Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-01-05; Planning Commission; Resolution 58121 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. 5812 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO DEVELOP A FIFTEEN UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT ON A 0.88 ACRE SITE GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF GIBRALTAR STREET, SOUTH OF THE LA COSTA GOLF COURSE, BETWEEN JEREZ COURT AND ROMERIA STREET, WITHIN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6. CASE NAME: VISTA LA COSTA CASE NO.: GPA 04- 14/ZC 04-09/CT 04-05/CP 04-0 1 WHEREAS, Abedi Family Trust, “Developer/Owner,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as All of Lots 376 and 377 of La Costa South Unit No. 5, according to Map thereof No. 6600, filed in the office of the County recorder of San Diego County on March 10,1970 and that portion of the North half of the Southeast One-Quarter of Section 36, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, according to official Plat thereof, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, described as Parcel No. 2 in a certificate of compliance recorded on August 27, 1984 as file no. 84-325375 of Official Records of said San Diego County (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 5th day of January 2005, 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. 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 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program according to Exhibit “MND” dated October 20, 2004, according to Exhibits “NOI” dated October 20, 2004, and “PII” dated September 23, 2004, 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, VISTA LA COSTA - GPA 04-14/ZC 04-09/CT 04-05/CP 04-01 the environmental impacts therein identified for this project, and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of 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 EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Conditions: 1. Developer shall implement or cause the implementation of the Vista La Costa Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 2. This approval is granted subject to the approval of GPA 04-14 and ZC 04-09. 3. Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City’s approval and issuance of this Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, (b) City’s approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein. PC RES0 NO. 5812 -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 Plannin Commissi PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the n of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of January 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery and Whitton NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN 2kA N. SEGALL airperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: DON NEU Assistant Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5812 -3- - City of Carlsbad NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: Vista La Costa PROJECT LOCATION: CASE NO: GPA 04- 14/ZC 04-09/CT 04-05/CP 04-0 1 North Side of Gibraltar Street, South of La Costa Golf Course, between Jerez Court and Romeria Street (A€" - 216-290-20,21; 216-130-68) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Tract Map, and Condominium Permit for the development of a 15-unit air-space condominium project. The subject site is located on the north side of Gibraltar Street, south of the La Costa Golf Course between Jerez Court and Romeria Street. The proposed project consists of three vacant lots totaling 0.88 acres. The site is surrounded by multi-family condominiums to the east, west and south and the La Costa Golf Course to the north. The proposed project will combine the three existing parcels into one underlying lot and 15 airspace condominiums will be developed on the new lot. There are two three-story buildings proposed with subterranean parking. Nine units wdl be located in Building 1 and six units will be located in Building 2. Access to the site is fiom Gibraltar Street and the project's internal private dnveways will provide access to surface visitor parking spaces and the subterranean parking level. The buildings will not exceed 35' in height and will comply with all standards of the RD-M Zone and Planned Development Ordinance. The units will range in size from 1,536 to 1,672 square feet. A 4,681 square foot conmon passive recreation area will be located in the northern comer of the subject site. The site was previously graded into two stepped pads which overlook the La Costa Golf Course, which is approximately 13 feet below the subject site. The project site is comprised of three existing parcels, two of which form a rectangle, and their General Plan designation is Residential High Density (RH) with a corresponding Zoning designation of Residential Multiple (RD-M). The third parcel is triangular in shape and extends out from the northeastern comer. The existing General Plan designation of this parcel is Open Space (OS) and it is Zoned Planned Community (P-C). The applicant is requesting to change the General Plan and Zoning designations of the triangular parcel to RH and RD-M, respectively, to be consistent with the rest of the site. The open space boundary was intended to follow the Golf Course limits and any associated floodplain areas. However, the property is not part of the Golf Course, and the entire site was graded into development pads accessible from Gibralter Street. The applicant is proposing to amend the General Plan and Zoning designations to RH and RD-M over the entire property. The proposed amendments will be consistent with the other two parcels on the project site and are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. PROPOSED DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EM Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the'environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the project "as revised" may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad City Council. 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 wih 30 days of the date of this notice. The proposed project and Mitigated Negative Declaration are subject to review and approvaYadoption 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 Saima Qureshy in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4619. , PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD October 20,2004 to November 19,2004 PUBLISH DATE October 20,2004 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us a9 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: Vista La Costa CASE NO: GPA 04-14/ZC 04-09/CT 04-05/CP 04-01 PROJECT LOCATI0N:North Side of Gibraltar Street, South of La Costa Golf Course, between Jerez Court and Romeria Street (APN - 216-290-20,21; 216-130-68) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Tract Map, and Condominium Permit for the development of a 15-unit air-space condominium project. The subject site is located on the north side of Gibraltar Street, south of the La Costa Golf Course between Jerez Court and Romeria Street. The proposed project consists of three vacant lots totaling 0.88 acres. The site is surrounded by multi-family condominiums to the east, west and south and the La Costa Golf Course to the north. The proposed project will combine the three existing parcels into one underlying lot and 15 airspace condominiums will be developed on the new lot. There are two three-story buildings proposed with subterranean parking. Nine units will be located in Building 1 and six units will be located in Building 2. Access to the site is from Gibraltar Street and the project’s internal private driveways will provide access to surface visitor parking spaces and the subterranean parking level. The buildings will not exceed 35’ in height and will comply with all standards of the RD-M Zone and Planned Development Ordinance. The units will range in size from 1,536 to 1,672 square feet. A 4,681 square foot common passive recreation area will be located in the northern comer of the subject site. The site was previously graded into two stepped pads which overlook the La Costa Golf Course, which is approximately 13 feet below the subject site. The project site is comprised of three existing parcels, two of which form a rectangle, and their General Plan designation is Residential High Density (RH) with a corresponding Zoning designation of Residential Multiple (RD-M). The third parcel is triangular in shape and extends out from the northeastern comer. The existing General Plan designation of this parcel is Open Space (OS) and it is Zoned Planned Community (P-C). The applicant is requesting to change the General Plan and Zoning designations of the triangular parcel to RH and RD-My respectively, to be consistent with the rest of the site. The open space boundary was intended to follow the Golf Course limits and any associated floodplain areas. However, the property is not part of the Golf Course, and the entire site was graded into development pads accessible from Gibralter Street. The applicant is proposing to amend the General Plan and Zoning designations to RH and RD- M over the entire property. The proposed amendments will be consistent with the other two parcels on the project site and are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 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. A copy of the initial study (EM Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. ADOPTED: , mrsuant to Citv Council Resolution No. ATTEST: DON NEU Assistant Planning Direct a3 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLAN"G DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: GPA 04-14/ ZC 04-09/CT 04-05/CF' 04-01 DATE: Satember 23.'2004 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Vista La Costa 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad, 1635 Faraday Avenue. Carlsbad, CA 92008 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Saima Oureshy - (760) 602-4619 4. PROJECT LOCATION: North Side of Gibraltar Street, South of La Costa Golf Course, between Jerez Court and Romeria Street (APN - 2 16-290-20,2 1 : 2 16-1 30-681 5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: Dr. Shahla Abedi and Dr. Esrafil Abedi; 22892 Ocean Breeze Way, Lama Niguel, CA 92677 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RH (19 du/ac), OS 7. ZONING: RD-M (Residential Density-Multiple). P-C (Planned Community) 8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED &e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): None 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: Request for approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Tract Map, and Condominium Permit for the development of a 15-unit air-space condominium proiect. The subiect site is located on the north side of Gibraltar Street. south of the La Costa Golf Course between Jerez Court and Romeria Street. The uroposed proiect consists of three vacant lots totaling 0.88 acres. The site is surrounded by multi-family condominiums to the east. west and south and the La Costa Golf Course to the north. The proposed proiect will combine the three existing parcels into one underlying lot and 15 airspace condominiums will be developed on the new lot. There are two three-stow buildings proposed with subterranean parking. Nine units will be located in Building 1 and six units will be located in Building 2. Access to the site is from Gibraltar Street and the proiect's internal private driveways will provide access to surface visitor parlung spaces and the subterranean parking level. The buildings will not exceed 35' in height and will comply with all standards of the RD-M Zone and Planned Development Ordinance. The units will range in size from 1,536 to 1,672 square feet. A 4,681 square foot common passive recreation area will be located in the northern comer of the subiect site. The site was ureviouslv graded into two stepped pads which overlook the La Costa Golf Course, which is approximately 13 feet below the subiect site. The proiect site is comprised of three existing parcels, two of which form a rectangle, and their General Plan desimation is Residential High Density (RH) with a corresponding Zoning designation of Residential Multiple (RD-M). The third uarcel is triandar in shape and extends out from the northeastern comer. The existing General Plan designation of this parcel is Open Space (OS) and it is Zoned Planned Community (P-C). The applicant is requesting to change the General Plan 1 Rev. 07/03/02 and Zoning desimations of the trianpular parcel to RH and RD-M, respectively, to be consistent with the rest of the site. The open space boundary was intended to follow the Golf Course limits and any associated floodplain areas. However, the propertv is not part of the Golf Course. and the entire site was- graded into development pads accessible from Gibralter Street. The auulicant is proposing to amend & General Plan and Zoning desimations to FW and RD-M over the entire uropertv. The proposed amendments will be consistent with the other two parcels on the uroiect site and are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 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 Geology/Soils 0 Noise 0 Agncultural Resources Air Quality HydrologyAVater Quality 0 Public Services Biological Resources Land Use and Planning 0 Recreation 0 Hazards/Hazardous Materials 0 popu1ation and Housing 0 Cultural Resources 0 Mineral Resources u TransportatioWTrafc 0 Utilities & Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance 3 Rev. 07/03/02 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 0 Ix1 0 CI 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 thls 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. U Planner Signature Date n T-l Planning Director’s Signature Date 4 Rev. 07/03/02 ENMRONMENTAL 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 ldce the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect fiom “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is sipficantly adverse. Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but fl 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 Ovemding 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. 5 Rev. 07/03/02 ~~ -~ 0 An ER must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially simcant adverse effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation- measures that reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Ovemding Considerations” for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially sigmficant 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 Significant Impact I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: 0 0 a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? c) 0 0 II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - (In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are sigdicant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model-1997 prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 0 0 c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.) Would the project: a) 0 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 Less Than Significant No Impact Impact OH 0 ON 0 OH 0 ON 7 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological intermption, or other means? Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? Potentially Significant Impact 17 0 0 0 0 El 0 Potentially Significant Mitigation Significant No [ncorporated Impact Impact Unless Less Than OIXI 0 0 OIXI 0 UIXI 8 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Infomation Sources). V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Q 15064.5? Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi- cance of an archeological resource pursuant to Q 15064.5? Directly or indirectly destroy a unique pale ontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. 11. ... 111. iv. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Strong seismic ground shalang? Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Landslides? Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Be located on expansive soils, as dehed in Table 18 - l-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? Potentially Significant Impact El 0 0 0 0 0 0 I7 I7 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 I7 0 0 0 0 0 Ixl Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 I7 El Ixl IXI IXI 0 IXI No . Impact IXI Ixl lxl Ixl 0 0 0 Ixl 0 9 ,Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 0 0 UIXI 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? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or dlsposal of hazardous materials? Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment? For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Impair Implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 oIx1 om ON OH VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste 0 Ix1 on discharge requirements? 10 Rev. 07/03/02 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 &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 OT planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial adhtional 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 IXtp? 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, OT 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)? Potentially Significant Impact cl 0 El 0 0 0 I7 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 17 0 0 0 D U Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 IXI 0 0 CI IXI IXI 11 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact El IXI IXI No Impact o n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? 0 0 0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? 0 0 p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? 0 0 IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 0 0 0 0 0 IXI IXI b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 0' c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? IXI X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? 0 IXI cl 0 0 IXI b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: 0 0 IXI 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 cl 0 IXI b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? . 0 0 CI 0 c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 12 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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? Xn. 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? XLU. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 0 cl cl 0 0 UIXI 0 UIXI 0 0 0 UIXI 13 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, whch might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFF'IC - Would the project: Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehcle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Result in inadequate emergency access? Result in insufficient parking capacity? Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn- outs, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ( Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 17 17 I7 17 0 0 0 0 [I] Less Than Significant Impact cl IXI la CI 0 0 17 cl 0. 0 0 No Impact IXI 0 0 Ixi IXI IXI [XI [XI IXI BI IXI [XI 14 Rev. Q7lQ3lQ2 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 0 OH 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? Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? 0 0 om 9 0 0 OBI g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XW. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 0 0 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 anunal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 0 [XI 0 mu b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumula- tively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 0 0 Ian c) XVILI. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: ” more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were wihn 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, whch were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific condtions for the project. c) 15 Rev. 07/03/02 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Tract Map, and Condominium Permit for the development of a 15-unit air-space condominium project. The subject site is located on the north side of Gibraltar Street, south of the La Costa Golf Course between Jerez Court and Romeria Street and currently consists of three vacant lots totaling 0.88 acres. The site is surrounded by multi-family condominiums to the east, west and south and the La Costa Golf Course to the north. The proposed project will combine the three existing parcels into one underlying lot and 15 airspace condominiums will be developed on the new lot. There are two three-story buildings proposed with subterranean parlung. Nine units will be located in Building 1 and six units will be located in Building 2. Access to the site is from Gibraltar Street and the project’s internal private driveways will provide access to surface visitor parking spaces and the subterranean parking level. The buildings will not exceed 35’ in height and will comply with all standards of the RD-M Zone and Planned Development Ordinance. The units will range in size from 1,536 to 1,672 square feet. A 4,681 square foot common passive recreation area will be located in the northern comer of the subject site. The site was previously graded into two stepped pads which overlook the La Costa Golf Course, which is approximately 13 feet below the subject site. The project site is comprised of three existing parcels, two of which form a rectangle, and their General Plan designation is Residential High Density (RH) with a corresponding Zoning designation of Residential Multiple (RD-M). The third parcel is triangular in shape and extends out from the northeastern comer. The existing General Plan designation of ths parcel is Open Space (OS) and it is Zoned Planned Community (P-C). The applicant is requesting to change the General Plan and Zoning designations of the triangular parcel to RH and RD-M, respectively, to be consistent with the rest of the site. The open space boundary was intended to follow the Golf Course limits and any associated floodplain areas. However, the property is not part of the Golf Course, and the entire site was graded into development pads accessible fiom Gibralter Street. The applicant is proposing to amend the General Plan and Zoning designations to RH and RD-M over the entire property. The proposed amendments will be consistent with the other two parcels on the project site and are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. . AESTHETICS No Impact. The project will not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista since the site is located in an urbanized area and will be constructed in compliance with the maximum 35’ height limitation allowed in the RD-M zone and the architectural guidelines contained in the Planned Development Ordinance. Development of the site with a multi-family condominium project would be consistent with the surrounding development pattern. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES No Impact. There will be no impact on agricultural resources due to the proposed project as the site is not designated as or used as farmland. The subject site is zoned for multi-family residential development (RD-M) and is not subject to a Williamson Act Contract. The project would not result in other changes to the environment that would result in the conversion of fannland to non-agricultural uses. The project would be characterized as infill development and has been surrounded by residential development for many years. AIR QUALITY-Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Ne 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. Th~s local plan was combined with plans fiom all other California non-attainment areas having serious ozone problems and used to create the Califomia 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. Rev. 07/03/02 16 The proposed project relates to the SIP andor RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions @at are incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city’s and the County’s general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the project presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact. -. Section 15125(B) of the State of California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific reference to the need to evaluate any iriconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the FUQS. The FUQS and TCM plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the following: 0 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. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is in the City of Oceanside. Data available for this monitoring site through April, 2002 indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (one day in both 2000 and 2001) and one day in 2001 for the federal 8-hour average for ozone and one day for the 24-hour state standard for suspended particulates in 1996. No violations of any other air quality standards have been recorded recently. 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 &om 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. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less Than Significant Impact. The Air Basin is currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine particulates. The proposed project would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with the proposed project would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the proposed project, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. According to the CEQA.Guidelines Section 15130 (a) (4), the proposed project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. d) No Impact. As noted above, the proposed project would not result in substantial poIlutant 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. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) 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. 17 Rev. 07/03/02 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES No Impact. The project site is a vacant, previously graded area which is surrounded by residential development. No native vegetation or habitats exist on or near the property. In addition, no sensitive or endangered species reside or use the property. The City’s Habitat Management Plan does not identify the site for preservation and no local policies or ordinances exist regarding the removal of mature nonnative trees. Therefore, no adverse impacts to‘ biological resources will occur. . V. CULTURAL RESOURCES No Impact. The subject site is a previously graded infill site which is surrounded by residential development and there will be no impacts on cultural resources. There are no known historical, archeological, paleontological, or human remains on the project site. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: 1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? Less than Significant Impact (ai. 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 project site is located in an area of stable soil conditions and the risk of seismic-related ground failure or liquefaction is very minimal (according to City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992). In addition, a project specific Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation was prepared by Geo Soils, Inc. dated January 13, 2004. The report states that the potential for liquefaction, earthquake induced settlement and lateral spread are considered to be low for the site because of the low susceptibility to liquefaction. The report also shows no evidence of landslides on or affecting the subject site. 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? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The subject site has been previously graded. A project specific Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation was conducted by GeoSoils, Inc., dated January 13, 2004. The report contains specific design, grading and construction recommendations which include removal of the existing undocumented fill for a depth of 10-20 feet across the site, reconstruction of the fill slope along the northern property line of the site and the use of post-tension foundation systems, if hghly expansive soils are encountered at the site. All anticipated geotechuical issues will be reduced to a level less than significant through compliance with the mitigation measures recommended in the report. 18 Rev. 07/03/02 d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less than Significant Impact. The report prepared by GeoSoils Inc., showed the soils that underlie the site have medium expansion potential. There is some potential for highly expansive soils to be exposed at finish grade, and - the report provides recommendations for both medium and high expansion potential should such soils be encountered during site grading. No substantial risk to life or property is anticipated due to hazards typically found in expansive soils. ~ e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. The proposed project does not propose septic tanks and will utilize the public sewer system. Therefore, there will be no impacts involving soils that support the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS No Impact. Based on the nature of a residential land use, there is no routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, there is no potential of a significant hazard associated with the project fiom accidents involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment, or from the emission of hazardous substances wih the proximity of a school. The project site is not located within an area covered by an airport land use plan or an area where such a plan has not been adopted. However, the project site is located approximately 3.0 miles from the McClellan-Palomar Airport (public general aviation airport). The project site is not located within any flight, crash, or safety hazard zones associated with the airport. Therefore, the project will not result in a safety hazard for people residing on the project site. The project will not impair the implementation or physically interfere with any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation since the project site is an infill site surrounded by urban development whch is adequately served by emergency services. There are no wildlands adjacent to the site that could expose people to significant risk from wildland fires. Vm. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY-Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The applicant is required to comply with Order 2001-02 issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board A prelimiqiry Storm Water Management Plan dated June 8, 2004 was prepared for the project by O’Day Consultants to address existing and proposed pollutants of concern and what measures will be implemented to ensure that pollutant loads are not increased as a result of ths project, to the maximum extent practicable. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (Le., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? No Impact. This project does not propose to directly draw any groundwater for potable or irrigation use. The project will be served via existing public water distribution lines adjacent to the site. c) Impacts to groundwater quality? No Impact. Th~s project is required to implement measures to reduce urban pollutants prior to discharge, thus groundwater quality will not be affected by this project. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 19 Rev. 07/03/02 No Impact. This project does not propose to alter existing drainage patterns, or the course of a stream or river, that would result in erosion or siltation on or offsite. The Hydrology, Hydraulics and Detention Study by O’Day Consultants, dated January 22,2004, indxates that the site currently drains to an existing 48-inch RCP drainage pipe which runs along the easterly boundary of the property, that is released to a channel on the adjacent golf course. The proposed project’s runoff will go through a new underground detention basin and then will flow to the existing 48-- inch pipe and the drainage channel. ~ e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? No Impact. The project includes an underground detention basin in the northeastern portion of the site to reduce peak runoff to pre-development flows. 0 Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? No Impact. The existing storm drain system as well as the planned system as identified in the City’s Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan will adequately convey runoff from the subject site. Since this project maintains peak runoff to predevelopment flows, there is no additional impact to consider. Compliance with NPDES requirements ensure that the off-site flow does not increase pollutant discharges. g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less than significant impact. As a result of the project: 1) Implementing source BMP measures to avoid pollutant contact and; 2) Installing treatment BMP measures to remove pollutants from storm water, this project is not anticipated to contribute additional pollutants, to the maximum extent practicable. h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? No Impact. The proposed project is not located 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. Therefore there will be no impacts regarding flooding. i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. The proposed project would not place structures within 100-year flood hazard areas. Therefore there will be no impacts from flooding. 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) 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. 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) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? 20 Rev. 07/03/02 P) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? Less than significant impact (1, m, n, o & p) - The project is located adjacent to San Marcos Creek, a tributary to Batiquitos Lagoon, and is within the San Marcos Watershed in the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit in the San Diego - Region. San Marcos Creek is listed under section 303(d) of impaired water bodies. The project will be required to comply with Order 2001-01 and the Storm Water Management Plan for this project. Drainage and development will be controlled via best management practices to ensure that pollutants loads are not increased to the maximum extent practicable. Therefore, the project will not adversely impact water quality. M. LAND USE AND PLANNING No Impact. The subject site is a previously graded, infill site which is surrounded by multi-family residential development to the east, west and south and La Costa Golf Course to the north. Proposed residential development of the site will be compatible with and will integrate into the existing community. The project site is comprised of three existing parcels, two of which form a rectangle, and their General Plan designation is Residential High Density (RH) with a corresponding Zoning designation of Residential Density Multiple (RD-M). The third parcel is triangular in shape and extends out fkom the northeastem comer. The existing General Plan designation of this parcel is Open Space (OS) and it is Zoned Planned Community (P-C). The applicant is requesting to change the General Plan and Zoning designations of the triangular parcel to RH and RD- M, respectively, to be consistent with the rest of the site. The open space boundary was originally intended to follow the Golf Course limits and any associated floodplain areas. However, the property is not part of the Golf Course, and the entire site was previously graded into development pads accessible fkom Gibralter Street. The applicant is proposing to amend the General Plan and Zoning designations to RH and RD-M over the entire property. The proposed amendments will be consistent with the other two parcels on the project site and are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The subject site does not conflict with any habitat conservation plans or natural communities plans in that the property is designated as an “Urban/Developed” area in the City’s Draft Habitat Management Plan. X. MINERAL RESOURCES No Impact. There are no known mineral resources, of local importance or otherwise, on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of such resources. XI. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? b) No Impact - Based upon the nature of the proposed residential use, the project will not result in any activity that would generate excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels. In addition, the project site is not located adjacent to any use that generates excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 4 A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less than Significant Impact (c & d) - Other than traffic generated noise, typical residential land uses do not generate a substantial amount of noise. With regard to temporary or periodic increase in noise levels, the only potential increase in noise would be from construction activity associated with the development project. The City incorporates standard regulations on all project construction activity to ensure that noise and other potential impacts to surrounding properties are not sigmficant. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in a substantial 21 Rev. 07/03/02 permanent or temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or- working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 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? . 9 No Impact (e & f) - The project site is not located within an area covered by an airport land use plan or an area where such a plan has not been adopted. The project site is located approximately 3.0 miles from the McClellan- Palomar Airport (public general aviation airport). The project site is not located within any flight, crash, or safety hazard zones associated with the airport. Therefore, the project will not result in a safety hazard for people residing on the project site. W. POPULATION AND HOUSING No Impact. The project would result in the development of 15 dwelling units on an infill site surrounded by existing residential development that is served by existing roads and utilities and therefore, the project would not induce substantial growth either directly or indirectly. The project is proposed on vacant land and would not displace any existing housing or individuals. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES No Impact. The project will result in 15 new dwelling units on 0.88 acres (17 unitdacre) which is slightly below the Growth Management Control Point of 19 ddac allowed on this site, with the proposed General Plan Amendment. The provision of public facilities within the Zone 6 LFMP, including fire & police protection, parks, libraries and other public facilities, have been planned to accommodate the projected growth in that area. Because the project will not exceed the total growth projections anticipated within the Zone 6 LFMP, all public facilities will be adequate to serve the proposed residential development on the site. Therefore, the project will not result in substantial adverse impacts to or result in the need for additional government facilities. XTV. RECREATION No Impacts. As part of the City’s Growth Management Program, a performance standard for parks was adopted. The park performance standard requires that 3 acres of Community Park and Special Use Area per 1,000 population within a park district (quadrant) must be provided. The project site is located withm Park District #4 in the Southeast (SE) Quadrant. The necessary park acreage to achieve the GMP standard (3 acres/1,000 population) for Park District #4 was based upon the GMP dwelling unit limitation for the SE Quadrant, whlch is 17,379 units. The proposed project will result in 15 additional residential units in the SE Quadrant. However, those units were anticipated on this site under the City’s Growth Management Plan. The 15 proposed dwelling units on the site at a density of 17 units per acre will not exceed the growth control point (19 ddac) allowed by the site’s General Plan designation. The applicant is amending the General Plan designation on one of the parcels from Open Space to RH (Residential High Density). Ths amendment corrects the mapping error which assumed the triangular parcel to be part of the Golf Course limits and any associated floodplain area. The Parks and Recreation Element states that the park acreage demand for the SE Quadrant, based on the GMP dwelling unit limit, is 120.49 acres, and the anticipated park acreage to be provided at build-out will be 140.27 acres. Therefore, there will be adequate parkland within the SE Quadrant, and the proposed development will not cause additional demand for parkland or expansion of recreational facilities. Because park facilities will be adequate to serve residential development on the site, any increase in use of park facilities generated from development of the site will not result in substantial physical deterioration of any park facility. XV. TRANSPORTATIONlTRAFFIC-Would the project: 22 Rev. 07/03/02 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 proposed project will generate a total ADT of 120 vehicle trips. These trips were anticipated within the Circulation Element of the City’s adopted General Plan, under the designation of- Residential High Density (RH). While the increase in traffic from the proposed project may be slightly noticeable, the street system has been designed and sized to accommodate trafEc 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 existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. Therefore the impacts from the proposed project are 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. SNAG 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 hghways in Carlsbad is: Existing ADT* Los Buildout ADT* Rancho Santa Fe Road 17-35 “A-D” 35-56 El Camino Real 27-49 “A-C” 33-62 Palomar Airport Road 10-57 “A-D” 30-73 SR 78 124- 142 “F” 156-180 1-5 199-2 16 ‘FD” 260-272 *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 commudy 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 located more than 3.0 miles from the McClellan-Palomar Airport and is not located within the boundanes of Alrport Land Use Plan. Therefore, it would not result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No impact assessed. d) 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. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses? e) No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and Police Departments. No impact assessed. Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 23 Rev. 07/03/02 No Impact. The project complies with the City’s parking requirements of 2 parking spaces per unit and 7 visitor spaces to ensure an adequate parking supply. No impact assessed. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)? No Impact. The proposed project does not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS No Impact - The proposed residential development will be required to comply with all Regional Water Quality Control Board Requirements. In addition, the Zone 6 LFMP anticipated that the project site would be developed with a high density residential use and wastewater treatment facilities were planned and designed to accommodate future residential uses on the site. All public facilities, including water facilities, wastewater treatment facilities and drainage facilities, have been planned and designed to accommodate the growth projections for the City at build-out. The proposed density on the site will increase the demand for these facilities. However, the proposed density would not result in an overall increase in the City’s growth projection in the SE quadrant. Therefore, the project will not result in development that will result in a significant need to expand or construct new water facilitieshupplies, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage facilities. Existing waste disposal services are adequate to serve the proposed residential use on the site without exceeding landfill capacities. In addition, the proposed residential development will be required to comply with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No Impact -The proposed residential project will not degrade the quality of the environment. The project site does not contain any fBh or wildlife species. Therefore, the project will not reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species. The project site is a vacant previously graded, infill site which is surrounded by existing residential development. The site is not identified by any habitat conservation plan as containing a protected, rare or endangered plant or animal community. Therefore, the project will not threaten the number of a plant or animal community. In addition, there are no historic structures on the site and there are no known cultural resources on the site. The project will not result in the elimination of any important examples of California History or prehistory. b) . Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) Less than Significant Impact - San Diego Association of Governments (SNAG) projects regional growth for the greater San Diego area, and local general plan land use policies are incorporated into SNAG projections. Based upon those projections, region-wide standards, including storm water quality control, air quality standards, habitat conservation, congestion management standards, etc, are established to reduce the cumulative impacts of development in the region. All of the City’s development standards and regulations are consistent with the region- wide standards. The City’s standards and regulations, including grading standards, water quality and drainage standards, traffic standards, habitat and cultural resource protection regulations, and public facility standards, ensure that development within the City will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact. There are two regional issues that development wihn the City of Carlsbad has the potential to have a cumulatively considerable impact on. Those issues are air quality and regional circulation. As discussed above, the project 24 Rev. 01/03/02 would contribute to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with the residential development would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the residential development of the site, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the residential development is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 (a)(4), the project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed- as less than significant. The Countj~ Congestion Management Agency (CMA) has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The CMA has determined, based on the City’s growth projections in the General Plan, that these designated roadways will function at acceptable levels of service in the short-term and at build-out. The project is consistent with the City’s growth projections, and therefore, the cumulative impact from the project to the regional circulation system is less than significant. With regard to any other potential impact associated with the project, City standards and regulations will ensure that residential development of the site will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant Impact - Based upon the residential nature of the project and the fact that future development of the site will comply with all City standards, the project will not result in any direct or indirect substantial adverse environmental effects on human beings. Any future residential development on the site will be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, regional and City regulations, which will ensure the development of the site will not result in an adverse impact on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Rev. 07/03/02 25 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. City of Carlsbad Geotechcal Hazards Analvsis and Maming Study, November 1992. 2. City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the Citv of Carlsbad, December 1999. 3. Preliminan Geotechnical Evaluation, GeoSoils, Inc., January 13,2004. 4. Preliminan, Storm Water Management Plan for Vista La Costa, O’Day Consultants, June 8,2004. 26 Rev. 07/03/02 LIST OF MITIGATION MEASURES GEOLOGY 1. Mitigation Measures as stated in the Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation prepared by GeoSoils, Inc., dated January 13,2004. . HYDROLOGY AND WATER OUALITY 2. Mitigation measures as stated in the Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan for Vista La Costa prepared by O'Day Consultants, dated June 8,2004. THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATION MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDJTION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. ~~ Date Signature 27 Rev. 07/03/02 1 PROJECT NAME: Vista La Costa FILE NUMBERS: GPA 04-14/ZC 04-09/CT 04-05/CP 04-01 APPROVAL DATE: January 5,2005 Shown on Monitoring Monitoring Type Department Pfans Mitigation Measures as stated in the Preliminary Engineering NIA Geotechnical Evaluation prepared by GeoSoils, Inc., Dept. dated January 13,2004. Mitigation measures as stated in the Preliminary Storm Engineering Dept. Water Management Plan for Vista La Costa prepared Mitigation Measure Verified Remarks Implementation Exdanation of Headinas: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department. or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. information. Shown on Plans =When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. 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. NAHC @I 001 11/19/'2004 16:13 FAX 916 657 5390 November 30,2004 Ms. Carol Gaubatz Program Analyst Native American Heritage Commission 915 Capitol Mall, Room 364 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: VISTA LA COSTA - PROJECT COMMENTS DATED NOVEMBER 19,2004 Dear Ms. Gaubatz: Thank you for your comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Vista La Costa project, in the City of Carlsbad. The subject site is an infill site which was previously graded and is surrounded by existing residential development on three sides. The proposed project is for the development of 15 air space condominiums. There are no known historical, archeological paleontological or human remains on the project site. Since the site is already disturbed, no impact to cultural resources is assessed. If you have any additional comments or questions, please contact me at (760) 602-461 9. Sincerely, Saima Qureshy, AlCP ) Associate Planner SQ:bd e' 1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us