noting the measurements, hardware,
Applicant City of Carlsbad
Planning
Department
Review and
approval of
HABS
documentation
package
Prior to
issuance of
demolition
permit
Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 62 of 128
Attach ment C
City of Carlsbad Three on Garfield MMRP Page 2 of 5
Mitigation Measure
Responsible
for Mitigation
Responsible
for Verification
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Verification
Date Comments
and other features that tie architectural elements
to a specific date.
• HABS Historical Report: A written historical
narrative and report completed according to the
HABS Historical Report Guidelines.
• Original architectural plans shall be archivally
reproduced, following HABS standards, or included
as figures in the HABS historical report.
Three copies of the HABS documentation package, with
one copy including original photo negatives, shall be
produced, with at least one copy placed in an archive or
history collection accessible to the general public, such
as the Carlsbad Public Library and San Diego History
Center.
MM CR-
2
Interpretation
Prior to the issuance of demolition permits, the project
applicant, in coordination with, and subject to approval
by the City Planner, shall develop an interpretative
opportunity that would communicate the significance
of the Victor Condo building to the local community.
The opportunity could consist of a permanent plaque
or sign with general information at the project site with
an opportunity for the public to digitally link to
additional information, such as historic photographs,
HABS documentation or other materials that are
maintained by the city or other organization, such as
the Historical Society. The interpretive exhibit shall be
developed by a qualified team including a historian and
graphic designer or other professional with
demonstrated experience in displaying information and
graphics to the public in a visually interesting manner.
The exhibit should be located at the project site, or at
Applicant City of Carlsbad
Planning
Department
Review and
approval of
interpretation
opportunity
Prior to
issuance of
demolition
permit
Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 63 of 128
City of Carlsbad Three on Garfield MMRP Page 3 of 5
Mitigation Measure
Responsible
for Mitigation
Responsible
for Verification
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Verification
Date Comments
some other location determined as appropriate by the
qualified team and the City Planner.
MM CR-
3
Architectural Salvage
Prior to the issuance of demolition permits that would
remove character-defining features of the building, the
developer shall consult with city Planning Department
staff as to whether any such features may be salvaged.
This could include both interior and exterior features
for preservation on or off-site or for sale or use in
another structure. The developer shall make a good
faith effort to salvage materials of historical interest to
be utilized as part of the interpretative program. The
developer shall prepare a salvage plan for review and
approval by the City Planner prior to issuance of any
site demolition permit.
Applicant City of Carlsbad
Planning
Department
Submittal of
salvage plan
Prior to
issuance of
demolition
permit
MM CR-
4
Construction Monitoring
Prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing
activities, the project developer shall enter into a Pre-
Excavation Agreement, otherwise known as a Tribal
Cultural Resources Treatment and Tribal Monitoring
Agreement, with a Traditionally and Culturally Affiliated
Luiseño tribe (TCA Tribe). This agreement will contain
provisions to address the proper treatment of any tribal
cultural resources and/or Luiseño Native American
human remains inadvertently discovered during the
course of the project. The agreement will outline the
roles and powers of the Luiseño Native American
monitors and the archaeologist. Such agreement shall
include at minimum, that, if a possible tribal cultural
resource is uncovered during ground disturbing
activities, all work shall cease within a minimum
distance of 50 feet from the find until a Qualified Tribal
Monitor and Archaeological Monitor have had the
opportunity to evaluate the find. If a Qualified Tribal
Monitor or Archaeological Monitor determines that the
Applicant’s
Construction
Contractor
City of Carlsbad
Planning
Department
Pre-Excavation
Agreement,
Tribal and
Archaeological
Monitor
Contract, and
Site
inspections
Prior to
issuance of
grading
permit.
during site
preparation
and grading
Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 64 of 128
City of Carlsbad Three on Garfield MMRP Page 4 of 5
Mitigation Measure
Responsible
for Mitigation
Responsible
for Verification
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Verification
Date Comments
object or artifact appears to be a potentially significant
tribal cultural resource, the City of Carlsbad shall notify
the affiliated Tribes to conduct a site visit and make
recommendations to the City regarding the monitoring
of future ground disturbance activities and the
treatment and disposition of any discovered tribal
cultural resources. A copy of said archaeological
contract and Pre-Excavation Agreement shall be
provided to the City of Carlsbad prior to the issuance of
a grading permit. A Luiseño Native American monitor
shall be present during all ground disturbing activities.
Ground disturbing activities may include, but are not be
limited to, archaeological studies, geotechnical
investigations, clearing, grubbing, trenching, excavation,
preparation for utilities and other infrastructure, and
grading activities. Consistent with Public Resources
Code Section 21083.2, the handling, treatment,
preservation, and recordation of tribal cultural
resources should occur as follows:
• The find should be preserved in place or left in an
undisturbed state unless the project would damage
the resource.
• All collected artifacts, if not human remains or
other mortuary objects, shall be repatriated to the
affiliated Tribes for reburial on the project site.
MM CR-
5-
Discovery of Human Remains
In the event human remains are encountered, State
Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5(e)(1) state that no further
disturbance shall occur to the area of the find until the
County Coroner has made a determination of origin
and disposition of the human bone pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner
shall be notified of the find immediately and shall make
their determination within two working days of being
Applicant’s
Construction
Contractor
City of Carlsbad
Planning
Department
Site
inspections
During site
preparation
and grading
Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 65 of 128
City of Carlsbad Three on Garfield MMRP Page 5 of 5
Mitigation Measure
Responsible
for Mitigation
Responsible
for Verification
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Verification
Date Comments
notified. If the remains are determined to be Native
American, the County Coroner shall notify the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by phone
within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall then immediately
determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant. With
the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized
representative, the Most Likely Descendant may inspect
the site of the discovery. The Most Likely Descendant
shall complete the inspection and make
recommendations or preferences for treatment of the
remains within 48 hours of being granted access to the
site. The Most Likely Descendant’s recommendations
may include scientific removal and nondestructive
analysis of human remains and items associated with
Native American burials, preservation of Native
American human remains and associated items in
place, relinquishment of Native American human
remains and associated items to the descendants for
treatment, or any other culturally appropriate
treatment.
Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 66 of 128