HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-05-07; Planning Commission; Resolution 54051
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. 5405
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION
MONITOlUNG AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO ALLOW A
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE
OF LA COSTA AVENUE BETWEEN EL CAMINO REAL, AND
VIEJO CASTILLA WAY IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 6.
CASE NAME:
TEN-UNIT AIR SPACE CONDOMINIUM PROJECT ON
LA COSTA FAIRWAY CONDOMINIUMS
CASE NO.: CT 02-27/CP 02-12
WHEREAS, SCI Enterprises, LLC, “Developer,” has filed a verified application
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Ariana Development, “Owner,”
described as
Lots 4 and 5 of La Costa Greens, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map
thereof No. 6708, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of
San Diego County
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with
said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of May, 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 ADOPTS the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program according to Exhibits “NOI”
dated March 24, 2003, “ND” dated May 7, 2003, and “PII” dated March 17,
2003, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A)
B)
C)
D)
e..
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
It has reviewed, analyzed and considered Mitigated Negative Declaration CT 02-
27KP 02-12 the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any
comments thereon prior to APPROVING 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 11 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PC RES0 NO. 5405 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1C
1:
11
l!
2(
2:
2:
2:
24
2:
2r
2
2:
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of May, 2003, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Dominguez, Heineman,
Montgomery, Segall, White, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
R, Chairperson
PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5405 -3-
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME: LA COSTA FAIRWAY CONDOMINIUMS
CASE NO: CT 02-27KP 02-12
PROJECTLOCATION: North side of La Costa Avenue, Between El Camino Real and
Viejo Castilla (APN 216-310-04 & -05)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map and Condominium
Permit for the development of a 1 0-unit air-space condominium project on two previously graded
vacant lots totaling 1.15 acres. The lots will be consolidated and the condominium project will
be re-subdivided as air-space condominiums.
PROPOSED DETERMINATION: 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 (EM 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 will be recommended
for adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Director.
A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration are 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 the date of this notice.
The proposed project and Mitigated Negative Declaration are subject to review and
approvaVadoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council. Additional
public notices will be issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any
questions, please call Barbara Kennedy in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4626.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD MARCH 24,2003 TO APRIL 24,2003
PUBLISH DATE MARCH 24,2003
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us January 30,2003
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME:
PROJECT LOCATION:
LA COSTA FAIRWAY CONDOMINIUMS
North side of La Costa Avenue, Between El Camino Real and Vieio Castilla
Way (APN 2 16-3 10-04 & -05)
CASE NO: CT 02-27/CP 02-12
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map and Condominium Permit for
the development of a 10-unit air-space condominium project on two previously graded vacant lots totaling
1.15 acres. The lots will be consolidated and the condominium project will be re-subdivided as air-space
condominiums.
DETERMINATION: 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
(EL4 Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as
follows:
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.
0 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. (Mitigated Negative Declaration applies only to the effects
that remained to be addressed).
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.
A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on file
in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008.
ADOPTED: May 7,2003, pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 5405
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLmILmR
Planning Director
@ 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
CASE NAME: La Costa Fairway Condominiums
LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS:
Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Barbara Kennedy. 760-602-4626
PROJECT LOCATION: North side of La Costa Avenue, between El Camino Real and Vieio
Castilla (APN 216-310-04 & 05)
PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: SCI Enterprises, LLC 567 San Nicolas
Drive, Suite 320 Nemort Beach. CA 92660
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION Residential High (1 9 ddac)
ZONING: RD-M (Residential Densitv-Medium)
OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (Le., permits, financing
approval or participation agreements): None
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
Request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map and Condominium Permit for the development of
a 10-unit air-space condominium project. The site is located on the north side of La Costa
Avenue, between El Camino Real and Viejo Castilla and currently consists of two previously
graded vacant lots totaling 1.15 acres. The lots will be consolidated and the condominium project
will be re-subdivided as air-space condominiums. The site is surrounded by existing multi-family
residential projects to the east, west, and south; and the La Costa Golf Course to the north.
Citv of Carlsbad. Planning Deuartment: 1635
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 11
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CT 02-27EP 02-12
DATE: March 17.2003
BACKGROUND
1 Rev. 07/03/02
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Aesthetics 0 Geology/Soils Ix) Noise
0 Agricultural Resources 0 HazardshIazardous Materials 0 and Housing
0 Air Quality HydrologyNater Quality 0 Public Services
0 Biological Resources 0 Land Use and Planning 0 Recreation
0 Mineral Resources TransportatiodCirculation 0 Cultural Resources
0 Utilities & Service Systems Mandatory Findings of
Significance
2 Rev. 07/03/02
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0 I frnd that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 0
0 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.
0 I find that although the proposed project could have a sigmficant 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.
V 3111 / 03
Plahner Signature Date ’
3 Rev. 07/03/02
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an
Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the
environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a
checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by
the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to
prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved
EIR or Negative Declaration.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “NO Impact” answers that are adequately
supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No
Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the
impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be
explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors
as well as general standards.
“Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential
impact is not significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and
policies.
“Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect fiom “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than
Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the
mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant
level.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significantly adverse.
Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse
effect on the environment, but glJ potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards
and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative
Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed
project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present
and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been
incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required.
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to
prepare an EIR if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding
Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the
project or any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment.
If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the
appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and
a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
4 Rev. 07/03/02
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 Overriding Considerations” for the significant adverse impact has not been made
pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to
less than significant; or (4) through the EIA-Part II 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).
I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
II. AGRICULTRAL RESOURCES - (In detennining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model-1997 prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would
the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or 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?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
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?
III. 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:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Sipificant Mitigation Impact Incorporated
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0 0
0 0
Less Than Significant No . Impact Impact
ON
ON
om
OIXI
OIXI
om
om
om
NO
6 Rev. O7lO3JO2
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
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?
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
17
17
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
IXI
0
0
0
0
0
0
No Impact
0
Ixl
Ixl
Ixl
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
7 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi-
cance of an archeological resource pursuant to 8 15064.5?
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi- cal resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving:
1.
11.
iii.
iv.
Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
Strong seismic ground shaking?
Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
Landslides?
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction,
or collapse?
Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated
0
0
0 0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0 0
Less Than Significant Impact
0
0
0
IXI
151
Ixl
0
151
0
0
No Impact
IXI
Ixl
Ixl
Ixl
0
0
0
151
0
IXI
Ixl
8 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
0 0 OM 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?
0
0
0 OIXI
0 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?
0
0
0 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?
0 OIXI
0 0 OIXI 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?
0
0
0
0
0
0
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 intennixed with wildlands?
WI. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the
project:
OIXI 0 a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
9 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
0 OH 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)?
Impacts to groundwater quality?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Place housing 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?
Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface
waters.
Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics,
nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of
receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 OB
0 om
17
0
0
0
0
El
om
10 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
0 0 OB n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction?
0 0 OB 0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section
303(d) list?
0 0 01xI p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses?
M. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
0 0 0 o 0 0
IXI
Ix1
CI 0 OM c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
0 OM 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
CI 0 0IXI b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan?
XI. NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) 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 no
0 0 om b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels?
0 OB c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
0 OB d) A substantial tempo& or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
11 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact . Incorporated Impact Impact
0 ow 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 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. POPULATION 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)?
0
b) Displace Substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
0 c) Displace Substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or physically altered government
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
XIV. RECREATION
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
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ow
ow
ow
om om om ow ow
ow
12 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Does the project include
require the construction or recreational facilities 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 tum-
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?
Potentially Significant Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0 o
0
o
0
0
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than Significant Impact
0
IXI
Ix1
0
0
0
0
0
0
cl
No Impact
IXI
0
0
(x1
Ix1
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
13 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
XW. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumula- tively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?)
Does the project have environmental effects, which
will cause the substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES
Potentially Significant Impact
0
0
0
17
0
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
0
0
0
17
IXI
Less Than Significant Impact
0
0
0
0
IXI
0
No Impact
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
0
0
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on
attached sheets:
a)
b)
Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for
review.
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.
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.
c)
14 Rev. 07/03/02
DISCUSSION OF ENVIROMMENTAL 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 in compliance with the maximum 35’ height
limitation allowed in the RD-M zone. Development of the site with a multi-family condominium project
would be consistent with the surrounding development pattern.
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
No Impact. There will be no impact on agricultural resources due to the proposed project as the site is
not designated as or used as farmland. The subject site is zoned for multi-family residential projects (RD-
M) and is not subject to a Williamson Act Contract. The project would not result in other changes to the
environment that would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. The project would
be characterized as infill development and has been surrounded by residential development for many
years.
AIR QUALITY-Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a federal and state non-
attainment area for ozone (03),’and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to
10 microns in diameter (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 Govemments (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 fiom 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 15125Q3) of the State of California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains
specific reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the
applicable air quality management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS.
The RAQS and TCM plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal
ambient air quality standards. The California Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining
whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the following:
0
0
Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area?
Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan?
15 Rev. 07/03/02
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 fumes from the operation of
construction equipment, which may be considered objectionable by some people. Such exposure would
be short-term or transient. In addition, the number of people exposed to such transient impacts is not
considered substantial.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
No Impact. The subject site is a previously graded infill site which is surrounded by residential
development. There are no known biological resources on the site. 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 infill site which is surrounded by residential
development and there will be no impacts on cultural resources. There are no known historical,
archeological, paleontological, or human remains on the project site.
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:
1. 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 (ai. 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 October 8, 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 steep and according to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards
Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992, the project site is in an area with a moderate to high mud
flow potential. The project grading will remove all unsuitable soil (e.g.: compressible, alluvial) and
recompact soil to standards necessary to support the proposed structures. The project will also be
required to install landscaping and irrigate all slopes graded as part of this project. Grading the site and
installing landscape and irrigation will reduce the potential of mudflow for this project.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less than significant impact. According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and
Mapping Study, November 1992, the project site is in an area of low to moderate erosion potential.
Although the soils on the site are relatively prone to erosion, all storm runoff collected onsite will be
slowed down to a non-erosive manner prior to discharge off the site by using energy dissipaters. The
applicant is required to prepare grading and erosion control plans prior to any construction and it is
anticipated that the latest technologies will be used to eliminate the potential of soil erosion and
sedimentation fiom 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 steep and according to the City of
Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992, the project site is in an
moderate to high slope instability.
17 Rev. 07/03/02
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?
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?
No Impact. Sewers are available to the subject site and the project will be served by a public wastewater
system.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
No Impact. Based on the nature of a residential land use, there is no routine transport, use or disposal of
hazardous materials associated with residential uses. Therefore, there is no potential of a significant
hazard associated with the project from accidents involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment, or from the emission of hazardous substances within the proximity of a school.
The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted.
However, the project site is located approximately 2.7 miles from the McClellan-Palomar Airport (public
general aviation airport). The project site is not located within any flight, crash, or safety hazard zones
associated with the airport. Therefore, the project will not result in a safety hazard for people residing on
the project site.
The project will not impair the implementation or physically interfere with any adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation since the project site is an infill site surrounded by urban
development which is adequately served by emergency services. There are no wildlands adjacent to the
site that could expose people to significant risk from wildland fires.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
No Impact. The applicant is required to comply with Order 2001-01 issued by the Regional Water
Quality Control Board. A preliminary Storm Water Management Plan for the project was prepared by
O’Day Consultants to address existing and proposed pollutants of concern and what measures will be
implemented to ensure that pollutant loads are not increased as a result of this project, to the maximum
extent practicable.
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 (Le., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop
to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
No Impact. This project does not propose to directly draw any groundwater for potable or irrigation use.
The project will be served via existing public water distribution lines adjacent to the site. The project also
includes a detention basin near the north end of the project. The purpose of this basin is to reduce peak
run-off to predevelopment condition, which encourages water percolation back to the groundwater.
18 Rev. 07f03fQ2
c) Impacts to groundwater quality?
No Impact. This project is required to implement measures to reduce urban pollutants prior to discharge,
thus groundwater quality will not be affected by this project.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
No Impact. This project does not propose to alter existing drainage patterns, stream or river that would
result in erosion of siltation on or offsite.
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?
No Impact. The project includes a detention basin near the north end of the project to reduce peak run-
off to predevelopment flows.
9 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?
No Impact. The existing storm drain system as well as the planned system as identified in the City’s
Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan will adequately convey runoff from the
subject site. Since this project reduces peak runoff to predevelopment flows, there is no additional impact
to consider.
g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Less than significant impact. As a result of the owner: 1) Implementing source bmp measures to avoid
pollutant contact and; 2) Installing treatment bmp measures to remove pollutants from storm water, this
project is not anticipated to contribute additional pollutants, to the maximum extent practicable.
h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map?
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.
19 Rev. 07/03/02
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)?
Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following
construction?
Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water
Act Section 303(d) list?
The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or
degradation of beneficial uses?
Less than significant impact (l, m, n, o & p) - The project site is not located immediately adjacent to any
body of water. The project is within a watershed that ultimately drains to Batiquitos Lagoon. Batiquitos
Lagoon is not listed as an impaired water body per the 303(d) list adopted February 4, 2003. The project
will be required to comply with Order 2001-01 and the Storm Water Management Plan for this project.
Drainage and development will be controlled via best management practices to ensure that pollutants
loads are not increased to the maximum extent practicable. Therefore, the project will not adversely
impact water quality.
LAND USE AND PLANNING
No Impact. The subject site is a previously graded infill site which is surrounded by multi-family
residential development on the south, east and west, and by the La Costa Golf Course on the north.
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 (RH). The density permitted
on the site (19 du./ac.) would allow 21 units and 10 units are proposed. The City’s Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance requires that 15% if the units be reserved as affordable housing units for low income
households (80% of the AMI) or allows the developer to purchase housing credits if affordable units are
not constructed on site. The projects proposes to purchase 2 units in the Villa Loma affordable housing
project.
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 Gordon Bricken & Associates which indicates that the project site will be
subject to a traffic noise level of about 68 dBA CNEL from La Costa Avenue at the southern property
20 Rev. QlIQ3lQ2
line. The private exterior living spaces proposed for the project will be shielded by the buildings.
Applying the 10 dBA of building shielding results in a noise level of 58 dBA CNEL which complies with
the City’s exterior noise limit.
The interior noise levels are required to be no greater than 45 dBA CNEL. The report indicates that the
building closest to La Costa Avenue will be exposed to noise levels as high as 69 dBA. This will require
as much as 24 dBA of noise reduction which is beyond the yield for normal construction. Therefore, a
mitigation measure has been included requiring the addition of STC 28 glazing to all first and second
floor rooms with any view of La Costa Avenue and for fresh air ventilation for these units. 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 groundboume noise levels. In addition,
the project site is not located adjacent to any use that generates excessive groundboume 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?
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 2.7 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 the development of 10 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 is proposed on a vacant lot and would not displace any existing housing
or individuals.
21 Rev. 07/03/02
PUBLIC SERMCES
No Impact. The project will result in 10 dwelling units which is consistent with the Growth
Management Control Point of 19 ddac which would allow 2 I units on this site. The provisions of public
facilities within the Zone 6 LFMP including fire & police protection, parks, libraries and other public
facilities, have been planned to accommodate the projected growth in that area. Because the project will
not exceed the total growth projections anticipated within the Zone 6 LFMP, all public facilities will be
adequate to serve the proposed residential development on the site. Therefore, the project will not result
in substantial adverse impacts to or result in the need for additional government facilities.
RECREATION
No Impacts. As part of the City's Growth Management Program, a performance standard for parks was
adopted. The park performance standard requires that 3 acres of Community Park and Special Use Area
per 1,000 population within a park district (quadrant) must be provided.
The project site is located within Park District #4 in the Southeast (SE) Quadrant. The necessary park
acreage to achieve the GMP standard (3 acres/1,000 population) for Park District ##4 was based upon the
GMP dwelling unit limitation for the SE Quadrant, which is 17,379 units.
The proposed project will result in additional residential units in the SE Quadrant, however, those units
were anticipated on this site under the City's Growth Management Plan. The number of dwelling units
on the site will not exceed the growth control point allowed by the site's General Plan Designation. The
Parks and Recreation Element states that the park acreage demand for the SE Quadrant, based on the
GMP dwelling unit limit, is 120.49 acres, and the anticipated park acreage to be provided at build-out will
be 140.27 acres. Therefore, there will be adequate parkland within the SE Quadrant, and the proposed
development will not cause additional demand for parkland or expansion of recreational facilities.
Because park facilities will be adequate to serve residential development on the site, any increase in use
of park facilities generated from development of the site will not result in substantial physical
deterioration of any park facility.
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC-Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traMic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and
capacity of the street system?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project is estimated to generate 80 Average Daily Trips (ADT) and
8 peak hour trips. This project is served by La Costa Avenue, which is constructed as a secondary
arterial roadway. Existing traffic on this arterial is estimated at 9,737 ADT according to the 2002 Traffic
Monitoring Report. The design capacity of the arterial roads affected by the proposed project is 25,000
vehicles per day. The project traffic would represent .82 % and .032 % of the existing traffic volume and
the design capacity respectively. While the increase in traffic from the proposed project may be slightly
noticeable, the street system has been designed and sized to accommodate traffic from the project and
cumulative development in the City of Carlsbad. The proposed project would not, therefore, cause an
increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street
system. The impacts from the proposed project are, therefore, less than 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:
22 Rev. 07/03/02
Existing; ADT* - LOS Buildout ADT*
Rancho Santa Fe Road 15-32 “A-C” 28-43
El Camino Real 2 1-50 “A-C” 32-65
Palomar Airport Road 10-52 “A-B” 29-77 SR 78 120 “F” 144
1-5 183-198 “Is’ 2 19-249
*The numbers are in thousands of daily trips.
The Congestion Management Program’s (CMP) acceptable Level of Service &OS) 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 trafic 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?
No Impact. All project circulation improvements will be designed and constructed to City standards;
and, therefore, would not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the City’s
general plan and zoning. Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use. No impact
assessed.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire
and Police Departments. No impact assessed.
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
No Impact. The project complies with the City’s parking requirements to ensure an adequate parking
supply. No impact assessed.
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)?
No Impact. The multi-family project is located in an area which is not currently served by public
transportation. The plans have been reviewed by NCTD and no future bus stops or improvements are
required.
23 Rev. 07/03/02
UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS
No Impact - The proposed residential development will be required to comply with all Regional Water
Quality Control Board Requirements. In addition, the Zone 6 LFMP anticipated that the project site
would be developed with a high density residential use and wastewater treatment facilities were planned
and designed to accommodate hture residential uses on the site. All public facilities, including water
facilities, wastewater treatment facilities and drainage facilities, have been planned and designed to
accommodate the growth projections for the City at build-out. The proposed density on the site will
increase the demand for these facilities. However, the proposed density would not result in an overall
increase in the City’s growth projection in the SE quadrant. Therefore, the project will not result in
development that will result in a significant need to expand or construct new water facilitieshpplies,
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 SIGNlFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
No Impact -The proposed residential project will not degrade the quality of the environment. The
project site does not contain any fish or wildlife species. Therefore, the project will not reduce the habitat
of a fish or wildlife species.
The project site is a vacant site which was previously graded and is surrounded by existing multi-family
development. The site is not identified by any habitat conservation plan as containing a protected, rare 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
SNAG 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.
24 Rev. 07/03/02
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 15 130 (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 cumulatively 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
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 Imuact Reuort for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MER
93-01), City of Carlsbad Planning Department, March 1994.
2. Citv of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992.
3. Preliminarv Geotechnical Evaluation La Costa Green. Lots 4 and 5, GeoSoils, Inc., October 8,
2002.
4. Preliminary Storm Water management Plan for La Costa Fairways, O’Day Consultants, Revised
January 15,2003.
5. Acoustical Analvsis for La Costa Fairways, Gordon Bricken & Associates, October 14,2002.
25 Rev. 07/03/02
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES
1. Mitigation required to achieve the required 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard includes adding STC
28 glazing to all first and second floor rooms with any view of La Costa Avenue. In addition,
mechanical ventilation shall be provided for the units as specified in the acoustical analysis prepared
for this project. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall submit a supplemental
acoustical analysis from the acoustical consultant stating that the architectural plans have been
designed in compliance with the recommendations stated in the acoustical report.
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Rev. 07/03/02 26
PROJECT NAME: LA COSTA FAIRWAY CONDOMINIUMS FILE NUMBERS: CT 02-27/CP 02-12
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 3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6).
Mitigation Measure
1. Mitigation required to achieve the required 45 dBA
CNEL interior noise standard includes adding STC 28 glazing to all first and second floor rooms with any view
of La Costa Avenue. In addition, mechanical ventilation
shall be provided for the units as specified in the
acoustical analysis prepared for this project. Prior to
issuance of a building permit, the developer shall submit
a supplemental acoustical analysis from the acoustical
consultant stating that the architectural plans have been
designed in compliance with the recommendations
stated in the acoustical report.
I ExDlanation of Headings:
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
Verified Remarks lmplementatio
Verified implementation =When mitigation measure has been implemented,
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongolng mitigation measure, or for other this column will be initialed and dated.
RD - Appendix P.
a