HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-05-15; Planning Commission; Resolution 51921
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5192
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 180 UNIT APARTMENT
PROJECT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF ALGA
ROAD AND THE FUTURE ESTRELLA DEL MAR ROAD
EXTENSION IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE
10.
CASE NAME: LA COSTA GREENS AFFORDABLE SITE
CASE NO.: SDP 01-17
WHEREAS, Dove Family Housing, “Developer”, has filed a verified application
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Real Estate Collateral Management
Company, “Owner”, described as
Lot 15 of Carlsbad Tentative Tract Map CT 99-03, being more
particularly described in Attachment “A”
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 15th day of May, 2002, hold a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said, public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
according to Exhibit “ND” dated March 28, 2002, and “PII” dated March 19,
2002, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findings:
1.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A.
B.
C.
D.
It has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration and the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments
thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
The Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PC RES0 NO. 5 192 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
10
17
1E
15
2(
21
2;
2:
24
25
26
27
2E
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of May, 2002, by the
following vote, to wit:
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Dominguez and Whitton
ABSTAIN: None
n
- SEENA TRIGAS, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. H~Z~LER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5 192 -3-
DE.SCRIPTION . .- ..
A PORTION OF PARCEL 3 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 1188, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF
SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF
SAN DIEGO COUNTY ON DECEMBER 20, 1972 AS FILE NO. 340334, BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE MOST SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 3; THENCE, ALONG THE WEST
LINE OF SAID PARCEL 3, NORTH 0°14'16" EAST 33.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING, SAID POINT BEING ON THE NORTH LINE OF ALGA ROAD PER GRANT DEED TO THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD ON DECEMBER 9, 1983 AS FILE NO. 83-449259 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS;
THENCE, CONTINUING ALONG SAID WEST LINE, NORTH OO14'16" EAST 992.25 FEET TO THE
BEGINNING OF A NON-TANGENT 170 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST, THE
RADIAL TO SAID CURVE BEARS NORTH OO14'16" EAST; THENCE LEAVING SAID WEST LINE,
SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 74O3 0 44" A
DISTANCE OF 221.08 FEET; "HENCE SOUTH 15°15f00" EAST 105.82 FEET TO THE BEGINNING
OF A TANGENT 250 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTH; T'HENCE I~RLIY ALONG
THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10S057'23" A DISTANCE OF 462.32
FEET; THENCE NORTH 58O47'37" EAST 87.02 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT 20
FOOT RADIUS CURn CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID mVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90°00'OOn A DISTANCE OF 31.42 FEET; THENCE SOUTH
31012'23" EAST 112.95 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT 570 FOOT RADIUS CURVE
CONCAVE TO THE WEST; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A
CENTRAT, ANGLE OF 31O54'23" A DISTANCE OF 317.42 FEET; THENCE SOUTH OO42'00" WEST
241.00 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT 25 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE TO THE
NORTHWEST; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 90000'00" A DISTANCE OF 39.27 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID
ALGA ROAD; THENCE, WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE TANGENT TO SAID CURVE, NORTH
89018'00" WEST 780.65 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
ATTACHMENT "A"
- City of Carlsbad
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddressLocation: Northwest comer of the future intersection of Alga Road and
Estrella Del Mar Road. (APN 2 15-052- 15)
Project Description: 180 unit apartment project on a 12.67 acre site.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments fiom the public are
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of date
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Barbara Kennedy in the Planning Department
at (760) 602-4626.
DATED: MARCH 28,2002
CASE NO: SDP 01-17
CASE NAME: LA COSTA GREENS AFFORDABLE SITE
PUBLISH DATE: MARCH 28,2002
MICHAEL J. HXZMIMER
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us 49
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 11
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: SDP 01-17
DATE: March 19 2002
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: La Costa Greens Affordable Site
2. APPLICANT: Community Housing of North County
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1820 S. Escondido Blvd., Escondido,
CA 92025 760-432-6878
4. DATE EM FORM PART I SUBMITTED: December 19,2001
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Site Development Plan to develop Neighborhood 1.15 in the La
Costa Greens Village of the Villages of La Costa Master Plan. The project consists of a 180 unit
apartment complex on a 12.67 acre lot. The units in this neighborhood were desimated for and
will be utilized to satisfv a uortion of the inclusionarv (affordable) housing reauirements of the
Master Plan. The site will be pre-waded in conformance with the previous approval of the
Master Tentative Map for La Costa Greens. Included as part of the development uroposal is
additional grading to accommodate building pads and site circulation, the installation of reauired
infrastructure, and landscaping. The environmental imDacts of the proiect were evaluated in the
Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR 98-07) for the Villages of La Costa Master Plan
(2000) MP 98-01. The City Council of the City of Carlsbad certified EIR 98-07 and adopted a
Statement of Overriding Considerations on October 23,2001.
SUMMARY OF 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 Land Use and Planning Ix] TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources Utilities & Service Systems
Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources Ix] Aesthetics
IXI water Hazards Cultural Resources
Air Quality IXI Noise 0 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0
0
0
IXI
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 significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 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(n)
EWNegative 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 (EIR 98-07) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been
prepared.
311 7 /os
Date'
Planning Directss Si$fature Date r I
2 Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAT., IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR),
Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
“Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, 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 fiom “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 significant.
Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but potentially significant 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 prior Compliance).
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant 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 effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce 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.
e An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant 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 impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not
reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 4.1-1 - 4.1-46)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 4.1-1 - 4.1-46 and 4.4-1 - 4.4-49)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (#l:Pgs 4.1-1 - 4.1-46 and4.10-1- 4.10-25)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 4.1-1 -4.1-46)
(#l:PgS 4.1-1 -4.1-46)
Potentially Significant Impact
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 4.14-1 -4.14-6)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infiastructure)? (#l:Pgs 4.14-1 -
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
0 0
0 0
0 0 4.14-6 and 8-1)
housing? (#l:Pgs 4.14-1 - 4.14-6)
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 4.10-1 - 4.10-25)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 4.10-1 - 4.10-25)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 4.10-1
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 4.10-1 -4.10-25)
r) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
0 o 0 0 0 0
0 o 0 0
0 0 0 0
4.10-1 -4.10-25)
4.10-25) 0 0
4.10-1 - 4.10-25)
g) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 4.10-1 - 4.10-25)
h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 4.10-1 - 4.10-25)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 4.10-1 -
4.10-25) 0 0
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 4.11-1 -
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 4.11-1 - 4.11-31 and 4.13-1
0 0
0 0 4.11-31)
-4.13-21)
Less Than No
Significant Impact Impact
om om
OIXI
OIXI
OIXI
OB
OB
OIXI
OH OIXI OIXI
OIXI om om
OIXI om om
OIXI
OIXI
5 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygenorturbidity)?(#l:Pgs4.11-1-4.11-31)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements?(#l:Pgs4.11-1-4.11-31)
Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability?(#l:Pgs4.11-1-4.11-31)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 4.11-1 - 4.11-
31
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
body?(#l:Pgs4.11-1-4.11-31)
(#l:Pg~4.11-1-4.11-31)
4.11-1 -4.11-31)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 4.9-
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 4.9-1
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 4.9-1 - 4.9-21)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 4.9-1 - 4.9-21)
1 - 4.9-21)
- 4.9-21)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 4.7-1 - 4.7-53) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
Insuffkient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 4.7-1 -
4.7-1 - 4.7-53)
(#l:Pgs4.7-1-4.7-53 and4.12-1-4.12-47)
(#1 :PgS 4.7-1 - 4.7-53)
(#1 :PgS 4.7-1 - 4.7-53)
(#l:PgS 4.7-1 -4.7-53)
4.7-53)
W.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (#1 :Pgs 4.4-1 - 4.4-48)
Potentially
Significant Impact
IXI
0
0
0
0
0
0
IXI
0
0
0
IXI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation Incorporated 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
0
0
No
Impact
0
IXI
Ixl
Ixl
Ixl
IXI
IXI
0
Ixl
IXI
Ixl
0
IXI
[XI
[XI
IXI
IXI
IXI
[XI
6 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
VI1
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 4.4-1 - 4.4-48)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (# 1 :Pgs 4.4- 1
(#1 :PgS 4.4- 1 - 4.4-48)
(#l:PgS 4.4-1 - 4.4-48)
- 4.4-48)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
Use non-renewable resources in a wastell and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 6-1 - 6-2)
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of lture value to the region and the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs 6-1 - 6-2)
(#1 :PgS 6-1 - 6-2)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 4.13-1 - 4.13-21)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 4.13-1 - 4.31-
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
21)
hazards? (#l:PgS 4.13-1 -4.31-21)
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 4.13-1 - 4.31-21)
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 4.13-1 - 4.31-21)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 4.8-1 - 4.8-
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 4.8- 19)
1 - 4.8-19)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 4.12-1 - 4.12-47)
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 4.12-1 -4.12-47)
C) Schools? (#l:PgS 4.12-1 - 4.12-47)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 4.12-1 - 4.12-
(4.12-1 - 4.12-47)
47)
Potentially Significant
Impact
0
0
cl
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IXI
0
0 0 0 0
0
Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 o 0 0
0
Less Than Significant Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
0
No
Impact
Ixl
IXI
Ixl
IXI
IXI
IXI
Ixl
Ixl
Ix1
IXI
IXI
IXI
0
Ix1
Ix1 IXI IXI Ixl
Ixl
7 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 4.12-1 - 4.12-47)
Communications systems? (4.12-1 -4.12-47)
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 4.12-1 - 4.12-47)
Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 4.12-1 - 4.12-47)
Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 4.11-1 -4.11-31)
Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 4.12-1 -4.12-47)
Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 4.12-1 -
4.12-47)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs 4.3-
Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 4.3-1 - 4.3-48)
1 - 4.3-48)
4.3-1 - 4.3-48)
CULTUIWL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 4.6-1 - 4.6-
Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 4.5-1 - 4.5-
Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 4.5-1 - 4.5-14)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs 4.5-
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 4.5-1 - 4.5-14)
5)
14)
1 - 4.5-14)
om om OIxl om om UIxl om
om
00 om
om om
OIxl om
om
XV.RECREATI0NAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 4.12-1 -
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs
0 0 om
0 0 om 4.12-47)
4.12-1 -4.12-47)
XVI. 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?
0 0 I7 Ixl
8 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
EARLIER ANALYSES.
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation Incorporated la 0 no
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. Identie 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.
9 Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project consists of a Site Development Plan to develop Neighborhood 1.15 in the southwest
comer of the La Costa Greens segment of the Villages of La Costa Master Plan. The project site
consists of 12.67 acres located on the northwest comer of the future intersection of Alga Road
and Estrella Del Mar Road. The site will be bordered on the north by the extension of Dove
Lane and the two points of access to the project will be via this roadway. The development
proposal consists of the construction of 180 apartment units in eight separate building clusters.
The units within this neighborhood will be utilized to satisfy the inclusionary housing
requirements for the La Costa Greens Village. Site grading to accommodate the building pads
and site circulation system, the installation of required infrastructure, and landscaping are
included as part of the development proposal. Mass grading of the project site was authorized as
part of the approval of the Master Tentative Map for La Costa Greens (CT 99-03) and is assumed
to be complete for purposes of establishing a baseline condition for this evaluation. The project
has been reviewed for compliance with EIR 98-07 for the Villages of La Costa Master Plan and
has been designed or will be conditioned to incorporate the applicable mitigation measures as
required.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The proposed project was evaluated in the Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the
Villages of La Costa Master Plan (2000) MP 98-01 (EIR 98-07), dated July 16, 2001, T & B
Planning Consultants, Inc. EIR 98-07 evaluates the potential environmental effects of the
development and operation of the “Villages of La Costa Master Plan (2000)” and associated
actions. The “Villages of La Costa Master Plan (2000)” is a planning document which will
guide the development of 2,390 dwelling units and some non-residential land uses on a 1,866.4
gross acre area consisting of three villages. The Greens Village consists of 660.7 gross acres and
provides for a maximum of 1,038 residential units with some non-residential land uses. The
Ridge Village consists of 493.1 acres and provides for a maximum of 320 residential units. The
Oaks Village consists of 712.5 acres and a maximum of 1,032 residential units as well as a
community facilities site. The Greens (Zone 10) portion of the project is generally located
approximately 2,500 feet south of Palomar Airport Road, east of El Camino Real, north of Alga
Road, and west of Unicornio Street. The Ridge and Oaks (Zone 11) portion of the project site is
located north and east of La Costa Avenue, south of Alga Road, east of El Fuerte Street, and
straddles portions of Rancho Santa Fe Road.
EIR 98-07 analyzed the following environmental issue areas: Land Use and Community
Character, Landform Alteration, Visual Quality, Biological Resources, Archaeological
Resources, Paleontological Resources, Transportation, Noise, Air Quality, Geology/Soils,
Hydrology, Water Quality and Drainage, Public Facilities and Services, Human Health and
Safety Hazards, and Population and Housing. The Initial Study prepared for the Villages of La
Costa Master Plan and related action is included in Volume 1 of the Appendices for EIR 98-07
and analyzed additional issues, which were determined not to have a significant environmental
impact. The City of Carlsbad City Council certified EIR 98-07 on October 23, 2001. At that
time CEQA Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program were approved. All mitigation measures applicable to this
Neighborhood have been completed, incorporated into the project design or are required as
conditions of approval for the project. The EIR 98-07 “Statement of Overriding Considerations”
applies to all projects covered by the Villages of La Costa Final Program EIR. This project is
10 Rev. 03/28/96
within the scope of that Program EIR. EIR 98-07 is available at the Planning Department.
References to the applicable section of EIR 98-07 are provided next to each item on this
environmental impact assessment form. A brief explanation is provided in the following section
for each item checked as having a “potentially significant impact” or potentially significant
unless mitigation incorporated”. Each of these identified impacts were included in the adopted
Statement of Overriding Considerations:
IV. WATER
c) Water Quality
Impact. Development of the Proposed Project site would result in an increase in the cumulative
amounts of urban pollutants entering San Marcos Creek and Batiquitos Lagoon. Although the
cumulative contribution to urban runoff would be minimal and would not result in water
pollution and/or contamination that would significantly impact human health and safety or
biological communities, impacts are regarded as significant.
Finding. With the incorporation of the mitigation measures contained in Section 4.1 1 of
Program EIR 98-07, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby
reduced below a level of significance, but the proposed project’s cumulative contribution to
cumulative impacts would remain significant and unmitigable.
The required mitigation measures include: (1) designing and incorporating the current Best
Management Practices and Best Available Technologies (BMPs and BATS) available at that time
for pollution control and erosiodsiltation control, as referenced in the “California Storm Water
Best Management Practices Handbook” and meeting all regulatory standards; (2) in conjunction
with the sale, rental or lease of a residence or business property, all prospective owners and
tenants shall be notified in writing of the requirements for properly disposing of toxic and
hazardous waste products; and (3) applicable standards of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the San Diego County area shall be met.
Factual Support and Rationale. The new storm water point source discharge requirements
apply to urban pollutant elimination. In addition, the project applicant will be required to
educate occupants as to the need to eliminate or reduce general residential pollution entering the
storm drain systems. Regulating the source, plus onsite detention and filtering, all consistent
with the RWQCB order No. 2001 -1, will further reduce urban pollutants from entering the
lagoon and ocean.
V. AIR OUALITY
a) Air quality
Impact. The proposed Project would generate 36,620 ADT. Mobile emissions would be below
significance thresholds, with the exception of CO (Carbon Monoxide) and NOx (Nitrogen
Oxides).
Finding. No feasible measures are available to mitigate this cumulative impact and the
cumulative impact remains cumulatively significant and unmitigated.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
Factual Support and Rationale. The reliance on the automobile for the fbture household
primary mode of transportation, given the entire San Diego air basin's non-attainment status,
makes the incremental contribution from the Proposed Project to be cumulatively significant.
While the air quality in the region has been improving, the overall resolution will need to wait
cleaner burning, or less polluting, modes of personal transportation, and shifting the travel
patterns from single occupancy vehicles to carpooling, bus, bicycle and walking modes. This
represents as much a cultural as well as facility shift, but cannot realistically be fully
implemented with this Proposed Project. The Proposed Project does incorporate bike lanes, bus
stops and a range of hiking and walking trails in addition to sidewalks. Its proximity to
employment centers and recreation opportunities will also serve to reduce overall driving
distances as will the location of the multi-family housing near the transportation and employment
centers.
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CJRCUATION
a) Traffic in Year 2020
Impact. The addition of Proposed Project traffic and the construction of Proposed Project
improvements in 2020 would result in a significant impact to the intersection of El Camino
ReaWalomar Airport Road. Cumulative impacts would occur at several other intersections
within the City where the Proposed Project would contribute greater than 20% of the projected
traffic and to two intersections outside the City of Carlsbad.
Finding. With the incorporation of the mitigation measures listed in Section 4.7 of Program EIR
98-07, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a
level of significance for all intersections within the City of Carlsbad, but not the intersections
impacted outside the City limits, and there will remain a cumulative significant impact unless
those intersections are improved by others.
Factual Support and Rationale. A particularly busy and important intersection in the city for
both local and regional traffic uses is the intersection of El Camino Real and Palomar Airport
Road. It is projected that two additional improvements may be called for in the 2010-20 horizon,
or as earlier determined by the City Engineer, and the Proposed Project is conditioned to
contribute its fair share to these improvements, namely construction of dual northbound and
westbound right turn lanes and a right turn overlap on the northbound and westbound
movements. These improvements and the funding will be triggered when the City Engineer
determines them to be necessary, but are expected in the designated time horizon. Similarly, as
determined necessary by the City Engineer, the Proposed Project is required to contribute its fair
share funding to the construction of an additional westbound right turn lane at the intersection of
El Camino Reanaraday Avenue. The identified improvements and payment of the Proposed
Project's fair share to intersection performance for Melrose Drive/Alga Road, further
improvements to Rancho Santa Fe Road/Questhaven Road, El Camino ReaVAlga Road, and
Rancho Santa FeMelrose Drive, will also assure the performance of these intersections will meet
the performance standards. Because the time horizon of 2010-20 is somewhat speculative, the
intersections will be monitored by the City Engineer in the intervening time and will be able to
trigger the fair share contribution when necessary.
As to the two intersections outside the city, namely, Rancho Santa Fe Road intersections with
Linda Vista and Grand Avenue, both in the City of San Marcos, the City of Carlsbad does not
have jurisdiction and under CEQA Guidelines 15091, the responsibilities are those of the City of
12 Rev. 03/28/96
San Marcos, and should be undertaken by them. Carlsbad understands that the City of San
Marcos does have future improvement plans for Rancho Santa Fe Road from Carlsbad to
Highway 78, including the subject intersections.
a) Increases in existing noise levels
Off-Site Vehicular Noise.
Impact. The Proposed Project's three dB contribution to the existing vehicular noise south of La
Costa Greens where existing single-family homes have direct street frontage on Alga Road is
considered cumulatively significant.
Finding. No feasible measures are available to mitigate this cumulative impact and the
cumulative impact remains cumulatively significant and unmitigable.
Factual Support and Rationale. The existing noise levels along the south side of Alga Road
and the resulting impact on multi-family and single family residences is a difficult problem.
Individual single-family yards and driveways exit directly onto Alga Road between El Camino
Real and Alicante Road, and two story condominium units have close proximity to travel lanes.
The existing road noise exceeds the 45 dB CNEL interior and 60 dB CNEL exterior standards at
various times during the day from traffic. The City General Plan Noise Element Policy C.8
states:
"Recognize the mitigation of existing or future noise impacts from Circulation Element
roadways, AT&SF railroad or McClellan-Palomar Airport for existing or future development
within the City, shall not be funded by the City. However, the City shall assist applicants with
processing of necessary permits for mitigating noise on private property, which permits may
include right-of-way permits, encroachment permits, retaining wall permits and zoning
variances. The City shall also assist property owners in the establishment of assessment districts,
to fund noise mitigation improvements, in accordance with established City policies and
procedures."
The number of exiting driveway cuts and the fact that two story condominium homes front Alga
Road preclude use of sound walls as the "driveway breaks" and height do not substantially block
the road noise based on the acoustical studies and analysis, resulting in no effective means of
significantly lessening the existing noise levels. Further, the incremental contribution of the
Proposed Project, less the 3 dB (which is undetectable to the human ear) does not justify the
imposition of mitigation on the Proposed Project directly, as to do so would be disproportionate
to its impacts and is unauthorized. Regrettably, this is a condition for which no effective
mitigation presently exists. However, pursuant to Policy C.8 noted above, should the affected
property owners wish to independently pursue a resolution, then the city would facilitate as
indicated. In the past, there has not been a uniform or generally accepted remedy presented by
the affected properties. Elimination of impacted homes and condominiums is not a feasible
alternative.
X. AESTHETICS
a) Visual Quality and Aesthetics
13 Rev. 03/28/96
Creation of Manufactured Slopes.
Impact. Implementation of the La Costa Greens and La Costa Ridge/Oaks Master Tentative
Maps will result in the creation of manufactured slopes over 40 feet in height. In its final graded
condition, La Costa Greens would contain 11 manufactured slopes over 40 feet in height and La
Costa Ridge/Oaks would contain 13 manufactured slopes over 40 feet in height.
Finding. With the incorporation of the mitigation measures listed in section 4.2 of Program EIR
98-07, the identified direct significant impact would be significantly lessened, but not avoided
and thereby reduced below a level of significance. The required mitigation measures include: (1)
Obtaining a Hillside Development Permit; (2) Obtain any necessary exclusions or modifications
pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code $2 1.95.130 and $21.95.140, respectively, for manufactured
slopes over 40 feet in height; (3) Comply with the City's Excavation and Grading Ordinance
($15.06, Carlsbad Municipal Code); (4) Submit grading information for review by city staff with
each tentative subdivision map; (5) Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City shall verify
that proposed grading complies with the grading standards and manufactured slope revegetation
within the boundaries defined by the Villages of La Costa Master Plan (2000); and (6) The
Proposed Project shall comply with the Master Plan Landscape Sections and the City of Carlsbad
Landscape Manual.
Factual Support and Rationale. The Planning and Engineering staff have worked extensively
with the applicant to reduce the number, height and length of manufactured slopes over 40 feet
tall, as that has been adopted as the City standard for determining significance. Given the
controlling features of the topography and the fact that the HCP/OMSP set aside considerable
portions of the flatter property for habitat preservation and protection, all slopes in excess of 40
feet have not been eliminated entirely. The adopted mitigation measures will not fully mitigate
the impacts, but will substantially lessen them by requiring contour grading, special planting
palettes depending on the proximity to native habitat, additional benching and surface drainage
structures and additional features intended to minimize the appearance of these higher slopes. A
number of the slopes are required in order to construct circulation element roads, where grade
and width are factors. The slopes in question are identified in the FEIR at Table 4.2-6 (Greens)
and Table 4.2-9 @dge/Oaks) and the accompanying figures.
View Blockage of Significant Public Resources and Change in Overall Scenic Quality.
Impact. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not block public views to significant
public resources, with the exception of views from the fbture alignment of Rancho Santa Fe
Road with La Costa Ridge/Oaks, where views to the west would be partially blocked by
landscaped slopes. The 'essentially natural view of the Proposed Project site would change to a
largely man-made appearance for approximately one-half of the overall project site which,
combined with other development projects in the site vicinity, is regarded as cumulatively
significant.
Finding. With the incorporation of the mitigation measures listed in Section 4.3 of Program EIR
98-07, the identified direct significant impact would be substantially lessened and reduced, but
not thereby reduced below a level of significance. The required mitigation measures include: (1)
At least twenty percent (20%) of the residential units along a ridgelinekilltop, which are visible
from a circulation element roadway, shall be single-story. The applicable areas are identified in
the Villages of La Costa Master Plan; (2) Homes adjacent to and visible from Circulation
Element Roads [El Camino Real, Alga Road, Alicante Road, Poinsettia Lane, El Fuerte Street,
Rancho Santa Fe Road, Questhaven Road and Melrose Drive] shall receive special attention to
14 Rev. 03/28/96
detailing on the elevation fronting the roads as required by the Villages of La Costa Master Plan
(2000); (3) The City shall veri@ that proposed structures comply with the architectural and site
planning standards contained in the Village of La Costa Master Plan (2000); and (4) Walls and
fences located 15 feet or less from a public street shall provide recesses for landscaping and
variations in materials such that relief shall occur at elevational and directional changes.
Factual Support and Rationale. The Proposed Project represents a large infill project in the
already substantially developed La Costa portion of the City. While 834.9 acres of the Project is
permanently preserved in natural HCP Open Space, and another 168.4 acres preserved in
additional open space, the Proposed Project will convert approximately 51% of the total site to
suburban development, including housing, businesses, roads, parks, and community facilities
areas. Overall, the aesthetic impact resulting from the conversion of undeveloped areas in and
around the Proposed Project from natural or undeveloped lands to suburban uses, will result in an
overall and cumulatively significant aesthetic impact as the City and the surrounding region
continues to develop and provide housing, jobs and public facilities for current and future
citizens.
EARLIER ANALYSES USED
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,
(760) 602-4600.
1. Final Program Environmental Impact for the Villages of La Costa Master Plan (2000)
MP 98-01 (EIR 98-07), dated July 16,2001, T & B Planning Consultants, Inc.
15 Rev. 03/28/96