HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-07-07; Planning Commission; Resolution 56721
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. 5672
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO APPROVE
A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, SITE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A
56 UNIT AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT LOCATED AT
THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF EL CAMINO REAL AND
CASSIA ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 10
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING
CASE NO: GPA 02-05/ZC 02-06/SDP 02-13/SUP 02-09
WHEREAS, Carlsbad Family Housing Partners, a California Limited
Liability Partnership, “Developer,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad
regarding property owned by Anthony and Dicky Bons, “Owner,” described as
A portion of fractional northeast quarter of southwest quarter
of Section 23, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San
Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of July 2004 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 RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration,
Exhibit “ND,” according to Exhibits “NOI” dated June 21, 2004, and “PII” dated
June 21, 2004 attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following
findings:
FindinPs :
1.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration GPA 02-
05/ZC 02-06/SDP 02-13/SUP 02-09 - CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING, the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments
thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of 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 I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PC RES0 NO. 5672 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of July 2004, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez,
Heineman, and Montgomery
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Segall
ABSTAIN: None
-----
PRANK H. WHITTON, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. H~ZM~LER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5672 -3-
- City of Carlsbad
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING
PROJECT LOCATION:
CASE NO: GPA 02-05/ZC 02-06/SDP 02-l3/ST.JP 02-09
Southeast corner of El Camino Real and Cassia Road
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment to
change the land use designation of a 2.66 acre property from RLM to RH and a Zone Change
from the Exclusive Agriculture Zone (E-A) to the Residential Density-Multiple Zone (RD-M) to
allow multiple family units, and a Site Development Plan and Special Use Permit to allow a 56
unit apartment project that is affordable to low income families. The applicant is also requesting
incentives that include an 11% density increase above density permitted by the RH designation
growth control point and deviations to the El Camino Real Corridor, Area 5, front setback and
wall standards. The project complies with applicable City standards and guidelines and
justification for deviations can be made.
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 (EL4 Part 2) did not identify any potentially
significant impacts on the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration will be
recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad City Council.
A copy of the initial study (EL4 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 approval/adoption 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 PERIOD June 21,2004 to July 10,2004
PUBLISH DATE June 2 1,2004
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us January 30,2003
- City of Carlsbad
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING
CASE NO: GPA 02-05/ZC 02-06/SDP 02-13/SUP 02-09
PROJECT LOCATION: Southeast comer of El Camino Real and Cassia Road
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment to change the
land use designation of a 2.66 acre property from RLM to RH and a Zone Change from the Exclusive
Agriculture Zone (E-A) to the Residential Density-Multiple Zone (RD-M) to allow multiple family units,
and a Site Development Plan and Special Use Permit to allow a 56 unit apartment project that is affordable
to low income families. The applicant is also requesting incentives that include an 11% density increase
above density permitted by the RH designation growth control point and deviations to the El Camino Real
Corridor, Area 5, front setback and wall standards. The project complies with applicable City standards and
guidelines and justification for deviations can be made.
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:
0
0
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment.
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).
Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT
be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is
required.
A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on file
in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008.
ADOPTED: August 10,2004, pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 2004-27 1
MICHAEL J. HOL~ILL~R
Planning Director
@ 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: GPA 02-05/ZC 02-06iSDP 02-13iSUP 02-09
DATE: 06-2 1-04
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING
LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Anne Hysona, (760) 602-4622
PROJECT LOCATION: The southeast comer of El Camino Real and Cassia Road in Local
Facilities Management Zone 10.
PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: Carlsbad Family Housing Partners. a
California Limited Liability Partnership, 200 E. Washington Avenue, Suite 208, Escondido, CA
92026, (760) 738-840 1.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Existing: RLM Proposed: RH
ZONING: Existing.: E-A Proposed: RD-M
OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing
approval or participation agreements): None
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
The proposed Droiect consists of a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation
of a 2.66 acre property from Residential Low-Medium density (RLM) to Residential HiPh
density (RH) and a Zone Change from the Exclusive Agriculture Zone (E-A) to the Residential
Density-Multiple Zone (RD-M) to allow multiple family units, and a Site Development Plan and
El Camino Real Special Use Permit to allow a 56 unit apartment proiect that is affordable to low
income families. The applicant is also requesting incentives that include an 11% density increase
above density permitted by the RH designation growth control point and deviations to the El
Camino Real Corridor. Area 5. front setback and wall standards. The relatively flat site is
currently occulsied by rrreen houses and contains no sensitive vegetation. The property, which is
located at the southeast comer of El Camino Real (ECR) and Cassia Road, is bordered to the
north by future Cassia Road, to the west by ECR, to the east by open mace that IS part of the
Villages of La Costa Master Plan, and to the south bv deed restricted open space. The existing
Villa Loma and future Manzanita Apartment proiects are located across ECR on the northwest
and southwest comers of Cassia Road.
Rev. 07/03/02
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Aesthetics 0 Geology/Soils Noise
0 Agricultura Resources
[7 Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality [71 Public Services
Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Recreation
0 Cultural Resources Mineral Resources 0 Transportation/Circulation
’ 0 Hazards/Hazardous Materials Population and Housing
Mandatory Findings of 0 Utilities & Service Systems
Significance
2 Rev. 07/03/02
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
I find that the proposed project CC JLD 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.
Planner Signature Date
3 Rev. 07/03/02
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental
Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental
Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical,
biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information
to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration. or
to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by
an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to
projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source
document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
“Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not
significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies.
“Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect 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 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:
mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant.
Particular attention should be given to discussing
5 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I.
11.
111.
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista'? 0 0 0
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but 0 El not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a State scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or 0 0 0
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, 0 0 0
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
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 Farmland, or 0 0 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 0 o
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, 0 0
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use'?
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 0 0
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute 0 o
applicable air quality plan?
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
0
El
0
[XI
[XI
IXI
0
[XI
0
6 Rev. 07IO3/02
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 0 0
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)?
Ixl 0
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
0
0
0
0
0
0 e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the
project:
0 Ixl 0 0 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 0 Ixi 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 Ixi 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?
0 0 0 Ixi 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 0 e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
0 0 o 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 Ixl 0 .o g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally
sensitive?
7 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Cause a Substantial adverse change in the significance 0 of a historical resource as defined in 9 15064.5?
b) Cause a Substantial adverse change in the significance 0 o of an archeological resource pursuant to 9 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique 0 0
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred 0
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:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as 0 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 0
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b) Result in Substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 0 0
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or 0 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?
d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 0 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating
Substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use 0 0
of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
0
0
o
0
IXI
IXI
El
0
cl
IXI
El
[XI
[XI
0
El
IXI
El
[XI
IXI
8 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than KO
Significant Significant Significant impact
Impact Unless Inipact
Mitigation
Incorporated
IV. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 0 0
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or 0 o
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or 0 0
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of 0 0
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?
e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or 0
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?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, 0 0
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area'?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with 0 0
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of 0 0
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste 0 0
discharge requirements?
0 IXI
0 [x1
0
0
0
[XI
[XI
[XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
IXI 0
0 [XI
9 Rev. 07103/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). .
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 whch would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
Impacts to groundwater quality?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in
a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
Create or contribute runoff water, which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation
map?
Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures,
which would impede or redirect fload 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.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
CI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless Impact
0 0 IXI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0 0
0 0
[XI
151
[XI
IXI
151
IXI
151
151
[XI
151
10 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than KO
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated 0 0 17 [XI Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals,
pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics,
nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash)
into receiving surface waters or other alteration of
receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
0
cl
0
0
0
0
0
0 [XI
[XI
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?
cl 0 [XI The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater
receiving water quality objectives or degradation of
beneficial uses?
LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? cl
cl
0
[XI
[XI
o 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?
[XI 0 0 c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
0
0
[XI
[XI
0 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?
o 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?
NOISE - Would the project result in:
0
0
cl [XI 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 [XI b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise
levels'?
11 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than KO
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
c) A Substantial permanent increase in ambient noise 0 0 0 [XI levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
0 [XI cl d) A Substantial temporary or periodic increase in 0
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?
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'?
0
f)
0
cl
0 [XI
0 IXI
X. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) Induce Substantial growth in an area either directly 0
(for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
cl
0
cl
0 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, 0
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere'?
0 0 [XI c) Displace Substantial numbers of people, necessitating 0
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in Substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered government facilities, a need for
new or physically altered government facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
IXI
[XI
[XI
IXI
IXI
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks? 0
v) Other public facilities'? 0 0
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
a) Would the project increase the use of existing 0 0 neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated'?
[XI
0 [XI 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?
0 0
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)?
0 0 [XI
0 [XI 0 o b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
0 0 0
0
[XI
[XI
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?
0 0 d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
[XI
[XI
[XI
0 0 e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
0
0
O f) Result in insufficient parking capacity?
0 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:
[XI
[XI
0
0
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?
13 Rev. Q7IQ3102
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of whch 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?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumula-
tively considerable” means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects?)
Does the project have environmental effects, which
will cause the substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated 0 0 0 [XI
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
[XI
[XI
[XI
[XI
IXI
IXI
IXI
0
0
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or
more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
14 Rev. Q7lQ3IO2
Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were Ivithin the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards.
and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,”
describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document
and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
15 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 proposed project is located on the east side frontage of El Camino Real (ECR)
and is subject to the regulations of the Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone, as implemented through the El Canuno
Real Corridor Development Standards. El Camino Real is identified as a Community Theme Corridor by the City’s
Scenic Corridor Guidelines. A continuous noise wall is proposed along the ECR frontage to ensure that residents are
not exposed to exterior and interior noise levels exceeding the City’s standards. The project deviates from ECR
Corridor Standards for right-of-way setback and wall location within the setback. The reduced setback from 30 feet
to 22 feet and placement of a sound attenuation wall within the reduced setback will not reduce the scenic quality of
the ECR corridor. Within the approximately 1,300’ between Poinsettia Lane and Cassia Road, the proposed project
would occupy only 295’. The remaining 1000’ to the south of the proposed development is dedicated open space
that cannot be developed due to biological constraints. Therefore, the proposed deviations would not eliminate
views to the east along the ECR corridor or result in continuous development too close to the right-of-way. The
proposed California Mission architectural style and meandering wall design that consists of split face block with
pilasters and cap along with dense landscape screening will maintain and enhance the appearance of the El Camino
Real roadway.
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
NO Impact. The project site is currently occupied by greenhouses that are utilized for floriculture. The property is
not identified as prime or non-prime agricultural land and is not restricted by a 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 (03), 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 andor 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. The proposed General Plan Amendment will
increase the density permitted on the site from 5 dwelling units to 56 dwelling units, however, the units are
anticipated by the applicable Zone 10 Local Facilities Management Plan and the reallocation of excess dwelling units
in Zone 10 to the project site would not have an adverse regional air quality impact.
Section 15125(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:
16 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 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. 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 nlininlal. 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 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.
d) 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 - 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?
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?
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?
17 Rev. 07/03/02
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or nugratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
No Impact (a, b, c. & d) - The project site is previously disturbed and covered with green houses. The site contains
no sensitive species, riparian or wetland habitat or wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. and is
not part of a wildlife corridor.
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?
Less than Significant Impact (a.i. to a.iv.): 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 Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc. 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 use 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 abutting El Camino Real. Existing sewer facilities are
located near the site and are available and adequate to support future residential land use on the site.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
18 Rev. 07/03/02
' 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?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) 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?
No Impact (a, b, c & d) - The project consists of a multiple family apartment project; therefore, no hazardous
materials would be used or generated by the project. The site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites
e) 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?
f) 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?
No Impact (e & f) - The project is located within the McClellan Palomar Airport influence area. The Carlsbad
Airport Land Use Plan (CLUP) specifies the areas subject to safety hazards, i.e., the flight activity zone and the crash
hazard zone. The development is not located withm either of these zones; therefore a significant safety hazard would
not result from the development of apartment units.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact - The private residential development does not interfere with the City's emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan.
h) 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?
Less than Significant Impact - The project, which is surrounded on three sides by native vegetation, is required to
comply with City standards requiring fire suppression zones that create buffers between high fuel native species and
residential structures. Sixty-foot wide fire suppression zones are proposed between proposed structures and the
property line on three sides in accordance with City standards to avoid significant risks involving wildland fires.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
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)?
c) Impacts to groundwater quality?
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?
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount
(volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
19 Rev. 07/03/02
f) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
g) 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 Stomi Water Management Plan
(SWMP) that will ensure that it is designed and constructed in compliance with the City’s NPDES 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) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact (h & i) - The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according to the Flood
Insurance Rate Map. Therefore, the proposed development will not result in housing or structures within a 100-year
flood hazard area.
j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No Impact (j & k) - According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study,
November 1992, the project site is not located within any dam failure inundation area, or area subject to inundation
by seiche or tsunami. 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.
1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters.
m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic
organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or
other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)?
n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following
construction?
0)
P)
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 (I, 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 (NPDES 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.
20 Rev. 07/03/02
LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
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?
Less than Significant Impact: The project includes a request for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to
redesignate the property to Residential High (RH) density from its current Residential Low Medium (RLM) density
designation and to change the zoning from the Exclusive Agriculture (E-A) Zone to the Residential Density Multiple
(RD-M) Zone to allow multiple family units. The maximum density allowed on the 2.6 acre site under the existing
RLM designation growth control point (3.2 duiacre) is 5 dwelling units, and the maximum density under the
proposed RH growth control point (19 duiacre) is 50 dwelling units. The General Plan Amendment to allow 50 units
would require the allocation of 45 units from the City’s excess dwelling unit bank. The applicant is requesting 56
units on the property; therefore an 11% density increase to allow 6 units above the 50 units permitted by the RH
growth control point is required. The proposed General Plan Amendment to the RH designation and the requested
1 1 % density increase above the RH growth control point require a total allocation of 5 1 dwelling units from the
City’s excess dwelling unit bank. The General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from RLM to RH
is in compliance with General PladGrowth Management policies that establish locational criteria for higher density
multiple family uses and conditions necessary to exceed the growth control point. Furthermore, the 1000/; affordable
housing project is in conformance with General Plan policy to allow density increases above the growth control point
to enable development of lower-income affordable housing that is compatible with adjacent development, where
public facilities are adequate, and in proximity to major roadways, public parks and open space, commercial centers,
employment centers, and transit centers. The proposed 56-unit apartment project is compatible with surrounding
developments, including the adjacent 157 unit Manzanita Apartments and 325 unit Villa Loma Apartments. Bus
service is available on El Camino Real, and the site is located in proximity to existing and fiiture employment
centers, future Alga Norte and Zone 19 community parks, and the existing Westbluff Plaza and Plaza Paseo Real
commercial shopping centers. Excess units are available in the City’s excess dwelling unit bank, and public facilities
are adequate as required by the Growth Management Ordinance to exceed the growth control point. The project also
qualifies for the allocation of excess dwelling units in accordance with Council Policy 43, which establishes policy
for the allocation of excess dwelling units, in that it is a 100% affordable apartment project where a density increase
is requested as an incentive to providing affordable housing units.
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.
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?
Less than Significant Impact: The project is located within 500 feet of El Camino Real (ECR), a General Plan
circulation arterial roadway. The required noise analysis prepared by URS indicates that existing and fiiture noise
levels along the ECR roadway would exceed the City’s 60 dBA CNEL noise standard without mitigation. Exterior
noise levels along the El Camino Real and Cassia Road frontages will range between 64 - 70 dE3A CNEL. The
apartment project has no requirement for private passive or common active exterior recreational space; therefore, the
City’s noise standard is not applied to these areas. In an effort to reduce exterior noise levels to the greatest extent
possible at locations that would be subject to higher noise levels, the project includes a 6’ high noise wall and 44”
high plexiglass noise screens that will be affixed to patioldeck railings on the northern exterior patioddecks of
21 Rev. 07/03/02
Buildings 1, 2, and 3, and the southern and western exterior patiosidecks of Building 1. This will reduce noise levels
on patioddecks to below 65 dBA CNEL. The project is subject to the City’s 45 dBA interior noise standard. and in
accordance with UBC requirements, interior noise levels will not exceed 45 dBA. This will be accomplished
through mechanical ventilation and possible building and window acoustical treatments.
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 andor 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 entire project site is currently occupied by greenhouses; therefore, no displacement of
houses or people will occur.
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?
No Impact (a.i to a.v.) -The project site is located within Local Facilities Management Zone (LFMZ) 10. The
provision of public facilities within LFMZ 10, including fire protection, parks, libraries and other public facilities,
has been planned to accommodate the projected growth of that area. The 56-unit development will exceed the 5
dwelling units projected by the RLM General Plan designation, however, there are adequate excess dwelling units
projected by the City’s Zone 10 Local Facilities Management Plan and adequate facility capacity to accommodate
the additional dwelling units proposed for the site. Because the project will not exceed the total growth projections
anticipated within LFMZ 10, 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?
6) 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 Growth 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.
22 Rev. 07/03/02
The project site is located within Park District ##4 (Southeast Quadrant). The necessary park acreage to achieve the
GMP standard (3 acres/1,000 population) for Park District #4 was based upon the GMP dwelling unit limitation for
the Southeast Quadrant.
Although the proposed land use change will result in additional residential units in the SE Quadrant. the GMP
dwelling unit limit will not be exceeded. In addition, the Parks and Recreation Element states that the park acreage
demand for the SE Quadrant, based on the GMP dwelling unit limit, is 1 18.8 1 acres, and the anticipated park acreage
to be provided at build-out will be 138.14 acres. Therefore, there will be adequate parkland within the SE Quadrant,
and the proposed land use change will not cause additional demand for parkland or expansion of recreational
facilities. Because park facilities will be adequate to serve residential development on the site. any increase in use of
park facilities generated from future development of the site will not result in substantial physical deterioration of
any park facility.
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC-Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in 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 360 Average Daily Trips (ADT) and 32 peak hour trips.
This traffic will utilize the following roadways: El Camino Real, Cassia Road, Camino Vida Roble, and Palomar
Airport Road. Existing traffic on these arterials are 29,600 El Camino Real, 4,300 Cassia Road, 8,520 Camino Vida
Roble, and 5 1,200 Palomar Airport Road (ADT 2002). The design capacities of the arterial roads effected by the
proposed project are: 40,000 or more El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road, 1200 - 10,000 Cassia Rd., 20,000
Camino Vida Roble in vehicles per day. The project traffic would represent less than 1% of the existing traffic
volume and the design capacity. 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:
Rancho Santa Fe Road
El Camino Real
Palomar Airport Road
SR 78
1-5
Existine ADT* E Buildout ADT*
15-32 “A-C” 28-43
21-50 “A-C” 32-65
10-52 ‘‘A-B” 29-77
120 “F” 144
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 hghways 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 stiategies. 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.
23 Rev. 07/03/02
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?
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.)
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) 10 which is
served by the Encina wastewater treatment facility. Wastewater treatment capacity has been planned to
accommodate the projected growth of Zone 10. Because the project will not exceed the total growth projections
anticipated within LFMZ 10, 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 land use will not
result in growth that exceeds the City’s growth projections. Therefore, the proposed land use and zone change will
24 Rev. 07/03/02
not result in a significant need to expand or construct new water facilitiesisupplies, wastewater treatment or storm
water drainage facilities.
0 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 56 unit apartment project without exceeding landfill capacities. Future residential development resulting
from the proposed land subdivision will be required to comply with all federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community. reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
No Impact - The project will not degrade the quality of the biological or cultural environment in that no disturbance
to biological or cultural resources will occur.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable’’ means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects?)
Less than Significant Impact - San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projects regional growth for
the greater San Diego area, and local general plan land use policies are incorporated into SANDAG projections.
Based upon those projections, region-wide standards, including storm water quality control, air quality standards,
habitat conservation, congestion management standards, etc, are established to reduce the cumulative impacts of
development in the region. All of the City’s development standards and regulations are consistent with the region-
wide standards. The City’s standards and regulations, including grading standards, water quality and drainage
standards, traffic standards, habitat and cultural resource protection regulations, and public facility standards, ensure
that development within the City will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact.
There are two regional issues that development within the City of Carlsbad has the potential to have a cumulatively
considerable impact on. Those issues are air quality and regional circulation. As discussed above, the proposed
land use and zone change will result in future residential development, which would represent a contribution to a
cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above,
however, emissions associated with a future 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.
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
future 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?
25 Rev. 07/03/02
Less Than Significant Impact - Development of the site will comply with City development standards designed to
avoid substantial adverse environmental effects to residents. The project site is located in an area where human
beings could be exposed to 64 - 70 dBA CNEL noise levels generated by the roadway. As discussed above. Clty
standards apply to required recreational space. The apartment project has no requirement for private passive or
common active exterior recreational space; therefore, the City’s noise standard is not applied to these areas. In an
effort to reduce exterior noise levels to the greatest extent possible at locations that would be subject to higher noise
levels, the project includes a noise wall and 44” high plexiglass noise screens that will be affixed to patioideck
railings on the northern exterior patiosidecks of Buildings 1, 2, and 3, and the southern and western exterior
patiosidecks of Building 1. This will reduce noise levels on patiosidecks to below 65 dBA CNEL. The project is
subject to the City’s 45 dBA interior noise standard, and in accordance with UBC requirements, interior noise levels
will not exceed 45 dBA. This will be accomplished through mechanical ventilation and possible building and
window acoustical treatments.
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.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Final Master Environmental Impact ReDort for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01).
City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994.
Draft Phase I1 Environmental Site Assessment prepared by P & D Environmental Services dated October
22, 2002.
“Biological Reconnaissance of the Born Property, Carlsbad, California” prepared by P & D Environmental
Services, dated January 15,2003.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc., dated August 14,
2003.
“Noise Analysis - Carlsbad Family Housing” prepared by URS, dated November 5, 2002.
“Stormwater Management Plan - Affirmed Housing Group” prepared by Masson 8: Associates, Inc., dated
October 14, 2002.
“Preliminary Drainage Study for Affirmed Housing Group” prepared by Masson & Associates, Inc., dated
December 16,2002.
Traffic Analysis prepared by Urban Systems Associates, Inc., dated February 3,2003
26 Rev. 07/03/02