Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 02-28x1; La Costa Condominiums; Tentative Map (CT) (30)City of Carlsbad ADDENDUM TO THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR LA COSTA CONDOMINIUMS CT 02-28. SDP 03-18. HDP 02-14. CP 02-13 The purpose of this Addendum to the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (approved April City Council Resolution No. 2004-096,) is to describe revisions to the Mitigation Monitoring^ Reporting Program as a result of the adoption of the City of Carlsbad's Habitat Management Plan (HMP), and to state the determination that this revision does not create any new significant environmental effects, that none of the conditions contained in Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have occurred, and that a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration is not required. Subsequent to the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for this project, the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan was adopted. The adopted HMP is a comprehensive plan to protect native plant and animal species and their habitats by the creation of a citywide, regional habitat preserve system. In return, impacts to native habitats outside the citywide, regional preserve system boundaries are allowed. The native habitat contained on this project site is not a part of, or of any biological value to the HMP citywide regional habitat preserve system, and will not jeopardize the existence or survival of any rare, threatened or endangered plant or animal species. The revision contained in this addendum eliminates Mitigation Measures 4, 5, and 6 from the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and replaces them with the following mitigation measure: Prior to the recordation of the Final Map or issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall pay habitat in-lieu mitigation fees consistent with the HMP and the biological report as follows, Group D: 1.12 acres of unoccupied coastal sage scrub/mixed chaparral; Group E: 2.5 acres of annual (non-native) grassland; and Group F: 2.07 acres of disturbed lands. This revision is not considered substantial or significant as it relates to the environmental effects associated with the project or the conditions contained in Section 15162 of CEQA. When City staff completed the initial environmental impact assessment for the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Habitat Management Plan was in its draft form. The analysis prepared by Affinis Environmental Services appropriately categorized the biological habitats on-site into four categories: Landscaped (2.7 acres), Disturbed (3.6 acres), Non-Native Grassland/Landscaped (0.6 acres), and Non- occupied Coastal Sage Scrub/Mixed Chaparral (1.1 acres). With the adoption of the HMP, it has now been determined that the project site (and the general area) is not identified as either an existing or proposed HMP Hardline or Standards Preserve Area and is not a part of the ultimate Preserve System. As such, the HMP habitat in-lieu mitigation fees for Habitat Types "D," "E," and "F" would apply, and it is no longer necessary to, 1) consult with the United States Fish & Wildlife Service regarding impacts to the project and permits, 2) stake and flag the lower boundary of the coastal sage scrub/mixed chaparral habitat prior to grading, and 3) acquire mitigation credits in a pre-approved mitigation bank. This revision does not create any new significant environmental effects, nor does it cause any of the conditions contained in Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to occur, and a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration is not required. Date:Don Neu Acting Planning Director 1635 Faraday Avenue » Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 « (760) 602-4600 » FAX (760) 602-8559 » www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us Page 1 of 2 PROJECT NAME- La Costa Condominiums APPROVAL DATE February 21. 2007 FILE NUMBERS. CT 02-28X1. SDP 03-18X1. CP 02-13X1. HDP 02-14X1 . HMPP 06-06 The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). Mitigation Measure , Monitoring Type Monitoring Department Shownon Plans Verified Implementation Remarks Mitigation required to achieve the required 60 dBA CNEL exterior noise standard includes a 5.5 foot high solid noise wall located along La Costa Avenue. The wall shall be located at the top of slope. The wall may be constructed stud, stucco, 3/8-inch plate glass, any masonry material or a combination of these materials. The wall must have a surface density of at least 3.5 pounds per square foot and shall have no openings and gaps. Plan check - Prior to issuance of a building permit Building/ Planning Yes 2. Mitigation required to achieve 60 dBA CNEL exterior noise standard for the third floor balconies for units located along La Costa Avenue includes a solid five-foot high noise barrier (relative to the balcony floor). The barrier must have a surface density of at least 3.5 pounds per square foot and shall have no openings and gaps. The barrier may be constructed of stud, stucco, 3/8-mch plate glass, any masonry material or combination of these matenals. Plan check - Prior to issuance of a building permit Building/ Planning Explanation of Headings- Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative Monitoring Oept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure information Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other RD - Appendix P Page 2 of 2 Mitigation Measure 3. Mechanical ventilation shall be provided for the units facing La Costa Avenue as specified in the acoustical analysis prepared for this project by Mester Greve Associates on May 3, 2002, to achieve 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall submit a supplemental acoustical analysis from the acoustical consultant stating that the architectural plans have been designed in compliance with the recommendations stated in the acoustical report 4 The applicant shall pay habitat in-lieu mitigation fees consistent with the Habitat Management Plan (HMP) and the Biological Confirmation Analysis (dated September 7, 2006) as follows, Group D: 1.12 acres of unoccupied coastal sage scrub/mixed chaparral; Group E: 2.5 acres of annual (non-native) grassland; and Group F: 2.07 acres of disturbed lands. Monitoring Type Plan check - Prior to issuance of a building permit Prior to recordation of Final Map, or issuance of a grading permit, whichever shall occur first. Monitoring Department Building/ Planning Planning Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks Explanation of Headings Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative Monitoring Dept = Department, or Agency, responsible for momtonng a particular mitigation measure information Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other RD - Appendix P ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CT 02-28/SDP 03-18/CP 02-13/HDP 02-14 DATE: December 9,2003 BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. CASE NAME: La Costa Condominiums LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Saima Oureshy - (760) 602-4619 PROJECT LOCATION: South Side of La Costa Avenue Between El Camino Real and Castilla Way [AF" - 216-160-27) PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: Calso. LLC 2683 Costebelle Avenue, La Jolla. CA 92037 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RMH (1 1.5 du/ac) ZONING: RD-M (Residential Density-Medium) OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e.' permits, financing approval or participation agreements): None PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: Request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map. Site Development Plan. Condominium Permit and Hillside Development Permit for the development of a 58-unit air-space condominium proiect. The site is located on the south side of La Costa Avenue. between El Camino Real and Castilla Wav and currently consists of a vacant lot totaling 8.18 acres. The site is surrounded by an existing multi-family residential proiect to the west. a vacant lot to the east, duplexes to the south and single family residences to the north. Three tiers of buildings are urouosed with six. six-plex buildinvs, two three-plex buildings and four, four-plex buildings. Access to the site is from La Costa Avenue and the project's internal private driveways will provide access to individual units. The buildings will not exceed 35' in height and will comply with all standards of the RD-M Zone and Planned Development Ordinance. The units will range in size from 1,340 to 2,016 square feet. A 14,330 square foot recreation area will be located in the northeastern comer of the subiect site. The northern property boundary, adjacent to La Costa Avenue, is a moderatelv steep slope. The middle section of the site is relatively flat with very steep slopes located on the southwestern, southern, and southeastern portions of the property. 1 Rev. 07/03/02 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 0 Aesthetics Geology/Soils 0 Agricultural Resources 0 Air Quality 0 Hazards/Hazardous Materials 0 HydrologyiWater Quality 0 Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Biological Resources 0 Cultural Resources 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance Ix] Noise 0 Population and Housing 0 Public Services 0 Recreation Transportatioflrafc 0 Utilities & Service Systems 2 Rev. 07/03/02 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 0 IXI 0 0 0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have “potentially significant impact(s)” on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. \2-/ \6 /03 Planner Signature Date Planner Signature \2-/ \6 /03 Date 3 Rev. 07/03/02 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (Em), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly adverse. Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required. When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment. If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. 4 Rev. 07/03/02 0 An EIR the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the EM-Part I1 analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant. 5 Rev. 07/03/02 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 1. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0 0 0 b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? om c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 0 0 d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 0 0 om 11. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - (In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model- 1997 prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would the project: 0 a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? OIXI om b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 0 0 0 0 c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Fannland to non-agricultural use? 111. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.) Would the project: 0 0 0 0 a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? om b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 1510 6 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 Ixl 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact IXI 0 0 0 0 No Impact 0 IXI IXI 0 IXI OIXI 7 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi- cance of an archeological resource pursuant to 8 15064.5? Directly or indirectly destroy a unique pale ontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: 1. 11. ... 111. iv. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Strong seismic ground shaking? Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Landslides? Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - I-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 I7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact Unless Less Than 0 o[XI cl 0 0 [XI 0 Ixl Ixl Ixln no IXIO on 8 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment? For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Mitigation Significant No [ncorporated Impact Impact Unless Less Than 0 0 0 0 0151 nIx1 om 0151 nIxI 0151 om 9 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (Le., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for whch permits have been granted)? Impacts to groundwater quality? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off- site? Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff! Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Place housing with a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 0 0 OB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OB BO OH 10 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact o 0 IXIU n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? 0 0 IXIO 0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? 0 0 IXIO p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? M. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 0 0 0 0 0 0 c) X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: 0 a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? o 0 b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) 0 IXI 0 0 Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? 0 0 0 0 c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? nu OIXI Ixlo Ixlo 11 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact Unless Less Than 0 om 0 OIXI 0 Potentially Significant Impact 0 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? o 0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? MI. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: ON 0 a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 0 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 0 0 c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? 0 0 0 0 0 0 ii) Police protection? 0 0 iii) Schools? om iv) Parks? ON v) Other public facilities? 0 XIV. RECREATION 0 ON a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 12 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehcle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Result in inadequate emergency access? Result in insufficient parking capacity? Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn- outs, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 13 Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact Unless Less Than 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IXIO OH 01x1 OH 01x1 01x1 OIXI OIXI Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 0 0 OIXI e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? o 0 om 0 0 OIXI f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 0 0 a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? o 0 b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumula- tively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable hture projects?) 0 Ixl c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? on XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 14 Rev. 07/03/02 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is for a Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Plan, Condominium Permit and Hillside Development Permit to allow for the development of 58 condominium units on an 8.18 acre site. The project site is located on the south side of La Costa Avenue adjacent to and east of the Marbella Condominiums. Three tiers of buildings are proposed. The two northernmost tiers (closest to La Costa Avenue) will have access from Driveway “B”. The southernmost tier (with the highest elevation) will have access from Driveway “A”. The Driveway “B” buildings include 2, tri-plexes and 6, six-plexes (one tri-plex and three six-plexes on each side of Driveway “B”). The Driveway “A” buildings will consist of 4, four-plexes. The buildings will not exceed 35’ in height and will comply with all standards of the RD-M Zone and Planned Development Ordinance. The units will range in size from 1,340 to 2,016 square feet. A 14,330 square foot recreation area will be located in the northeastern corner of the project site. The amenities in the recreation area include: swimming pool, spa, barbeque area, bathroodchanging room, play equipment, and turf play area. AESTHETICS No Impact. The project will not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista since the site is located in an urbanized area and will be constructed in compliance with the maximum 35’ height limitation allowed in the RD-M zone and the archtectural guidelines contained in the Planned Development Ordinance. Development of the site with a multi-family condominium project would be consistent with the surrounding development pattern. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES No Impact. There will be no impact on agricultural resources due to the proposed project as the site is not designated as or used as farmland. The subject site is zoned for multi-family residential development (RD-M) and is not subject to a Williamson Act Contract. The project would not result in other changes to the environment that would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. The project would be characterized as infill development and has been surrounded by residential development for many years. AIR QUALITY-Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a federal and state non-attainment area for ozone (03), and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM,o). The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothill areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). A plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state- mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other California non-attainment areas having serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November 9th through 10th in 1994, and was forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996. The proposed project relates to the SIP andlor RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that are incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city’s and the County’s general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the project presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact. Section 15125(B) of the State of California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California 15 Rev. 07/03/02 Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the following: 0 Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area? Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan? The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is being implemented. The project is consistent with the growth assumptions of the City’s General Plan and the RAQS. Therefore, the project is consistent with the regional air quality plan and will in no way conflict or obstruct implementation of the regional plan. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is in the City of Oceanside. Data available for this monitoring site through April, 2002 indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (one day in both 2000 and 2001) and one day in 2001 for the federal 8-hour average for ozone and one day for the 24-hour state standard for suspended particulates in 1996. No violations of any other air quality standards have been recorded recently. The project would involve minimal short-term emissions associated with grading and construction. Such emissions would be minimized through standard construction measures such as the use of properly tuned equipment and watering the site for dust control. Long-term emissions associated with travel to and from the project will be minimal. Although air pollutant emissions would be associated with the project, they would neither result in the violation of any air quality standard (comprising only an incremental contribution to overall air basin quality readings), nor contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less Than Significant Impact. The Air Basin is currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine particulates. The proposed project would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with the proposed project would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the proposed project, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 (a) (4), the proposed project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No Impact. As noted above, the proposed project would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or concentrations. In addition, there are no sensitive receptors (e.g., schools or hospitals) located in the vicinity of the project. No impact is assessed. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact. The construction of the proposed project could generate fumes from the operation of construction equipment, which may be considered objectionable by some people. Such exposure would be short-term or transient. In addition, the number of people exposed to such transient impacts is not considered substantial. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES A Biological Resources Report and Impact Analysis was prepared for the proposed project by Affinis Environmental Services in August 2002 and was updated in March, 2003. The report and update were based upon surveys of the site conducted in May 2002 (a biological reconnaissance survey) and a literature review. The Biological Resources Report identified four plant communities on the 8-acre project site and project impacts to those communities as follows: 16 Rev. 07/03/02 I PROPOSED HABITAT TYPE/ PLANT COMMUNITY EXISTING IMPACTED ACREAGE ACREAGE Non-Native GrasslandLandscaped Coastal Sage Scrubhlixed Chaparral Landscaped Disturbed Habitat TOTAL NON-IMPACTED 0.6 0.6 1.1 0.3 2.7 0.5 3.6 3.6 8.0 5.0 0 I 0 a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A Biological Resources Report and Impact Analysis was prepared for the proposed project by Affinis Environmental Services in August 2002 and was updated in March, 2003. According to the report, no candidate, sensitive, or special status species have been identified on-site. No California gnatcatchers were observed on or adjacent to the property during the surveys conducted in 2002. The coastal sage scrublmixed chaparral (1.1-ac) found on the site is recognized as a sensitive community by local, state, and federal resource agencies. The proposed project would avoid direct impacts to the coastal sage scrub found on site, with the exception of possible disturbance to 0.3 acres of habitat from brush management and remedial grading. The applicant will acquire 0.3 acres of mitigation credit in a pre-approved mitigation area or mitigation bank to offset this impact. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. No riparian, aquatic, or wetland habitat is present on the site. No habitat under the jurisdiction of the US. Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Game, or the Regional Water Quality Control Board would be impacted. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. See Response (IV b) above. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact. According to the Biological Resources Report and Impact Analysis prepared for this project, there are no wildlife corridors or habitat linkages on the project site. Native habitat is very limited on the project site. The coastal sage scrub/chaparral mix is contiguous with habitat to the east, but this off-site area is also relatively small and is surrounded by development on three sides. Overall, the property does not support high-quality biological resources. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? and f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 17 Rev. 07/03/02 No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with any HCP, NCCP, or other approved habitat conservation plan, or local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. It is not within the boundaries of or adjacent to any pre-approved mitigation areas, hardline areas, or standards areas identified in the City’s Draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP). g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? No Impact. See response 1V.b (above). V. CULTURAL RESOURCES No Impact. The subject site is an infill site which is surrounded by residential development and there will be no impacts on cultural resources. There are no known historical, archeological, paleontological, or human remains on the project site. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than Significant Impact (a.i. to a.iii.) - There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zones within the City of Carlsbad and there is no other evidence of active or potentially active faults within the City. However, there are several active faults throughout Southern California, and these potential earthquakes could affect Carlsbad. The project site is located in an area of stable soil conditions and the risk of seismic-related ground failure or liquefaction is very minimal (according to City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992). In addition, a project specific Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation was prepared by Leighton and Associates dated October 30, 2002. The report states that the potential for Liquefaction, earthquake induced settlement and lateral spread are considered to be low for the site because of the low susceptibility to liquefaction. iv. Landslides? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. There are known landslide deposits located either inside the limits of the planned grading or directly above and therefore have the potential to affect site development. Due to their potentially compressible nature and the relatively steep basal surface, the landslide deposits within the limits of the planned grading are not considered stable and are generally unsuitable for structural support in their present condition. Corrective measures (i.e. removals to competent material and/or buttressing with compacted fill) will be required to mitigate their potentially compressible nature (Update Preliminary Geotechnical Report, Lot 185, La Costa Avenue South Unit I, Carlsbad, California, prepared by Leighton & Associates, Inc. on October 30, 2002). Geotechnical issues will be reduced to a level considered less than significant through compliance with the mitigation measures recommended in the report. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact. Topsoil encountered during field investigations matches the ungraded portions of the site along the southerly property line. Soils were generally massive, porous, and contained scattered roots and other organics. The potentially compressible topsoil is estimated to be from 1 to 5 feet in thickness; however, localized areas of thicker accumulations of topsoil may be present. Although the soils on the site are relatively prone to erosion, all storm runoff collected onsite will be slowed down to a non-erosive manner prior to discharge off the site by using energy dissipaters. The applicant is required to prepare grading and erosion control plans prior to any construction. In addition, the applicant will be required to re-vegetate the slopes to increase their stability 18 Rev. 07/03/02 (Update Preliminary Geotechnical Report, Lot 185, La Costa Avenue South Unit I, Carlsbad, California, prepared by Leighton & Associates, Inc. on October 30,2002). Geotechnical issues will be reduced to a level considered less than significant through compliance with the mitigation measures recommended in the report. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Due to their potential instability and compressible nature, the landslide deposits on the site are considered unstable in their present condition and remedial measures are required (Update Preliminary Geotechnical Report, Lot 185, La Costa Avenue South Unit 1, Carlsbad, California, prepared by Leighton & Associates, Inc. on October 30, 2002). Geotechnical issues will be reduced to a level considered less than significant through compliance with the mitigation measures recommended in the report. d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Siltstone and claystone soils of the Santiago Formation are highly expansive and were found on site during field investigations. These expansive soils will be removed where present within 5 feet of finish pad grades and replaced with soils having a lower expansion potential or a special foundation design (i.e. post-tensioned design) will be provided. Incorporation of these mitigation measures into the overall project design will reduce these potential impacts to a level considered less than significant. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available €or the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. Sewers are available to the subject site and the project will be served by a public wastewater system. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS No Impact. Based on the nature of a residential land use, there is no routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials associated with residential uses. Therefore, there is no potential of a significant hazard associated with the project from accidents involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment, or from the emission of hazardous substances within the proximity of a school. The project site is not located within an area covered by an airport land use plan or an area where such a plan has not been adopted. However, the project site is located approximately 2.7 miles from the McClellan-Palomar Airport (public general aviation airport). The project site is not located within any flight, crash, or safety hazard zones associated with the airport. Therefore, the project will not result in a safety hazard for people residing on the project site. The project will not impair the implementation or physically interfere with any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation since the project site is an infill site surrounded by urban development which is adequately served by emergency services. There are no wildlands adjacent to the site that could expose people to significant risk from wildland fires. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY-Would the project: a) No Impact. The applicant is required to comply with Order 2001-01 issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. A preliminary Storm Water Management Plan for the project was prepared by O’Day Consultants to address existing and proposed pollutants of concern and what measures will be implemented to ensure that pollutant loads are not increased as a result of this project, to the maximum extent practicable. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? No Impact. This project does not propose to directly draw any groundwater for potable or irrigation use. The project will be served via existing public water distribution lines adjacent to the site. The project also includes a 19 Rev. 07/03/02 detention basin. encourages water percolation back to the groundwater. The purpose of this basin is to reduce peak run-off to pre-development conditions, which c) Impacts to groundwater quality? No Impact. This project is required to implement measures to reduce urban pollutants prior to discharge, thus groundwater quality will not be affected by this project. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? No Impact. Ths project does not propose to alter existing drainage patterns, nor any stream or river that would result in erosion or siltation on or offsite. e) Substantially aIter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Less Than Significant Impact. The project includes a detention basin on-site to reduce peak run-off to pre- development flows. f) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? No Impact. The existing storm drain system as well as the planned system as identified in the City’s Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan will adequately convey runoff from the subject site. Since this project maintains peak runoff to predevelopment flows, there is no additional impact to consider. Compliance with NPDES requirements ensure that the off-site flow does not increase pollutant discharges. g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less than significant impact. As a result of the project: 1) Implementing source BMP measures to avoid pollutant contact and; 2) Installing treatment BMP measures to remove pollutants from storm water, this project is not anticipated to contribute additional pollutants, to the maximum extent practicable. h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? No Impact. The proposed project is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map. Therefore there will be no impacts regarding flooding. i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. The proposed project would not place structures within 100-year flood hazard areas. Therefore there will be no impacts from flooding. j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact (j & k) - According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992, the project site is not located within any dam failure inundation area, or area subject to inundation by seiche or tsunami. 1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters? 20 Rev. 07/03/02 m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? 0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? Less than significant impact (1, m, n, o 8z p) - The project site is not located immediately adjacent to any body of water. The project is within a watershed that ultimately drains to Batiquitos Lagoon. Batiquitos Lagoon is not listed as an impaired water body per the 303(d) list adopted February 4,2003. The project will be required to comply with Order 2001-01 and the Storm Water Management Plan for this project. Drainage and development will be controlled via best management practices to ensure that pollutants loads are not increased to the maximum extent practicable. Therefore, the project will not adversely impact water quality. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING No Impact. The subject site is an infill site which is surrounded by multi-family residential development to the west, duplexes to the south, single-family residences to the north and a vacant lot to the east. Proposed residential development of the site will be compatible with and will integrate into the existing community. The project is consistent with the property’s General Plan designation (RMH). The density permitted on the site is 8-15 ddac, with Growth Control Management Point at 11.5 du./ac. The project’s proposed density is 11.48 ddac. The City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires that 15% of the units be reserved as affordable housing units for low income households. The project is proposing to build 9 affordable units on-site. The subject site does not conflict with any habitat conservation plans or natural communities plans in that the property is designated as an “UrbanXleveloped” area in the City’s Draft Habitat Management Plan. X. MINERAL RESOURCES No Impact. There are no known mineral resources, of local importance or otherwise, on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of such resources. XI. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. An Acoustical Analysis report was prepared for the proposed project by Mestre Greve Associates in May 2002. The report indicates that the project site will be subject to a traffic noise level of about 66.3 CNEL from La Costa Avenue at the northern property line. In order to meet the 60 CNEL exterior noise standard, noise barriers will be required along La Costa Avenue. The barrier could be a wall, berm, or a combination of the two. The project is designed with a 5.5-foot high decorative noise attenuation wall located at the top of slope along La Costa Avenue. Also, to meet exterior noise levels for balconies located on the third floor, 5-foot high solid balcony barriers are required. Therefore, a mitigation measure has been included requiring third floor balcony noise barriers to have a density of at least 3.5 pounds per square foot with no openings and gaps. The barrier may be constructed of 318-inch plate glass, 5/8-inch plexiglass, stud and stucco construction or a combination of these materials. The interior noise levels are required to be no greater than 45 dBA CNEL. The report indicates that the buildings closest to La Costa Avenue will be exposed to noise levels of less than 60 CNEL and therefore will require less than 15 dB exterior to interior noise reduction in order to meet the standard of 45 CNEL. With construction practices common in California, residential buildings achieve outdoor to indoor noise reduction of at least 20 dB. 21 Rev. 07/03/02 b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? No Impact - Based upon the nature of the proposed residential use, the project will not result in any activity that would generate excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels. In addition, the project site is not located adjacent to any use that generates excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less than Significant Impact (c & d) - Other than traffic generated noise, typical residential land uses do not generate a substantial amount of noise. With regard to temporary or periodic increase in noise levels, the only potential increase in noise would be from construction activity associated with the development project. The City incorporates standard regulations on all project construction activity to ensure that noise and other potential impacts to surrounding properties are not significant. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in a substantial permanent or temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact (e & f) - The project site is not located within an area covered by an airport land use plan or an area where such a plan has not been adopted. However, the project site is located approximately 2.7 miles from the McClellan-Palomar Airport (public general aviation airport). The project site is not located within any flight, crash, or safety hazard zones associated with the airport. Therefore, the project will not result in a safety hazard for people residing on the project site. XI. POPULATION AND HOUSING No Impact. The project would result in the development of 58 dwelling units on an infill site surrounded by existing residential development that is served by existing roads and utilities and therefore, the project would not induce substantial growth either directly or indirectly. The project is proposed on a vacant lot and would not displace any existing housing or individuals. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES No Impact. The project will result in 58 new dwelling units on 8.18 acres (11.48 unitdacre) which is consistent with the Growth Management Control Point of 11.5 ddac allowed on this site. The provision of public facilities within the Zone 6 LFMP, including fire & police protection, parks, libraries and other public facilities, have been planned to accommodate the projected growth in that area. Because the project will not exceed the total growth projections anticipated within the Zone 6 LFMP, all public facilities will be adequate to serve the proposed residential development on the site. Therefore, the project will not result in substantial adverse impacts to or result in the need for additional government facilities. XIV. RECREATION No Impacts. As part of the City’s Growth Management Program, a performance standard for parks was adopted. The park performance standard requires that 3 acres of Community Park and Special Use Area per 1,000 population within a park district (quadrant) must be provided. The project site is located within Park District #4 in the Southeast (SE) Quadrant. The necessary park acreage to achieve the GMP standard (3 acres/1,000 population) for Park District #4 was based upon the GMP dwelling unit limitation for the SE Quadrant, which is 17,379 units. 22 Rev. 07/03/02 The proposed project will result in 58 additional residential units in the SE Quadrant. However, those units were anticipated on this site under the City’s Growth Management Plan. The 58 proposed dwelling units on the site at a density of 1 1.48 units per acre will not exceed the growth control point (1 1.5 ddac) allowed by the site’s General Plan designation. The Parks and Recreation Element states that the park acreage demand for the SE Quadrant, based on the GMP dwelling unit limit, is 120.49 acres, and the anticipated park acreage to be provided at build-out will be 140.27 acres. Therefore, there will be adequate parkland within the SE Quadrant, and the proposed development will not cause additional demand for parkland or expansion of recreational facilities. Because park facilities will be adequate to serve residential development on the site, any increase in use of park facilities generated from development of the site will not result in substantial physical deterioration of any park facility. AM LOS INTERSECTION WITHOUT I WITH TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC-Would the project: PM LOS WITHOUT 1 WITH a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? La Costa Ave/El Camino Real La Costa Ave/Rancho Santa Fe Road Less Than Significant Impact. A traffic analysis was conducted for the project by Urban Systems Associates on May 16,2003 to evaluate the impacts on La Costa Avenue and impact on level of service. The project is estimated to generate 464 Average Daily Trips (ADT), 38 AM peak hour, and 47 PM peak hour trips. This project is served by La Costa Avenue, which is a secondary arterial roadway. Existing traffic on this arterial is estimated at 9,737 ADT according to the 2002 Traffic Monitoring Report. The project traffic would represent slightly more than 2% of the existing traffic on La Costa Avenue near the project, but less than 2% on other arterials in the study area. The project’s percent of the roadway design capacities are slightly more than 1% on La Costa Avenue but less than 0.5% on other arterials. While the increases in traffic from the proposed project may be slightly noticeable, the street system has been designed and sized to accommodate traffic from the project and cumulative development in the City of Carlsbad. D D D D B B C C As shown, the arterial intersections in the study area are cwrently operating acceptably and will continue to operate acceptably with project traffic added. The proposed project would not, therefore, cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. The impacts from the proposed project are, therefore, less than significant. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less Than Significant Impact. The traffic analysis conducted for the project concludes that “intersection levels of service are not expected to change as a result of project traffic, and average peak hour delays per vehicle at study area intersections are expected to be less than a two second increase, so that project impacts would be less than significant. e) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components. The project is located more than 2 miles from the McClellan-Palomar Airport and is not located within the boundaries of Airport Land Use Plan. It would not, therefore, result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No impact assessed. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses? 23 Rev. 07/03/02 No Impact. All project circulation improvements will be designed and constructed to City standards; and, therefore, would not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the City’s general plan and zoning. Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use. No impact assessed. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and Police Departments. No impact assessed. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. The project complies with the City’s parking requirements of 2 parking spaces per unit and 17 visitor spaces to ensure an adequate parking supply. No impact assessed. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)? No Impact. The proposed project does not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS No Impact - The proposed residential development, will be required to comply with all Regional Water Quality Control Board Requirements. In addition, the Zone 6 LFMP anticipated that the project site would be developed with a high density residential use and wastewater treatment facilities were planned and designed to accommodate future residential uses on the site. All public facilities, including water facilities, wastewater treatment facilities and drainage facilities, have been planned and designed to accommodate the growth projections for the City at build-out. The proposed density on the site will increase the demand for these facilities. However, the proposed density would not result in an overall increase in the City’s growth projection in the SE quadrant. Therefore, the project will not result in development that will result in a significant need to expand or construct new water facilitiedsupplies, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage facilities. Existing waste disposal services are adequate to serve the proposed residential use on the site without exceeding landfill capacities. In addition, the proposed residential development will be required to comply with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No Impact -The proposed residential project will not degrade the quality of the environment. The project site does not contain any fish or wildlife species. Therefore, the project will not reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species. The project site is a vacant infill site which is surrounded by existing residential development. The site is not identified by any habitat conservation plan as containing a protected, rare or endangered plant or animal community. The impact to 0.29 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub located on-site will be mitigated by acquiring mitigation credit in a pre-approved mitigation area or mitigation bank. Therefore, the project will not threaten the number of a plant or animal community. In addition, there are no historic structures on the site and there are no known cultural resources on the site. The project will not result in the elimination of any important examples of California History or prehistory. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable 24 Rev. 07/03/02 when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) Less than Significant Impact - San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projects regional growth for the greater San Diego area, and local general plan land use policies are incorporated into SANDAG projections. Based upon those projections, region-wide standards, including storm water quality control, air quality standards, habitat conservation, congestion management standards, etc, are established to reduce the cumulative impacts of development in the region. All of the City’s development standards and regulations are consistent with the region- wide standards. The City’s standards and regulations, including grading standards, water quality and drainage standards, traffic standards, habitat and cultural resource protection regulations, and public facility standards, ensure that development within the City will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact. There are two regional issues that development within the City of Carlsbad has the potential to have a cumulatively considerable impact on. Those issues are air quality and regional circulation. As discussed above, the project would contribute to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with the residential development would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the residential development of the site, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the residential development is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 (a)(4), the project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. The County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The CMA has determined, based on the City’s growth projections in the General Plan, that these designated roadways will function at acceptable levels of service in the short-term and at build-out. The project is consistent with the City’s growth projections, and therefore, the cumulative impact from the project to the regional circulation system is less than significant. With regard to any other potential impact associated with the project, City standards and regulations will ensure that residential development of the site will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated - Based upon the residential nature of the project and the fact that future development of the site will comply with all City standards, the project will not result in any direct or indirect substantial adverse environmental effects on human beings. However, the project site is located in an area where human beings could be exposed to significantly high noise levels generated from traffic on adjacent roadways. As discussed above, any potential impact from noise can be mitigated to a level less than significant. Those mitigation measures will be incorporated as conditions of project approval. Any future residential development on the site will be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, regional and City regulations, which will ensure the development of the site will not result in an adverse impact on human beings, either directly or indirectly. EAIUIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008. 1. La Costa Condominiums Biological Survey, Affinis Environmental Services, August 14, 2002. 2. La Costa Condominiums Biological Survey Update, Affinis Environmental Services March 18,2003. 3. Update Preliminarv Geotechnical Investigation, Leighton & Associates, Inc., October 30,2002. 4. Preliminarv Noise Analvsis for the “La Costa Condominiums” Proiect, Mestre Greve Associates, May 3, 2002. 5. Storm Water Manaeement Plan for La Costa Condominiums, O’Day Consultants, May 20,2003. 25 Rev. 07/03/02 6. Final Master Environmental Imuact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994. Citv of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analvsis and Maming Studv, November 1992. 7. 26 Rev. 07/03/02 LIST OF MITIGATION MEASURES 1. To achieve the required 60 dBA CNEL exterior noise level, include a 5.5 foot high noise bamer along La Costa Avenue. The noise bamer may consist of a wall, a berm or a combination of the two. The bamer must have a surface density of at least 3.5 pounds per square foot and shall have no openings and gaps. The wall may be constructed of stud, stucco, 3/8-inch plate glass, any masonry material or a combination of these materials. The wall shall be located at the top of slope. 2. In order to meet the exterior noise standard of 60 CNEL, 5 foot high balcony noise barriers (relative to the balcony floor) are required for the third floor balconies for units located along La Costa Avenue. The barrier must have a surface density of at least 3.5 pounds per square foot and shall have no openings and gaps. The wall may be constructed of stud, stucco, 318-inch plate glass, any masonry material or a combination of these materials. 3. Mechanical ventilation is required for the units facing La Costa Avenue to achieve an interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL or less. i 4. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant should acquire 0.29 acre of Coastal Sage Scrub mitigation credit in a pre-approved mitigation area or mitigation bank as approved by the City and the resources agencies. 5. Prior to commencement of grading, the lower boundary of the mixed chapamalhoastal sage scrub habitat shall be staked and flagged by a qualified biologist at the base of the slope. The contractor shall be advised to avoid encroachment into this habitat during project grading and construction of the retaining wall. THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATION MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Fi EC E I VED 27 Rev. 07/03/02 I PROJECT NAME: LA COSTA CONDOMINIUMS FILE NUMBERS: CT 02-28/SDP 03-1 8/CP 02-1 YHDP 02-14 APPROVAL DATE: February 4,2004 The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 31 80 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). Mitigation Measure 1. Mitigation required to achieve the required 60 dBA CNEL exterior noise standard includes a '5.5 foot high solid noise wall located along La Costa Avenue. The wall shall be located at the top of slope. The wall may be constructed of stud, stucco, 3/8-inch plate glass, any masonry material or a combination of these materials. The wall must have a surface density of at least 3.5 pounds per square foot and shall have no openings and aaos. 2. Mitigation required to achieve 60 dBA CNEL exterior noise standard for the third floor balconies for units located along La Costa Avenue includes a solid five-foot high noise barrier (relative to the balcony floor). The barrier must have a surface density of at least 3.5 pounds . per square foot and shall have no openings and gaps. The barrier may be constructed of stud, stucco, 3/8-inch plate glass, any masonry material or a combination of these materials. Explanation of Headinas: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. information. Shown on Plans =When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Monitoring Monitoring Type Department Pian check- Building/ Planning Prior to issuance of a building permit Plan check- Building/ Prior to Planning issuance of a building permit Shown on Plans Yes Remarks Verified Implementation Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other this column will be initialed and dated. RD - Appendix P. Mitigation Measure I 5. Prior to commencement of grading, the lower boundary of Prior to the mixed chaparralkoastal sage scrub habitat shall be issuance of 1 staked and flagged by a qualified biologist at the base of grading Permit the slope. The contractor shall be advised to avoid encroachment into this habitat during project grading and construction of the retaining wall. 6. The developer shall acquire mitigation credit in a pre- Prior to approved mitigation area or mitigation bank as approved issuance of bv the Citv and reauired bv the resource aaencies. grading permit Monitoring Shown on Verified Department Plans Implementation Building/ Engineering/ Planning Engineering/ Planning Planning Remarks ExDlanation of Headinas: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. information. Shown on Plans =When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other this column will be initialed and dated. RD - Appendix P.