Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-11-06; Planning Commission; Resolution 53041 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. 5304 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW THE SUBDIVISION AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 135 UNIT MULTIFAMILY AIRSPACE CONDOMINIUM LOCATED EAST OF FUTURE COLLEGE BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 7. CASE NAME: CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE U CASE NO.: CT 01 -04/CP 01 -02 WHEREAS, Calavera Hills 11, LLC “Developer,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by McMillan Companies, LLC, and Tamarack Properties, Inc., “Owner,” described as A portion for Lot “D” of the Rancho Agua Hedionda, according to Map No. 823, filed in the Office of the County Recorder on November 16, 1896, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, also being Lot 4 of Carlsbad Tract No. CT 00-02 (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 6th day of November, 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. 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 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit "ND" dated October 16, 2002, and "PII" dated October 3, 2002, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findinps: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: a. 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 b. 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 c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and d. based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 6th day of November, 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, White, and Whitton NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Segall SEENA TRIGAS, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: t MICHAEL J. mLZIkfLLER Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5304 -2- NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project AddresdLocation: East of future College Boulevard, south of Carlsbad Village Drive, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California Project Description: Tentative Tract Map and Condominium Permit for the subdivision and construction of a 135 unit multifamily air-space condominium development within Village U of the Calavera Hills Master Plan. 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 from 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 Michael Grim in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4623. DATED: OCTOBER 16,2002 CASE NO: CT 0 1 -04/CP 0 1 -02 CASE NAME: CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE U PUBLISH DATE: OCTOBER 16,2002 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us @ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CT 0 1 -04/CP 0 1-02 DATE: October 3.2002 BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. CASE NAME: Calavera Hills Village U LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: Citv of Carlsbad CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER Michael Grim (760) 602-4623 PROJECT LOCATION: East of the future extension of College Boulevard, south of Carlsbad Village Drive, City of Carlsbad, Countv of San Diego, State of California. PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: McMillan Homes. 2727 Hoover Ave. National Citv, CA GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Medium High Densitv (RMH) ZONING: Planned Cornmunitv (P-C) OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): none PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: Tentative Tract Map and Condominium Permit for the subdivision and construction of a 135 unit mulifamlv air-mace condominium development within Village U of the Calavera Hills Master Plan which is currently vacant but to be graded in accordance with the Calavera Hills Phase II Master Tentative Map (CT 00-02EIR 98-02). The multifamily condominium site is bounded bv the future extension of College Boulevard to the west, the existing single family develoDment known as Cauistrano to the north, existing master plan native oDen space to the east, and the future single family development in Village W to the south. 1 Rev. Q7fQ3fQ2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 0 Aesthetics 0 Geology/Soils Noise 0 Agricultural Resources 0 Hazards/Hazardous Materials 0 Popu1ation and Housing 0 Air Quality 0 HydrologyNater Quality 0 Public Services 0 Biological Resources 0 Land Use and Planning 0 Recreation 0 Cultural Resources 0 Mineral Resources 0 TransportatiodCirculation Mandatory Findings of Significance 0 Utilities & Service Systems 2 Rev. 07/03/02 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 0 0 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 ail 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. 3 Rev. 07/03/02 STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect 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 sigmfkantly adverse. Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but 4 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 a An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR, (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? 0 0 om 0 0 om c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or 0 0 om 0 OB quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. 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: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or 0 Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? 0 om b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a 0 0 om Williamson Act contract? 5 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? m. 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: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 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? 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? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 IXI IXI 0 0 0 0 No Impact IXI IXI 0 0 IXI IXI IXI Ix1 IXI 6 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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 Communify Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 9 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi- cal resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? IV. 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? iv. Landslides? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 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 No Impact IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI [x1 IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI 7 Rev. 07/03/02 a) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? OH OH b) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the 0 project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? 0 c) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1 997), creating 0 substantial risks to life or property? 0 OH d) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal 0 systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? 0 IV. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or 0 disposal of hazardous materials? 0 OH b) Create a significant hazard to the public or and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? environment through reasonably foreseeable upset 0 0 c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste 0 within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 0 OH d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment? hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to 0 0 OH e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two 0 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? 6 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people 0 residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 0 OH 8 Rev. 07/03/02 h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, om including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 0 0 VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 0 0 OH 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)? 0 0 OH Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 om 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? 0 0 OH 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? 0 0 OIXI 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 within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation 0 0 UIXI 0 0 om 0 0 OH map? Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? 0 0 ow Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding, including 0 0 OH flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 0 0 om 9 Rev. 07/03/02 1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. 0 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)? 0 n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fiesh or wetland waters) during or following construction? 0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? 0 p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? 0 IX. 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? 0 c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 0 X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? 0 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? cl X. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? 0 b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UIX] OIXI 10 Rev. 07/03/02 c) A Substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 0 d) A Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 0 OH 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? 0 0 OH 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? 0 0 OH X. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce Substantial growth in an area either directly 0 (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace Substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 0 0 c) Displace Substantial numbers of people, necessitating 0 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 si&lcant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 0 0 i) Fire protection? 0 ii) Police protection? 0 0 iii) Schools? 0 iv) Parks? 0 v) Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION 11 Rev. 07/03/02 i 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? 0 b) 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? 0 XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFC - Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 0 c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 0 d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 0 e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in insufficient parking capacity? 0 0 g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn- outs, bicycle racks)? 0 XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? 0 0 c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause sigdkant environmental effects? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OIX] om 12 Rev. 07/03/02 Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 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? Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XW. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 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? 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?) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IXI Ixl Ixl IXI IXI (XI IXI DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The Calavera Hills Village U project involves the subdivision and construction of a 135 unit multifamily air-space condominium development within Village Y of the Calavera Hills Master Plan. The 6 1.6 acre Village site will be created through the recordation of the Master Tentative Map for Calavera Hills Phase I1 (CT 00-02) and will be graded in accordance with that map. The potential environmental impacts associated with the creation and grading of the Village U site were reviewed through the Environmental Impact Report for the Calavera Hills Phase I1 Master Tentative Map (EIR 98-02, SCH No. 991 11082), certified January 15,2002. The Environmental Impact Report also reviewed the impacts associated with the development of Village U with up to 179 condominium units, 44 units more than is proposed with this Tentative Tract Map and Condominium Permit. This environmental document also reviewed the potential environmental impacts associated with the future extension of College Boulevard, which will provide frontage and access to Village U. Since the development of Village U cannot proceed until the Master Tentative Map has been recorded and the site has been graded in accordance with that map, the following environmental analysis deals only with the development of Village U with the proposed air-space condominium development. The 61.6 acre Village U site is mostly in native open space, with approximately 17.9 acres set aside for development. The project site is bound by the hture single family development in Village W and the existing single family 13 Rev. 07/03/02 development known as Capistrano to the east, the future multifamily affordable apartment development in Village Y to the south, the existing multifamily residential development known as The Cape to the west, and existing College Boulevard and the hture single family development in Village K to the north. The proposed multifamily residential use is compatible with all of the existing and future surrounding residential and open space uses. The Village Y site is designated Residential Medium High Density (RMH) in the City’s General Plan, allowing up to 15 dwelling units per developable acre. The proposed density is 7.5 dwelling units per acre. The project site is zoned P-C (Planned Community) and, according to the Calavera Hills Master Plan (MP 150(H)), the site is to be developed in accordance with the Planned Development Ordinance, except as modified in the Master Plan. The proposed development would consist of 26 residential buildings, private streets and driveways, a common active recreation area, and 93 surface guest parking spaces. The residential buildings would consist of seven three-plex buildings and 19 six-plex buildings in a motor court style development, all units possessing a two-car garage. The buildings would measure a maximum of 34 feet in height and the condominium units would range in size from approximately 1,350 square feet to 1,550 square feet in area. The total building coverage for the project is 4.7 percent (or 2.9 acres). The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and meets all development standards and design criteria of the Master Plan and Planned Development Ordinance. The proposed development would necessitate approximately 28,800 cubic yards of balanced grading subsequent to the mass grading that creates Village U. The site development would also include several retaining walls, with a maximum height of six feet. All grading operations would be required to conform to the recommendations of the site-specific geotechnical report, as well as the City of Carlsbad Grading Ordinance. In addition, an all-weather access road would be provided throughout construction and Fire Marshal approval would be required prior to the storage of any hazardous materials on site. The residential project would take access off of the future extension of College Boulevard and would generate 1,080 average daily traffic trips, which can be accommodated in the fbture major arterial roadway. The project would be required to comply with the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit through the implementation of Best Management Practices, thus reducing the amount of pollutants entering the public storm drain system. All facilities needed to serve the 135 air-space condominium units would be provided prior to occupancy, in association with the Phase I1 Master Tentative Map grading and improvement plans. In addition, the Carlsbad Unified School District has stated that there are adequate school facilities to serve the proposed apartment project. Due to the project’s proximhy to College Boulevard, the Master Plan requires that a site-specific noise study be conducted. That noise study indicates that noise attenuation walls are needed along the project’s fkontage with College Boulevard. These walls would range in size from four feet to nine feet high and are incorporated into the project design. The project architecture incorporates strong relief and a variety of materials and colors, thus not creating any negative aesthetic visual impacts from public views. Given the above analysis, the previous environmental documentation and the site-specific technical reports, the proposed Calavera Hills Village U air-space condominium project would not create any significant adverse environmental impacts as designed and conditioned. 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 (PMl0). 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 (SWAG). 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. 14 Rev. 07/03/02 The proposed project relates to the SIP and/or RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that are incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city’s and the County’s general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the project presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact. Section 15 125(B) of the State of California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the following: 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. a) 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. b) 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. c) 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. d) 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. TRANSPORTATION/TRC-Would the project: 15 Rev. 07/03/02 a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? Less Than Significant Impact. The project will generate 1,080 Average Daily Trips (ADT). This traffic will utilize the following roadways: College Boulevard. While the increase 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. The proposed project would not, therefore, cause an increase in traffk that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. The impacts from the proposed project are, therefore, less than sigmfkant. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less Than Significant Impact. SANDAG acting as the County Congestion Management Agency has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The Existing and Buildout average daily traffic (ADT) and Existing LOS on these designated roads and highways in Carlsbad is: Existing ADT* - LOS Buildout ADT* Rancho Santa Fe Road 15-32 “A-c“ 28-43 El Camino Real 21-50 “A-c” 32-65 Palomar Airport Road 10-52 “A-B” 29-77 SR 78 120 “F’ 144 1-5 183-198 “D’ 2 19-249 *The numbers are in thousands of daily trips. The Congestion Management Program’s (CMP) acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard is “E”, or LOS “F” if that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (e.g., SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS “F” in 1990). Accordingly, all designated roads and highways are currently operating at or better than the acceptable standard LOS. Note that the buildout ADT projections are based on the full implementation of the region’s general and community plans. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan and, therefore, its traffic was used in modeling the buildout projections. Achievement of the CMP acceptable Level of Service (LOS) “E” standard assumes implementation of the adopted CMP strategies. Based on the design capacity(ies) of the designated roads and highways and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at acceptable level(s) of service in the short- term and at buildout. a) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the McClellan-Palomar Airport. It would not, therefore, result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No impact assessed. b) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses? No Impact. All project circulation improvements will be designed and constructed to City standards; and, therefore, would not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the City’s general plan and zoning. Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use. No impact assessed. c) Result in inadequate emergency access? 16 Rev. 07/03/02 No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and Police Departments. No impact assessed. dl Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. The proposed project is not requesting a parking variance. Additionally, the project would comply with the City’s parking requirements to ensure an adequate parking supply. No impact assessed. e) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)? No Impact. The project site includes a bus stop on College Boulevard. EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008. 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Reuort for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MER 93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994. 2. Uudate of Geotechnical Reuort, Calavera Hills Village U. Citv of Carlsbad, California, dated October 20, 1999, Geosoils, Inc. 3. Noise Technical ReDort for Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase I1 Village U, Citv of Carlsbad. California, dated October 12,2001. 17 Rev. 07/03/02