Loading...
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.