Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-06-18; Planning Commission; Resolution 54341 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. 5434 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW THE SUBDIVISION SPACE CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF LA COSTA AVENUE, BETWEEN RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD AND CENTELLA STREET IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6. CASE NAME: CASA LA COSTA AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 39-UNIT MULTIFAMILY AIR- CASE NO.: CT 02-29/CP 03-02/SDP 02-1 8 WHEREAS, Rancho La Costa LLC, “Developer/Owner,yy has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as That portion of Lot 249 of La Costa Vale Unit No. 1, according to Map No. 7457, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, and amended as shown on Certificate of Compliance recorded November 9, 1981 as Instrument #81- 354864, both on file in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 18th day of June, 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 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 Negative Declaration according to Exhibit “NOI” dated May 29, 2003, “ND” dated June 18, 2003, and “PII” dated May 21, 2003, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findiqps: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration and the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to APPROVING the project; and b. the Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and d. based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of June, 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: MICHAEL J. H~Z~LER Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5434 -2- - City of Carlsbad NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: CASE NO: PROJECT LOCATION: Casa La Costa CT 02-29/CP 03-02/SDP 02-18 Southwest of La Costa Avenue, between Levante Street and Rancho Santa Fe Road, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for a Negative Declaration, Tentative Tract Map, Condominium Permit, and Site Development Plan to allow the development of a 39 unit multifamily residential air-space condominium project, on a vacant, previously graded 4.49 acre site. 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 (EIA Part 2) did not identi@ any potentially significant impacts on the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission. A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed 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 20 days of the date of this notice. The proposed project and Negative Declaration are subject to review and approvalladoption 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 Michael Grim in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4623. PUBLIC REVIEW PEFUOD May 29.2003 to June 17,2003 PUBLISH DATE May 29.2003 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 ww. Ydmmw."= @ NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: Casa La Costa PROJECT LOCATION: Santa Fe Road, City of Carlsbad, County of San Dieno CASE NO: CT 02-29/CP 03-02/SDP 02-1 8 Southwest of La Costa Avenue, between Levante Street and Rancho PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for a Negative Declaration, Tentative Tract Map, Condominium Permit, and Site Development Plan to allow the development of a 39 unit multifamilv residential air-space condominium project, on a vacant, previously graded 4.49 acre site 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 (EIA Part 2) did not identify any potentially significant impacts on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows: The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. 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. (Negative Declaration applies only to the effects that remained to be addressed). 0 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 ENVRONMENTAL 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: June 18, 2003, pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 5434 ATTEST: Planning Director @ 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 6024600 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 02-29/CP 03-02/SDP 02-1 8 DATE: May 20,2003 BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. CASE NAME: Casa La Costa LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: Citv of Carlsbad CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUh4BER: Michael Grim (760) 602-4623 PROJECT LOCATION: Rancho Santa Fe Road, in the Citv of Carlsbad PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: Rancho La Costa LLC, 28118 Agoura Rd. Agoura Hills CA 9 130 1 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Medium High Densitv (RMH) ZONING: Residential Density-Multiple with a Qualified Development Overlay (RD-M-0) OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): none PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: Southwest of La Costa Avenue, between Levante Street and Request for a Negative Declaration, Tentative Tract Map, Condominium Permit, and Site Development Plan to allow the development of a 39 unit multifamily residential air-space condominium proiect, on a vacant. previously maded 4.49 acre site generally located southwest of La Costa Avenue. between Levante Street and Rancho Santa Fe Road in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego. 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. _. u Aesthetics 0 Geology/Soils Noise 0 Agricultural Resources HazardsEIazardous Materials c] and Housing 0 Air Quality 0 HydrologyDVater Quality Public Services 0 Biological Resources 0 Land Use and Planning [3 Recreation 0 Cultural Resources 0 Mineral Resources 0 TransportatiodCirculation 0 Utilities & Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance 2 Rev. 07/03/02 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 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 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have “potentially significant impact(s)” on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because 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 $J 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 0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant. 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? 6 11. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - (In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model-1 997 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 Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact Mitigation Incorporated Unless Impact 17 o OIXI OM 0 0 0 0 OIXI 6 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated c) 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)? 0 0 IXIO d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 0 0 0 0 OIXI OIXI e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) 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? 0 0 OB b) 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? 0 0 OIXI 0 0 c) 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? OIXI 0 0 OB d) 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? 0 0 OIXI e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 0 f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 0 g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? 00 7 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated No Impact IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Q 15064.5? 0 0 0 Ixl b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to Q 15064.5? 0 0 0 IXI 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 0 IXI IV. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: 0 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. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 0 iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? o 0 o 0 a) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 0 b) 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? c) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? 0 0 0 d) 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? 0 8 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). IV. 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: Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation’ Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ow ow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? ow ow ow ow 9 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact Mitigation Incorporated Unless Impact 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 OH OH c) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 OH 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? OH 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, whch would result in flooding on- or off- site? 0 0 Q 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 OH 0 0 0 0 OH 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 IZip? OH 0 0 0 0 OH OIXI i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? 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 OB OH k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. 10 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated o 0 OIXI 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)? o I7 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? IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 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? 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? X. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ON UIXI ON OIXI ON OIXI 11 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 om c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 0 Ian d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 0 OB 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 worlung in the project area to excessive noise levels? 0 0 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? X. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: 0 0 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)? o 0 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 0 0 c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 2UII. 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? OIXI om OIXI OB 12 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated XIV. RECREATION 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? OH o 0 b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 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)? 0 0 0 0 HO Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for des,ignated roads or highways? 0 0 Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 0 Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 0 0 OBI Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 0 0 0 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: a) 0 o 0 Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? OH 13 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 OB c) 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? 0 0 UIXI d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 0 OM 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 0 ON f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? 0 0 UIXI g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE OIXI 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? o 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 0 c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 14 Rev. Q7lQ3IQ2 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Rancho La Costa LLC is requesting approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Condominium Permit, and Site Development Plan to allow the subdivision and construction of a 39 unit, multifamily air-space residential condominium development. The 4.49 acre site is located southwest of La Costa Avenue, between Levante Street and Rancho Santa Fe Road. The site is designated Residential Medium High (RMH) in the City’s General Plan and zoned RD-M-Q (Residential Density - Multiple with a Qualified Development Overlay). The subject property is almost completely surrounded by roadways; those being La Costa Avenue to the northeast, Levante Street to the northwest, Rancho Santa Fe Road to the southeast, and Centella Street to the west. South of the project is the parking area for the Carlsbad Boys and Girls Club. The project site is mostly vacant and clear of native vegetation, however a temporary City fire station (Fire Station #6) occupies approximately 0.44 acres on the northwestern portion of the site, fronting on Levante Street. The area covering the existing fire station is planned as the second phase of residential development, once the temporary fire station is relocated. The development plan includes temporary grading, landscaping, and walls to accommodate the station and buffer the proposed residences from the temporary land use to the extent feasible. There are several tall trees on the property, including eucalyptus, pines and melaleucas. According to a “Tree Report” prepared by the applicant’s landscape architect, dated March 6, 2003, none of these trees are considered landmark trees nor do they constitute sensitive native habitat; they are proposed for removal prior to development. The proposed development plan includes a number of large trees within the project site and along the La Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road frontages. The proposed development would consist of 12 residential buildings, private dnves, three common recreation facilities, 16 surface guest parking spaces, and a recreational vehicle storage area. The residential buildings would consist of one duplex, seven three-plex buildings and four four-plex buildings. All units would include a private two-car garage. The buildings would contain two stories and would measure a maximum of 27 feet in height to the peak of the roof. The air-space condominium units would range in size from 1,034 square feet to 2,226 square feet and would be accessed off of the project’s internal pedestrian walkway system. The project architecture would follow a California Mediterranean theme with stucco walls and tile roofs, incorporating strong architectural relief and numerous design elements. The total building coverage would be 57,135 square feet (or 29 percent of the site). The common recreational areas would include a central active area with a large lawn area and children’s play equipment, a shuffleboard area with seating, and a passive area with barbeque, tables and chairs, and decorative paving. The proposed residential development would necessitate removaVrecompaction of approximately 12,000 cubic yards of materials. The actual grading quantities are estimated to be a balanced cut and fill of 6,685 cubic yards. The site development would include several retaining walls, measuring a maximum of five feet tall. The project site would take access off of Levante Street at two locations in addition to an access off of Centella Street. The estimated traffic generation would be 312 average daily trips. The project would be required to comply with the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit through the implementation of Best Management Practices, this reducing the amount of pollutants entering the public storm drain system. Due to the project’s proximity to La Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road, a site-specific noise study was conducted. That noise study indicated the need for noise attenuation walls along the project’s frontage with La Costa Avenue, Rancho Santa Fe Road, and a portion of Levante Street. In addition, due to the lack of intervening buildings, the noise attenuation wall would also be required along the southern property line, adjacent to the Carlsbad Boys and Girls Club site. These walls would range in height from four to six feet in height and would be incorporated into the project design. Given the above, and the following discussion, the project as designed would not create any significant adverse environmental impacts. AESTHETICS No Impact. The project site is a relatively flat, pregraded pad within a developed portion of the City; no scenic vistas or scenic resources exist on the site. The proposed residential architecture meets the requirements of the City’s Planned Development Ordinance for architectural design and would be consistent with the surrounding residential structures. No substantial sources of light or glare are proposed with the project; the only lighting being that normally associated with residential development. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts to aesthetics will occur. 15 Rev. 07/03/02 AGFUCULTURAL RESOURCES No Impact. The project site is currently vacant, with no existing or previous agricultural activities taking place. There are no nearby farmlands or lands under Williamson Act contract, therefore no impacts to such will occur. 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 (Os), and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM,,). 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 (SANDAG). 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 15 125(B) of the State of California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the following: 0 0 Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area? Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan? The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is being implemented. The project is consistent with the growth assumptions of the City’s General Plan and the RAQS. Therefore, the project is consistent with the regional air quality plan and will in no way conflict or obstruct implementation of the regional plan. a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is in the City of Oceanside. Data available for this monitoring site through April, 2002 indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (one day in both 2000 and 2001) and one day in 2001 for the federal 8-hour average for ozone and one day for the 24-hour state standard for suspended particulates in 1996. No violations of any other air quality standards have been recorded recently. (Add the following text addressing short-term emissions, if there is grading associated with the project.) The project would involve minimal short-term emissions associated with grading and construction. Such emissions would be minimized through standard construction measures such as the use of properly tuned equipment and watering the site for dust control. Long-term emissions associated with travel to and from the project will be minimal. Although air pollutant emissions would be associated with the project, they would neither result in the violation of any air quality standard 16 Rev. 07/03/02 (comprising only an incremental contribution to overall air basin quality readings), nor contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less Than Significant Impact. The Air Basin is currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine particulates. The proposed project would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with the proposed project would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the proposed project, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15 130 (a)(4), the proposed project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No Impact. As noted above, the proposed project would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or concentrations. In addition, there are no sensitive receptors (e.g., schools or hospitals) located in the vicinity of the project. No impact is assessed. 4 Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact. The construction of the proposed project could generate fumes from the operation of construction equipment, which may be considered objectionable by some people. Such exposure would be short-term or transient. In addition, the number of people exposed to such transient impacts is not considered substantial. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES No Impact. As stated above, the project site is a vacant, pregraded area with some isolated trees and shrubs. No native vegetation or habitats exist on or near the property. In addition, no sensitive or endangered species reside or use the property. The City’s Habitat Management Plan does not identify the site for preservation and no local policies or ordinances exist regarding the removal of mature non-native trees. Therefore, no adverse impacts to biological resources will occur. CULTURAL RESOURCES No Impact. As stated in the project-specific cultural resources survey (RECON, 2002), no recorded archeological sites are located within the project site and those within one-half mile are in developed areas and no longer exist. A site-specific survey revealed no evidence of cultural resources on the mite. No historic buildings or structures exist on the project site. Therefore, no adverse impacts to cultural resources will occur. GEOLOGY AND SOILS No Impact. According to the project-specific geotechcal report (Construction Testing and Engineering, Inc., 2002), no unusual geotechnical or seismic conditions exist on the project site. The site is not located within a Fault- Rupture Hazard Zone and is not subject to liquefaction or landslides. The report does recommend the overexcavation and removal of the top three and one-half feet of soils. Therefore, no adverse impacts due to geology or soils will occur. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS No Impact. The proposed residential development would not cause any significant impacts with regard to hazards or hazardous materials. The site is not designated as a hazardous materials site nor is it located with an airport land use plan or in proximity to an airstrip. No uses other than residential condominiums and associated recreational areas are proposed therefore no significant sources of hazardous emissions or materials are anticipated. The project is required to maintain an all-weather access road throughout construction and provide for emergency fire prevention water on site prior to the storage of any hazardous construction materials. Therefore, the Casa La Costa development will not produce any significant adverse impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. 17 Rev. 07/03/02 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY No Impact. According to the project-specific hydrology report (Pacific Coast Civil, Inc., 2003), no adverse hydrologic conditions or impacts would occur with the proposed development. No wells or deep excavation are proposed therefore no impacts to groundwater supplies, recharge, or quality will occur. The site grading closely follows the existing topography thus continuing to direct the surface drainage southward towards the existing surface drainage system on Centella Street. The project site is not within the 100-year floodplain nor is it subject to flooding, seiches, tsunamis, or mudslides. The project is designed with Best Management Practices for storm water quality, including swales and subsurface drainage features, and must comply with the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit requirements. Therefore, the Casa La Costa residential subdivision will not cause any significant adverse impacts to hydrology and water quality. LAND USE AND PLANNING No Impact. The project site is currently vacant and is surrounded by existing roadways and will not physically divide an established community. The proposed residential development is consistent with the applicable policies and regulations contained in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. As stated above, there is no native habitat on the project site and the City’s Habitat Management Plan does not identify any resource conservation areas in or near the project site. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts to land use and planning will occur. MINERAL RESOURCES No Impact. There are no known mineral resources within the project area and no locally important mineral resource recovery site is delineated within the City’s General Plan or other land use plan. No loss in availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region or the residents of the State will occur. Therefore, the Casa La Costa project will not produce any significant adverse impacts to mineral resources. NOISE Less than Significant Impact. The project site is bounded by La Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road, both arterial roadways that could, at buildout, produce roadway noise that exceeds the City’s General Plan Noise Element standard. Therefore, the project is designed with a sound attenuation wall along these two frontages, as well as adjacent to a portion of the Levante Street frontage and the southern property line. The construction of the project is anticipated to produce short-term noise impacts, however the developer must comply with the City’s regulations regarding the timing of construction noise. Given the short-term nature and regulatory controls, the construction impacts are considered less than significant. The project site is located within 3 miles of the McClellan-Palornar airport and, as such, requires notification of all future property owners about the possibility for aircraft overflight and airplane noise. Given the project boundary sound attenuation walls, regulatory controls on construction timing, and the advisory notice for aircraft overflight, the proposed residential subdivision would produce less than significant adverse impacts with regard to noise. POPULATION AND HOUSING No Impact. The residential density proposed with the subdivision is 8.7 dwelling units per developable acre. Based upon the Residential Medium High Density (RMH) General Plan land use designation of the project site (as adjusted by the City’s Growth Management Control Point), the property could contain between 8.0 and 11.5 dwelling units per developable acre. The proposed density is within the realm anticipated by the City’s General Plan and, therefore, would not induce substantial growth to the area. No existing housing exists on site nor uses the property for access and no displacement of any people will occur. In addition, the project is paying an affordable housing fee to compensate for the fair share cost of constructing housing affordable to lower income households. Therefore, the Casa La Costa project will not produce any significant adverse impacts to population and housing. PUBLIC SERVICES No Impact. The proposed 39-unit residential condominium will not result in the need for new or physically altered government facilities in that it complies with all requirements and standards of the City’s Growth Management program. It is located adjacent to an existing fire station and is served by the Carlsbad Police Department. The Encinitas Union and San Dieguito Union High School Districts have stated that the development can be provided school services by those districts. All other public facilities are required to be in place concurrent, or prior to, 18 Rev. 01/03/02 construction. Therefore, the Casa La Costa residential project will not produce any significant adverse impacts to Public Services. RECREATION No Impact. Pursuant to the City Ordinances, the project developer must pay a park-in-lieu fee to compensate for their fair share of park demand. According to the City’s Growth Management program, there will be adequate park facilities within the southeastern quadrant of the City to accommodate the park demand generated by the project. In addition, the development would contain common recreation areas within the project site. These recreation areas and sized based upon the number of dwelling units and meet all applicable regulations. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts to recreation will occur. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC-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? Less Than Significant Impact. The project will generate 3 12 Average Daily Trips (ADT). This traffic will utilize the following roadways - La Costa Avenue, Rancho Santa Fe Road, Levante Road and Centella Road. Existing traffic on these arterials is below peak hour and overall design capacity and all, roadways operate at an acceptable level of service. 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: Existing ADT* Los Buildout ADT* Rancho Santa Fe Road 15-32 “A-C” 28-43 El Camino Real 21-50 “A-C” 32-65 Palomar Airport Road 10-52 “A-B” 29-77 SR 78 120 ‘‘F’ 144 1-5 183-198 “D” 2 19-249 *The numbers are in thousands of daily trips. The Congestion Management Program’s (CMP) acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard is “E”, or LOS “F” if that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (e.g., SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS “F” in 1990). Accordingly, all designated roads and highways are currently operating at or better than the acceptable standard LOS. Note that the buildout ADT projections are based on the full implementation of the region’s general and community plans. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan and, therefore, its traffic was used in modeling the buildout projections. Achievement of the CMP acceptable Level of Service (LOS) “E” standard assumes implementation of the adopted CMP strategies. Based on the design capacities of the designated roads and highways and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will hction at acceptable levels of service in the short-term and at buildout. a) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 19 Rev. 07/03/02 No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the McClellan-Palomar Airport. It would not, therefore, result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No impact assessed. b) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses? No Impact. All project circulation improvements will be designed and constructed to City standards; and, therefore, would not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the City’s general plan and zoning. Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use. No impact assessed. c) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and Police Departments. No impact assessed. d) Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. The proposed project is not requesting a parking variance. Additionally, the project would comply with the City’s parking requirements to ensure an adequate parking supply. No impact assessed. e) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)? No Impact. (Note whether the project is near public transportation. If not, then state that the project is not served by or not located in an area conducive to public transportation.) (Note bike racks are not necessary for a single- family residential project. Otherwise, condition the project to install bike racks and note here that the project has been so conditioned.) UTILITY AND SERVICES SYSTEMS No Impact. The proposed residential development is required to provide all necessary utility and service systems necessary to serve the development concurrent or prior to construction. The proposed 39 EDUs of wastewater can be accommodated in the local system without the need for expansions. The Leucadia Municipal Water District has indicated that there is adequate water supply and water distribution systems to serve the proposed development. The project also complies with all applicable regulations, including that for solid waste. Therefore, the project will not cause any significant adverse impacts to utilities and service systems. 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 (MEIR 93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994. 2. Geotechnical Recommendations Proposed 39-unit Condominium Development. Construction Testing and Engineering, Inc. December 2002. 3. Preliminary Hvdroloev and Detention Calculations for Casa La Costa. Pacific Coast Civil, Inc. February 2003. 4. Acoustical Analvsis Report - Casa La Costa Condominiums. Medlin and Associates. December 2002. 5. Tree Report. Susan E. McEowen, Landscape Architect. March 2003. 6. Cultural Resource Survev of the La Costa Parcel at the Corner of La Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road, Carlsbad, CA. RECON. October, 2002. 20 Rev. 01/03/02