HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-02-05; Planning Commission; Resolution 53181
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. 5318
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
UNIT SENIOR HOUSING AIRSPACE CONDOMINIUM ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF
JEFFERSON STREET, NORTH OF LAGUNA DRIVE IN
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: VILLA FRANCESCA
CASE NO.: CT 02- 1 O/CP 02-05/SDP 02-04/CDP 02- 15
WHEREAS, Anthony De Leonardis, “Owner/Developer,” has filed a verified
PROGRAM TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 5 1-
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, in Block 1 of Sunny Slope Tract, in
the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to Map thereof No 486, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, February 7,1888
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with
said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 18th day of December, 2002
and on the 5th day of February, 2003 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 Mitigated 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 Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program according to
Exhibit "ND" dated November 4, 2002, and "PII" dated October 15, 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:
It has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration for
VILLA FRANCESCA - CT 02-10/CP 02-05/SDP 02-04/CDP 02-15, the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments
thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
The Mitigated 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.
1 . The Developer shall implement or cause the implementation of the Villa Francesca
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
PC RES0 NO. 53 18 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of February, 2003, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Dominguez, Heineman,
Segall, White, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Chairperson
SBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5318 -3-
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddressLocation: East side of Jefferson Street, north of Laguna Drive in the City of
Carlsbad, California, County of San Diego (APN 155-271-19, 29,
21, & 22)
Project Description: Fifty-one (51) unit senior citizen condominium project.
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, the
initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1)
revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the
proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment
would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City
that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this
action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Mitigated 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 30
days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Barbara Kennedy in the Planning
Department at (760) 602-4626.
DATED: NOVEMBER 4,2002
CASE NO: CT 02-10/CP 02-05/SDP 02-04/CDP 02-1 5
CASE NAME: VILLA FRANCESCA
PUBLISH DATE: NOVEMBER 4,2002
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us @
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CT 02-10/CP 02-05BDP 02-04/CDP 02-15
DATE: October 15,2002
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
CASE NAME: Villa Francesca
LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad. Planning Demrtment; 1635
Faraday Ave.. Carlsbad, CA 92008
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Barbara Kennedy, 760-602-4626
PROJECT LOCATION: East side of Jefferson Street, north of Laguna Drive (APN 155-271-19,
20,21, & 22) 2642 - 2646 Jefferson Street
PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: Robert Richardson Karnak Planning &
Desim 2802 State Street, Suite C Carlsbad, CA 92008
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Medium-High (1 1.5 ddac)
ZONDJG: R-3
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, Condominium Permit, Site Development Plan,
and Coastal Development Permit for a 51-unit air-space condominium project for senior
residents. The project will require approval of a density bonus. The site is located on the east
side of Jefferson Street, north of Laguna Drive and currently consists of three lots totaling 0.84
acres with three-single-family residences and three rental units. The lots will be consolidated and
the condominium project will be re-subdivided as air-space condominiums. The site is
surrounded by a mix of multi-family and single-family residential development.
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.
c] Aesthetics [7 Geology/Soils Noise
0 Agricultural Resources c] Hazards/Hazardous Materials c] Popu1ation and Housing
Air Quality c] HydrologyIWater Quality [7 Public Services
0 Biological Resources 0 Land Use and Planning 0 Recreation
0 Cultural Resources 0 Mineral Resources TransportatiodCirculation
0 Mandatory Findings of
Significance 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 fmd 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.
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 (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 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 &I 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. Q7fQ3IQ2
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 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 Ovemding 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.
5 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact
Potentially Significant Impact No Impact I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0
0
0 0
0 0
IXI
Ixl b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a State scenic highway?
0
0
0 0 IXI c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
0 0 IXI d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
11. AGRICULTRAL 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 0 0 Ixl 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?
0 0 0
0 0
IXI b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
0 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?
Ixl
In. 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 IXI
0
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
cl IXI b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
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
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than Significant Impact
lxl
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No Impact
0
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
Ixl
IXI
7 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
0 a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
0 0 IXI
0 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi- cance of an archeological resource pursuant to 0 15064.5?
0 0
0 c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi- cal resource or site or unique geologic feature? 0 0
0
IXI
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 0 0 IXI
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:
0 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.
0 0
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? 0
0
0
0
IXI
IXI iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv. Landslides? 0
0
0
0
0 IXI o b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? IXI
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?
0 0 0 IXI
0 0 0 IXI 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?
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?
W. 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
0
0
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
Less Than Significant Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No Impact
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
Ixl
IXI
IXI
Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
0
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
0 0 IXI 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)?
0
0
0
0
0 IXI
0
c) Impacts to groundwater quality?
IXI 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?
0 0 IXI 0 e) 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?
El 0 f) 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?
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IXI
IXI
g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
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?
El i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? 0 o
0 0 0 IXI 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?
0
0
0 0 IXI
IXI
k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
0 0 1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters.
cl 0 0 IXI 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)?
10 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? 0 0 OIXI
0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired
water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 0 0 om
303(d) list?
p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of 0 0 om
beneficial uses?
IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
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 0 OB
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the 0 0 OIXI
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 0 0 om
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 0 OIXI
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?
0 0 OIXI
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?
0 IXI on
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise 0 nIXI
levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
0 0 IXIO
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above 0 0 mcl
levels existing without the project?
11 Rev. 07l03l02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
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 OB
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?
XII. POPUL,ATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
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)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
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?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
XIV. RECREATION
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
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
0
0
OB
om
0
0
0
om
om
OB
0 om
0 OIXI
0 OIXI
12 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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?
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 vehicle 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
0
0
Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigation
[ncorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than Significant
Impact
0
IXI
IXI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rev. 07/03/02
No
tmpact
IXI
0
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
El
IXI
Ixl
IXI
IXI
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Potentially Significant Impact
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?
0
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs?
0
0 g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
XVII. 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
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 future projects?)
0
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which
will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
0
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
0
0
0
0
Less Than Significant No Impact Impact
nIxI
OIxI
om
om
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)@). 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
AESTHETICS
No Impact. The project will have not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista since the site is
located in an urbanized area and will be constructed to meet the maximum 35’ height limitation allowed
in the R-3 zone. Although the project is located in the coastal zone, the project would not obstruct any
coastal views fiom 1-5. The site is currently developed with older residential units and no scenic
resources exist on the site or in the surrounding area. The project would upgrade the existing visual
character and quality of the site through the demolition of the older run-down residential properties and
construction of a new building and associated landscape improvements.
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 projects (R-3)
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.
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 (PMlo). 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 (SNAG).
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 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 15125@) 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:
Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area?
15 Rev. 07/03/02
0 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.
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. Construction of future residential development could generate hmes 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.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
No Impact. The subject site is a previously graded and developed infill site and there will be no impacts
on biological resources. The subject site is designated as an “UrbadDeveloped” area on the City’s Draft
Habitat Management Plan.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
No Impact. The subject site is a previously graded and developed infill site which is surrounded by
urban development and there will be no impacts on cultural resources. There are no known historical,
archeological, paleontological, or human remains on the project site.
16 Rev. 07/03/02
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 GeoSoils, Inc., dated April 10, 2002. The
GeoSoils Inc. report states “The possibility of ground acceleration or shaking at the site may be
considered as approximately similar to the southern California region as a whole”. The report also states
the potential for Liquefaction, Dynamic Settlement and Surface Fault Rapture at the project site is no
greater than that for other existing structures and improvements in the immediate vicinity.
iv. Landslides?
No Impact. The report prepared by GeoSoils Inc. showed no evidence of deep seated landsliding on the
subject site. The site is relatively flat and according to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards
Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992, the project site is in an area of stable soil conditions that
are not subject to landslides.
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less than significant impact. Although the soils on the site are relatively prone to erosion, the site is
relatively flat and erosive velocities are not expected to be obtained in site runoff. A preliminary Storm
Water Management Plan for the project was prepared by Conway & Associates, Inc. A grading and
erosion control plan will be required prior to any construction and it is anticipated that the latest
technologies will be used to eliminate the potential of soil erosion and sedimentation from the site, both
during and post construction.
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?
No Impact. The report prepared by GeoSoils Inc. showed no evidence of deep seated landsliding on the
subject site. The subject site as well as surrounding sites are relatively flat and according to the City of
Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992, the project site is in an
area of stable soil conditions that are not subject to landslides.
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?
17 Rev. 07/03/02
No Impact. The report prepared by Geosoils, Inc. included laboratory test results of soil samples taken
from the site. These results showed the onsite soils are generally very low to low in expansion potential.
No substantial risk to life or property is anticipated due to hazards typically found in expansive soils.
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?
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 fkom the emission of hazardous substances within the proximity of a school.
The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted.
However, the project site is located approximately 4 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.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
No Impact. An erosion control plan and storm water management plan will be prepared prior to
construction of the project. These plans will ensure acceptable water quality standards will be maintained
both during the construction phase as well as post-development.
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. The project will be served
via existing public water distribution lines adjacent to the site.
c. Impacts to groundwater quality?
No Impact. Groundwater was not encountered in any of the exploratory borings made during the soils
investigation. The majority of the site will drain to an existing storm drain system within Jefferson Street.
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?
18 Rev. 07/03/02
Less than significant impact. The Preliminary Hydrology Calculations and Hydraulic Analysis prepared
by Conway & Associates, Inc. shows existing drainage patterns are primarily maintained within and
adjacent to the subject site. Erosion and siltation will be controlled both during construction and post-
construction.
e. 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?
Less than significant impact. The Preliminary Hydrology Calculations and Hydraulic Analysis prepared
by Conway & Associates, Inc. shows the site will be designed to retain any potential increase in runoff
during a ten year six-hour storm event. An existing storm drain system within Jefferson Street will
convey runoff away from the subject property.
f. 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?
Less than significant 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. The Preliminary Hydrology Calculations and Hydraulic Analysis
prepared by Conway & Associates, Inc. shows this project is less than 3% of the tributary basin therefore
runoff from this site will not have a significant impact on the stormwater system.
g. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
No Impact. The proposed project will not substantially degrade water quality of adjacent receiving
waters.
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?
i. Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or
redirect flood flows?
No Impact (h & i) - The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according to the
Flood Insurance Rate Map. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in housing or structures within
a 100-year flood hazard area.
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.
m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives,
synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving
19 Rev. 07/03/02
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?
No Impact (1, m, n, o & p) - The project site is not located immediately adjacent to any body of water.
Drainage from the site is subject to the City’s drainage and storm water pollution control standards
(NPDES and best management practices), which ensure that sediment and pollutants discharged from
development of the site will be reduced to the maximum extent possible. Also, the City’s drainage and
storm water pollution control standards ensure that development does not reduce water quality of any
marine, fresh or wetland waters or groundwater. Therefore, the project will not adversely impact water
quality.
LAND USE AND PLANNING
No Impact. The subject site is a previously graded and developed infill site which is surrounded by
multi-family and single-family residential development. Future residential development of the site will be
compatible with and will integrate into the existing community.
The project does not conflict with the property’s General Plan designation (RMH) and although the
project will require approval of a density bonus, the project will not exceed local population projections.
The density permitted on the site (1 1.5 du./ac.) would allow 9 units. The proposed 51 unit senior
condominium project would require an increase in density to 61 units per acre (466 % density increase) as
an incentive to enable the reservation of 23 of the proposed 51 units to be made affordable to low income
households. The City’s inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires that 15% if the total units (8 units) be
reserved as affordable housing units for low income households (80% of the AMI). The proposed
reservation of the 23 affordable units exceeds the minimum inclusionary housing requirement and the
requested incentive (density increase) to enable the provision of more affordable units is consistent with
the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
The proposed density increase is also consistent with City Council Policy 43 which sets priorities for the
allocation of excess dwelling units existing in each quadrant in the City to avoid exceeding the Growth
Management maximum dwelling unit cap. A finding that excess units are available must be made prior to
granting density increases and the project must qualify as a priority project. The project satisfies criteria
established by Policy 43 for first and second priority projects: it is an affordable housing project (first
priority); and it is a Senior Citizen Housing as defined by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.18.045
(second priority).
The property is located in the Mello I1 Segment of the City’s Local Coastal Program and is subject to the
requirements of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone. In the Coastal Zone, senior citizen
housing projects must be consistent with the certified local coastal program provisions, with the exception
of density. The project will be conditioned to comply with all applicable coastal zone policies, including,
but not limited to a winter grading restriction, and the project will be conditioned to adhere to the City’s
Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan and Grading Ordinance to avoid increased
runoff and soil erosion.
20 Rev. 07/03/02
The subject site does not conflict with any habitat conservation plans or natural communities plans in that
the property is designated as an “UrbadDeveloped” area in the City’s Draft Habitat Management Plan.
MINERAL RESOURCES
No Impact. According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study,
November 1992, the project site does not contain any mineral resources. Therefore, the proposed project
will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or mineral resource recovery site.
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 Douglas Eilar & Associates which indicates that the project site will be
subject to a traffic noise level ranging from 73 dBA CNEL at the western property line to 60 &A CNEL
at the eastern property line. The outdoor recreation areas proposed for the project will be located inside
the courtyard style building. Since the project will utilize building placement for acoustical purposes, the
traffic noise impacting the outdoor recreation space will be reduced to an overall noise level of
approximately 55 dBA CNEL which is less than the City’s exterior noise level threshold of 60 dBA
CNEL. The interior noise levels are required to be no greater than 45 dBA CNEL. The report indicates
that although portions of the project will be subjected to exterior noise levels of up to 70 dBA CNEL,
mitigation of the interior space is feasible and attainable through standard construction practices and
materials. Therefore, prior to issuance of a building permit, a supplemental acoustical analysis will be
required to insure that the plans have been designed so that interior noise levels are mitigated to 45 dBA
or less.
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 a future
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 land use and zone change 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?
21 Rev. OJlO3lO2
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 located approximately 4 miles from the McClellan-Palomar
Airport. However, the site is not located within an area impacted by excessive noise levels generated by
the airport. The site is not located near any other public or private airport. Therefore, the proposed
project will not expose people to excessive noise levels generated from an airport.
POPULATION AND HOUSING
No Impact. The project would result in 5 1 dwelling units on an infill site that is served by existing roads
and utilities and therefore, the project would not induce substantial growth either directly or indirectly.
The project would demolish 3 single-family units and 3 rental units, however this housing stock would be
replaced by 5 1 senior housing units. Displacement of the existing residents is not considered significant,
nor would it necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
PUBLIC SERVICES
No Impact. Because of the proposed density increase, the project will result in 42 additional dwelling
units above the Growth management Control Point which would allow 9 units on this site. These
additional units can be provided for through the City’s “excess dwelling unit bank” which ensures that the
dwelling unit limitations in the City’s Growth Management Program, and those of the Local Facilities
Management Plan (LFMP) for Zone 1 will not be exceeded. The provisions of public facilities within the
Zone 1 LFMP including fire & police protection, parks, libraries and other public facilities, have been
planned to accommodate the projected growth of that area. Because the project will not exceed the total
growth projections anticipated within the Zone 1 LFMP, all public facilities will be adequate to serve
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.
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 #1 (Northwest Quadrant). The necessary park acreage to
achieve the GMP standard (3 acres/1,000 population) for Park District #1 was based upon the GMP
dwelling unit limitation for the Northwest Quadrant, which is 15,370 units.
Although the proposed.project will result in additional residential units in the NW Quadrant, those units
will be provided for through the “excess dwelling unit bank”, which ensures the GMP dwelling unit limit
will not be exceeded. In addition, the Parks and Recreation Element states that the park acreage demand
for the NW Quadrant, based on the GMP dwelling unit limit, is 106.87 acres, and the anticipated park
acreage to be provided at build-out will be 120.12 acres. Therefore, there will be adequate parkland
within the NW Quadrant, and the proposed land use change 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 fiom development of the site will
not result in substantial physical deterioration of any park facility.
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFF’IC-Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and
capacity of the street system?
22 Rev. 07/03/02
Less Than Significant Impact. Projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 204 ADT
A Traffic Impact Study was prepared by Federhart & Associates for the subject project. The Study is
dated July 22, 2002. The traffic study analyzed the proposed project’s trip generation and distribution on
the surrounding roadways. Two critical intersections, Jefferson Streeaaguna Drive, and Jefferson
StreetElores Drive were also analyzed. The study showed this project will not have a significant impact
on the roadway segments or intersections. The existing Level of Service (LOS) at each of the
intersections is “B” during the PM peak. Because this number of vehicles generated by this project is
less than 2% of the volume in any given direction at either of the intersections, the LOS will remain at
“B“ after project buildout.
The proposed project would not, therefore, cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. The impacts Erom 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. 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* 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.
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?
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.
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.
0 Result in inadequate parking capacity?
No Impact. The project will provide more parking than required by the City’s parking requirements for
senior citizen housing to ensure that more than adequate parking is supplied. No impact assessed.
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)?
No Impact. The project is located in an area which is served by public transportation and will be
required to make improvements to the nearby bus stop to the satisfaction of NCTD.
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 1 LFMP anticipated that the project site
would be developed with a residential use and wastewater treatment facilities were planned and designed
to accommodate 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 increased density on the site will increase the demand
for these facilities. However, the proposed density increase would not result in an overall increase in the
City’s growth projection in the NW quadrant. Therefore, the project will not result in development that
will result in a significant need to expand or construct new water facilities/supplies, wastewater treatment
or storm water drainage facilities.
The project has been reviewed by the local solid waste disposal provider (Coast Waste). 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 currently developed with older residential structures and the site has been previously
disturbed by grading, and is not identified by any habitat conservation plan as containing a protected, rare
24 Rev. 07/03/02
or endangered plant or animal community. Therefore, the project will not threaten or reduce the number 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 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.
Also, as discussed above, 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 cumulative considerable
impact.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated - Based upon residential nature of the project
and the fact that future development of the site will comply with 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
25 Rev. 07/03/02
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.
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 Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MER
93-01), City of Carlsbad Planning Department, March 1994.
2. Draft Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the Cily of Carlsbad, City of
Carlsbad, December 1999 with addendum.
3. City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992.
4. Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Carlsbad Senior Condominium Proiect 2642 through 2646
Jefferson Street, GeoSoils, Inc., April 10,2002.
5. Acoustical Analysis Report Villa Francesca Senior Condominium Project, Douglas Eilar &
Associates, April 30,2002.
6. Traffic Impact Study Villa Francesca Senior Condominium Project, Federhart & Associates, July
22,2002.
26 Rev. 07/03/02
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES
1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the owner shall submit an acoustical analysis which
demonstrates that the architectural plans comply with the State of California interior noise
standard of 45 CNEL. The architectural plans shall incorporate any additional measures
(thicker glazing, sound absorption material, shielding of vents, or artificial circulation system)
to attenuate the noise to an acceptable level. Where windows are required to be unopenable or
kept closed in order to meet the interior noise standards, mechanical ventilation and cooling, if
necessary, shall be provided to maintain a habitable environment. The system shall supply
two air changes per hour to each habitable room including 20% (one-fifth) fiesh make-up air
obtained directly from the outdoors. The fiesh air inlet duct shall be of sound attenuating
construction and shall consist of a minimum of ten feet of straight or curved duct of six feet
plus one sharp 90" bend.
27 Rev. 07/03/02
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
28 Rev. 07JQ3JO2
1
PROJECT NAME: Villa Francesca FILE NUMBERS: CT 02-1 O/CP 02-05/SDP 02-04/CDP 02-1 5
APPROVAL DATE: CONDITIONAL NEG. DEC.:
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 86 (Public Resources Code Section 21 081.6).
Mitigation Measure
1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the owner
shall submit an acoustical analysis which
demonstrates that the architectural plans comply
with the State of California interior noise standard
of 45 CNEL. The architectural plans shall
incorporate any additional measures (thicker
glazing, sound absorption material, shielding of
vents, or artificial circulation system) to attenuate
the noise to an acceptable level. Where windows
are required to be unopenable or kept closed in
order to meet the interior noise standards,
mechanical ventilation and cooling, if necessary,
shall be provided to maintain a habitable
environment. The system shall supply two air
changes per hour to each habitable room including
20% (one-fifth) fresh make-up air obtained directly
from the outdoors. The fresh air inlet duct shall be
1 of sound attenuating construction and shall consist
of a minimum of ten feet of straight or curved duct
of six feet plus one sharp 90" bend.
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.
Monitoring
Type
Plan check-
Prior to
issuance of a
building permit
Monitoring
Department
Building/ *
Planning
Shown on
Plans
Verified
Implementation Remarks
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.