Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-12-17; Planning Commission; Resolution 55191 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. 5519 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO SUBDIVIDE 2.55 ACRES INTO SEVEN STANDARD SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE AND HIGHLAND DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASE NAME: HIGHLAND DRIVE SUBDIVISION CASE NO.: CT 03-04/SDP 03-08 WHEREAS, A & A Development, Inc., “Developer/Owner” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as That portion of Tract 121 of Carlsbad Highlands, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1661, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, March 1,1915 (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of December 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) B) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby ADOPTS the Mitigated Negative Declaration and 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 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program according to Exhibit “MND” dated December 17, 2003, according to Exhibits “NOI” dated November 12, 2003, and “PII” dated November 6, 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. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project, and any comments thereon prior to APPROVING the project; and b. 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 c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and d. based on the EL4 Part IT and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Conditions: 1. 2. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Developer shall implement or cause the implementation of the Highland Drive Subdivision Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. This approval is granted subject to the approval of CT 03-04 and SDP 03-08 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5520 and 5521 for those other approvals incorporated herein by reference. PC RES0 NO. 5519 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th day of December 2003, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Heineman, Montgomery, Segall, and White NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Whitton and Dominguez ABSTAIN: None JULWR, Chairperson CAIUSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5519 -3- - City of Carlsbad NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: HIGHLAND DRIVE SUBDIVISION CASE NO: CT 03-04/SDP 03-08 PROJECT LOCATION: Northeast corner of Carlsbad Village Drive and Highland Drive PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of the demolition of two single family structures and accessory buildings and the subdivision and grading of two infill parcels totaling 2.55 acres into seven standard single family lots located at the intersection of Carlsbad Village Drive and Highland Drive in the northwest quadrant of the City. No residences are proposed on the lots at this time; however, the project includes a conceptual design for one single family residence with an inclusionary second dwelling unit to satisfy the project’s 15% inclusionary housing requirement. A single cul-de-sac street intersecting Highland Drive will provide access to the single family lots that are a minimum of 10,000 square feet in compliance with zoning. 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) 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 Commission. A copy of the initial study (EM 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 20 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 Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4622. PUBLIC REVIEW PEFUOD November 12,2003 to December 2,2003 PUBLISH DATE November 12,2003 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.r&&&J5~,a$j&a.us @ - City of Carlsbad MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: HIGHLAND DRIVE SUBDIVISION PROJECT LOCATION: CASE NO: CT 03-04ISDP 03-08 Northeast comer of Carlsbad Village Drive and Highland Drive PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of the demolition of two single family structures and accessory buildings and the subdivision and grading of two infill parcels totaling 2.55 acres into seven standard single family lots located at the intersection of Carlsbad Village Drive and Highland Drive in the northwest quadrant of the City. -No residences are proposed on the lots at this timwwever, the project includes a conceptual &sign for one single family residence with an inclusionary second dwelling unit to satisfy the project’s 15% inclusionary housing requirement. A single cul-de-sac street intersecting Highland Drive will provide access to the single family lots that are a minimum of 10,000 square feet in compliance with zoning. 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, 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. 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 earlf&%%ument 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 (EL4 Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. ADOPTED: December 17,2003, pursuant to Planning Commission ResolutiA No. 5519 ATTEST: - MICHAEL J. HO Planning Director 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad. CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 f www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us * ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CT 03-04/SDP 03-08 DATE: 1 1-06-03 BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. CASE NAME: Highland Drive Subdivision LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Anne Hysong, (760) 602-4722 PROJECT LOCATION: Northeast comer of Carlsbad Village Drive and Highland Drive PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: A & A Development, 2009 Via Teca, San Clemente. CA 92673 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RLM ZONING: R-1-10,OOO OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: The proiect consists of the demolition of two single family structures and accessorv buildings and the subdivision and grading of two infill parcels totaling 2.55 acres into seven standard single familv lots located at the intersection of Carlsbad Village Drive and Highland Drive in the northwest quadrant of the City. No residences are proposed on the lots at this time; however, the proiect includes a conceptual design for one single-family residence with an inclusionarv second dwelling unit to satisfy the proiect’s 15% inclusionary housing requirement. A single cul-de-sac street intersecting Highland Drive will provide access to the single-family lots that are a minimum of 10,000 square feet in compliance with zoning. The topography from west to east currently rises from apuroximately 159 feet at the Gestern boundarvto 179 feet at the ridge and falls to 153 feet at the eastern property boundary. The proposed mading design generallv follows the existing topog;raphv, however. pad elevations of the two most westerly lots are 2 - 4 feet lower, the ridge area is lowered approximatelv 4 feet, and eastern Dads are raised 3 - 8 feet within the eastern half of the uropertv. The proposed grades result in a pad elevation of 168.7 feet for the most westerly lot, the center pad rises to 173.5 feet, and the most easterly pad elevation falls to 157.5. The propertv is impacted by noise generated bv traffic on Carlsbad Village Drive, designated as a secondary arterial by the City’s General Plan Circulation Element and a Community Scenic Corridor by the City’s Scenic Corridor Guidelines. Noise levels along the proDertv’s southern boundary exceed the City’s standard of 60 dBA CNEL for exterior noise and will impact interior noise levels of future structures without mitigation. Aesthetic considerations must be considered for landscaping and fencing along the southern boundarv 1 Rev. 07/03/02 within and along the Carlsbad Village Drive right-of-way in accordance with the Scenic Corridor Guidelines. .2 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 [7 Geology/Soils (XI Noise Agncultural Resources 0 Air Quality HydrologylWater Quality 0 Public Services 0 HazardsiHazardous Materials 0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Land Use and Planning 0 Recreation 0 Cultural Resources 0 Mineral Resources 0 TransportatiodCirculation Mandatory Findings of Significance 0 Utilities ~JL Service Systems 3 Rev. 07/03/02 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 0 IXI 0 0 0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I 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. 1 L. &L%? I/-- 07-0 .? Planner Signature ” Date \ Plaking Director’sh)gnatuxd Date 4 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. 0 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. 0 “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. 0 “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. 0 “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly adverse. 0 Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but gJ 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. 0 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. 0 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. 0 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, 5 Rev. 07/03/02 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. 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 EM-Part 11 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. 6 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: Have a substantial adverse effect on a 0 0 IXI 0 scenic vista? Substantially damage scenic resources, 0 0 including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? Substantially degrade the existing 0 visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 0 II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - (In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model- 1997 prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique 0 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 0 agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing 0 environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non- agricultural use? 0 0 IXI IXI 0 0 0 IXI 0 0 Ix) cl 0 a 0 0 IXI 7 Rev. Q7IQ3lQ2 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 111. 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? 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)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 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? Potentially Significant Impact 0 I7 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than No Significant Impact Impact 17 IXI IXI 0 IXI 0 IXI 17 17 43 8 Rev. Q7lQ3lQ2 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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 Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 No Impact [x1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 0 IXI 0 0 IXI 0 0 IXI 9 Rev. Q7lQ3lO2 Issues (and Supporting Information Potentially Potentially Less Than No Sources). Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 0 15064.5? Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to 6 15064.5? Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? IV. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: 0 0 0 0 i. Rupture of a known 0 earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 0 .. 11. Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 0 IXI 0 0 [x1 0 0 0 0 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 Ix1 IXI 10 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Potentially Potentially Less Than No Sources). Significant Significant Significant Impact iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. 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 - I-B of the Uniform Building Code (1 997), creating substantial risks to life or property? 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? IV. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: Impact 0 0 0 0 0 a) Create a significant hazard to the 0 public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) 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? Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 [XI 0 0 0 0 Impact 0 Ixl 0 [XI Ix1 0 IXI 0 [XI 0 [XI 11 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Potentially Potentially Less Than No Sources). Significant Significant Significant Impact 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.HYDROL0GY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated I7 0 0 [XI 0 0 0 0 0 a) Violate any water quality 0 standards or waste discharge requirements? 12 0 0 0 0 0 IXI 0 [XI 0 IXI [XI 0 0 IXI Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Potentially Sources). Significant 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? Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated cl 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 NO Impact 1xI [x1 0 IXI 0 0 El 0 0 El 0 0 IXI 13 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Potentially Sources). Significant 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)? 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? IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 17 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 No Impact Ix1 [x1 El Ixl IXI 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 Ixl 0 0 Ix1 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Potentially Potentially Less Than No Sources). Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Conflict with any applicable land 0 I7 IXI 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 0 habitat conservation plan or natural community Conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability 0 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 0 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 0 generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or 0 generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? 0 0 0 IXI 0 Ix) 0 IXI Ix) 0 IXI 15 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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? 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? X. 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)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Potentially Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated CI CI 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Impact IXI El 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 IXI 0 [XI 16 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Potentially Sources). Significant Impact 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? 0 ii. Police protection? 0 ... 111. Schools? iv. Parks? 0 0 v. Other public facilities? 0 XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the 0 use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include 0 recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact Mitigation Incorporated Unless Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IXI 0 IXI 17 Rev. 07/03/02 XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion manageinent agency for designated roads or highways? 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? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in insufficient parking capacity? g) 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) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IXI 0 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 Ixl 0 Ixl 0 IXI 0 IXI 18 Rev. 07/03/02 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? 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? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ixl 0 ixI 0 IXI Ix1 0 IXI 19 Rev. 07/03/02 XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the 0 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? b) Does the project have impacts o 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?) c) Does the project have 0 environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES 0 0 0 [x1 0 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) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. 20 Rev. 07/03/02 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact: The project is located at the comer of Carlsbad Village Drive and Highland Drive. Carlsbad Village Drive is identified as a Community Scenic Corridor by the City’s Scenic Corridor Guidelines. A continuous noise wall is required along Carlsbad Village Drive at the top of slope to ensure that residents are not exposed to exterior and interior noise levels exceeding the City’s standards. The subdivision design provides frontage access from an interior local street; future residences will back up to Carlsbad Village Drive. The proposed noise wall also function as rear yard fencing for the single-family lots that will screen rear yards and lower portions of the structures from Carlsbad Village Drive. Aesthetic enhancement is proposed through a wall design that is a continuous split face block wall with pilasters and caps that will be earth tone in color and stepped down to avoid exceeding the City’s maximum 6’ height standard. The wall will be located at the top of a 3’ - 6’ high slope; therefore, the remaining lot area outside the wall and the exterior of the wall that is visible to Carlsbad Village Drive will be uniformly landscaped and maintained by a Homeowners Association to ensure that no visual impacts will result due to unmaintained landscaping and/or wall. AIR QUALITY-Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a federal and state non- attainment area for ozone (03), and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PMlo). The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothill areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San Diego Association of Governments (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 R4QS 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 R4QS which include the following: 21 Rev. 07/03/02 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 MQS. 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 (comprising only an incremental contribution to overall air basin quality readings), nor contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less Than Significant Impact. The Air Basin is currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine particulates. The proposed project would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with the proposed project would be minimal.. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the proposed project, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 (a)(4), the proposed project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No Impact. As noted above, the proposed project would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or concentrations. In addition, there are no sensitive receptors (e.g., schools or hospitals) located in the vicinity of the project. No impact is assessed. d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact. The construction of the proposed project could generate fumes fiom 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. 22 Rev. 07/03/02 GEOLOGY/SOILS a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? Potentially Significant unless mitigation incorporated: (ai. to a&.) 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 risk from ground shaking is not significant when structures are built pursuant to the Uniform Building Code (earthquake standards). b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No Impact: The project’s compliance with standards in the City’s Excavation and Grading Ordinance that prevent erosion through slope planting and installation of temporary erosion control means will avoid substantial soil erosion impacts. 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 geotechnical analysis performed for the site by Hu Associates indicates that the site contains no unstable soil conditions. 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 site is contains no expansive soils and is favorable for the proposed development provided the preliminary geotechnical report recommendations are followed. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the u.se of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact - The project site is an undeveloped infill site surrounded by urban development. Existing sewer facilities are located near the site and are available and adequate to support a future residential land use on the site. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 23 Rev. 07/03/02 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)? 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? No Impact (a, b, c, d, e, f & g) - The infill project will rely on an existing public storm drain system and is subject to City standards regarding water quality, drainage and erosion control, including storm water permit (NPDES) requirements and best management practices. The project is conditioned to require a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) that will ensure that it is designed and constructed in compliance with the City's "DES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity issued by the State Water Resources Control Board and the San Diego NPDES Municipal Storm Water Permit issued to San Diego County and Cities by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. In addition, according to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992, the project site is located in an area where development will not have a significant impact to groundwater. Therefore, the project will not violate any water quality standards, deplete groundwater supplies or quality, substantially alter existing drainage patterns, cause substantial erosion or flooding, or significantly impact the capacity of stormwater drainage systems. 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) flood flows? Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect 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 development will not result in housing or structures within a 1 00-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? 24 Rev. 07/03/02 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. Therefore, the project will not result in exposing people or structures to significant risk from flooding as a result of a dam failure, or from 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)? 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? No Impact (1, m, n, o & p) - The project site is not located adjacent to any body of water. Drainage from the site is subject to the City's drainage and storm water pollution control standards ("DES and best management practices), which ensure that sediment and pollutants from any development of the site will not discharge into any downstream receiving surface waters. Also, the City's drainage and storm water pollution control standards ensure that development does not reduce water quality of any marine, fresh or wetland waters or groundwater. The project is designed to drain into an existing storm drain, and the project will be conditioned to prepare a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) to ensure that City standards are met. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) 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? No Impact: The proposed standard single family subdivision is entirely consistent with the underlying RLM General Plan designation and R-1-10,000 zoning, and will result in single family development that is consistent with current development in the area to the north, and existing development to the south and southeast. 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? No Impact (a & b) - 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 project will not result in the loss of availability of a know mineral resource or mineral resource recovery site. 25 Rev. 07/03/02 NOISE - Would the project: 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 performed for the project by Eilar Associates Environmental & Acoustical Consulting revealed that exterior noise levels on the seven lots which will back up to Carlsbad Village Drive would exceed the City’s 60 dBA CNEL exterior noise standard for residential development due to noise generated by traffic. The proposed mitigation to reduce noise levels to below the City’s 60 dBA CNEL exterior standard is a continuous sound attenuation barrier (sound wall or a combination of an earthen berm and sound wall). Specifically, mitigation shall consist of a six foot high sound wall placed at the top of slope (edge of building pad) of Lots 1 - 5 parallel to Carlsbad Village Drive and a five foot high wall placed at the top of slope (edge of building pad) along the western boundary of Lot 1 parallel to Highland Drive and extending to the northwest comer of the building pad. Mitigation for Lots 6 and 7 shall consist of a six-foot high wall placed atop a one-foot high earthen berm along the top of slope parallel to Carlsbad Village Drive and along the eastern boundary of Lot 7 that extends 50 feet to the north. The walls are required to be masonry split face block walls or a combination of solid plexiglass and split face block. No gates shall be permitted. The above described noise barriers will mitigate exterior noise levels to a maximum of 59.9 dba CNEL. Additionally, interior noise mitigation for future residential units (i.e., specialized door and window treatments) shall be required for all second story areas per CCR Title 24. Prior to issuance of building permits for the project, an interior noise analysis compliant with City standards will be required to demonstrate that the proposed design would limit interior noise to the City’s 45 &A CNEL interior noise standard. 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)? No Impact - The project is located on an infill site that is surrounded by existing and/or approved development and served by existing infrastructure. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact (b & c) - The project site will require demolition of two existing single family structures; however, the subdivision and future construction of seven single family structures and one inclusionary second dwelling unit will offset this loss of housing. 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? 26 Rev. 07/03/02 iii. Schools? iv. Parks? V. Other public facilities? No Impact (ai to a.v.) -The project site is located within Local Facilities Management Zone (LFMZ) 1. The provision of public facilities within LFMZ 1, including fire protection, parks, libraries and other public facilities, has been planned to accommodate the projected growth of that area. Because the project will not exceed the total growth projections anticipated within LFMZ 1, all public facilities will be adequate to serve residential development on the site. Therefore, the project will not result in substantial adverse impacts to or result in the need for additional government facilities. RECREATION 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? 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? No Impact (a & b) - As part of the City’s Groyth Management Program (GMP), a performance standard for parks was adopted. The park performance standard requires that 3 acres of Community Park and Special Use Area per 1,000 population within a park district (quadrant) must be provided. The project site is located within Park District #1 (Northwest Quadrant). The necessary park acreage to achieve the GMP standard (3 acres/1,000 population) for Park District #I has been achieved; therefore recreational facilities are adequate to accommodate the project. 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 76 Average Daily Trips (ADT) and 8 peak hour trips. This traffic will utilize Carlsbad Village Drive. Existing traffic on this arterial is 18,584 ADT (2002) and the 2002 peak hour level of service at the arterial intersection impacted by the project is A. The design capacity of the arterial roads affected by the proposed project is 20,000 vehicles per day. The project traffic would represent 0.41% and 0.38% of the existing traffic volume and the design capacity respectively. The increase in traffic from the proposed project is insignificant; furthermore, 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: 27 Rev. 07/03/02 Existing ADT* 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 “D” 2 19-249 *The numbers are in thousands of daily trips. The Congestion Management Program’s (CMP) acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard is “E”, or LOS “F” if that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (e.g., SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS “F” in 1990). Accordingly, all designated roads and highways are currently operating at or better than the acceptable standard LOS. Note that the buildout ADT projections are based on the full implementation of the region’s general and community plans. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan and, therefore, its traffic was used in modeling the buildout projections. Achievement of the CMP acceptable Level of Service (LOS) “E” standard assumes implementation of the adopted CMP strategies. Based on the design capacity(ies) of the designated roads and highways and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at acceptable level(s) of service in the short-term and at buildout. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the McClellan-Palomar Airport. It would not, therefore, result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No impact assessed. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses? No Impact. All project circulation improvements will be designed and constructed to City standards; and, therefore, would not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the City’s general plan and zoning. Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use. No impact assessed. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and Police Departments. No impact assessed. 0 Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. The 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. g) 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.) 28 Rev. 07/03/02 UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? No Impact (a & b) - The project site is located within Local Facilities Management Zone (LFMZ) 1 which is served by the Encina wastewater treatment facility. Wastewater treatment capacity has been planned to accommodate the projected growth of Zone 1. Because the project will not exceed the total growth projections anticipated within LFMZ 1, wastewater treatment capacity will be adequate to serve residential development on the site. Therefore, the project will not result in substantial adverse impacts to or result in the need for additional wastewater treatment facilities. 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? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 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? No Impact (c, d & e) - All public facilities, including water facilities and drainage facilities, have been planned and designed to accommodate the growth projections for the City at build-out. The proposed residential project will not result in growth that exceeds the City’s growth projections. 9 Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact (f & g) - Existing waste disposal services contracted by the City of Carlsbad are adequate to serve the proposed residence without exceeding landfill capacities. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No Impact - The project will not degrade the quality of the physical environment in that the site is currently disturbed by single-family development. There are no historic structures on the site. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a 29 Rev. 07/03/02 project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) Less than Significant Impact - San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projects regional growth for the greater San Diego area, and local general plan land use policies are incorporated into SANDAG projections. Based upon those projections, region-wide standards, including storm water quality control, air quality standards, habitat conservation, congestion management standards, etc, are established to reduce the cumulative impacts of development in the region. All of the City’s development standards and regulations are consistent with the region-wide standards. The City’s standards and regulations, including grading standards, water quality and drainage standards, traffic standards, habitat and cultural resource protection regulations, and public facility standards, ensure that development within the City will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact. There are two regional issues that development within the City of Carlsbad has the potential to have a cumulatively considerable impact on. As discussed above, the proposed development would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with residential development would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with a residential development of the site, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the residential development is implemented. Therefore, the impact is assessed as less than significant. Those issues are air quality and regional circulation. 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 on the site will not result in a significant cumulative considerable impact. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated - Development of the site will comply with City development standards designed to avoid substantial adverse environmental effects to residents of future single-family units including an inclusionary second dwelling unit. The project site is located in an area where human beings could be exposed to excessive noise levels; however, exterior noise levels will be mitigated to below the City’s noise level standards through construction of a 6’ high noise wall along the western and southern property boundaries. 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. 2. 3. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MER 93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994. “Preliminary Soil and Geology Investigation” prepared by HU Associates, Inc., dated May 21, 2003. “Preliminary Hydrology Report” prepared by Aquaterra Engineering, Inc., dated May 20,2003. 30 Rev. 07/03/02 4. “Storm Water Management Plan prepared by Aquaterra Engineering, Inc., dated May 21,2003. 5. “Noise Analysis Report - Highland Drive Subdivision” prepared by Eilar Associates Environmental & Acoustical Consulting, dated August 29,2003. 31 Rev. 07/03/02 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) NOISE: The proposed mitigation to reduce noise levels to below the City’s 60 dBA CNEL exterior standard shall be a continuous sound attenuation bamer (sound wall or a combination of an earthen berm and sound wall). Specifically, a six foot high sound wall shall be placed at the top of slope .(edge of building pad) of Lots 1 - 5 parallel to Carlsbad Village Drive and a five foot high wall shall be placed at the top of slope (edge of building pad) along the western boundary of Lot 1 parallel to Highland Drive and extending to the northwest comer of the building pad. Mitigation for Lots 6 and 7 shall consist of a six-foot high wall placed atop a one-foot high earthen berm along the top of slope parallel to Carlsbad Village Drive and along the eastern boundary of Lot 7 that extends 50 feet to the north. The walls shall be masonry split face block walls or a combination of solid plexiglass and split face block. No gates shall be permitted. Additionally, interior noise mitigation for future residential units (i.e., specialized door and window treatments) would be required for all second story areas per CCR Title 24. Prior to issuance of building permits for the project, an interior noise analysis compliant with City standards will be required to demonstrate that the proposed design would limit interior noise to the City’s 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. 32 Rev. 07/03/02 .~ENCE WCB ML'IIGA'II ON MEASURES @m.!.!ANT w!x Tim IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE IGVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCWR WITII THE ADDITION OF TIIBSE MEASWS TO THE PROJECT. 33 I PROJECT NAME: Hiqhland Drive Subdivision FILE NUMBERS: CT 03-04/SDP 03-08 APPROVAL DATE: 12-1 7-03 Mitigation Measure 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). Monitoring Monitoring Type Department Engineering & Building Plan Planchecks WISE: The proposed mitigation to reduce noise levels to below the City’s 60 dl3A CNEL exterior standard shall be a continuous sound attenuation barrier (sound wall or a combination of an Planning earthen berm and sound wall). Specifically, a six foot high sound wall shall be placed at the top of slope (edge of building pad) of Lots 1 - 5 parallel to Carlsbad Village Drive and a five foot high wall shall be placed at the top of slope (edge of building pad) along the western boundary of Lot 1 parallel to Highland Drive and extending to the northwest corner of the building pad. Mitigation for Lots 6 and 7 shall consist of a six-foot high wall placed atop a one-foot high earthen berm along the top of slope parallel to Carlsbad Village Drive and along the eastern boundary of Lot 7 that extends 50 feet to the north. The walls shall be masonry split face block walls or a combination of solid plexiglass and split face block. No gates shall be permitted. Additionally, interior noise mitigation for future residential units (i.e.’ specialized door and window treatments) would be required for all second story areas per CCR Title 24. Prior to issuance of building permits for the project, an interior noise analysis compliant with City standards will be required to demonstrate that the proposed design would limit interior noise to the City’s 45 dl3A CNEL interior noise standard. Exdanation 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. I Shown on Plans Yes Verified Implementation Remarks Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other this column will be initialed and dated. RD - Appendix P.