Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-05-17; Planning Commission; Resolution 60751 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6075 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A 4 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND 5 USE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENT DESIGNATIONS ON MULTIPLE PROPERTIES FROM OPEN SPACE (OS) AND 6 RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM HIGH (RMH) TO RESIDENTIAL LOW MEDIUM (RLM) AND TRAVEL RECREATION/ 7 COMMERCIAL (TR), A ZONE CHANGE TO CHANGE THE R ZONING DESIGNATION ON MULTIPLE PROPERTIES FROM PLANNED COMMUNITY (PC) TO RESIDENTIAL SINGLE 9 FAMILY, 7,500-SQUARE-FOOT LOT SIZE MINIMUM (R-1-7,500) AND A MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT TO 10 MODIFY THE BOUNDARIES AND LAND USE AND ZONING CHANGES TO THE LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER 11 PLAN LOCATED EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL BETWEEN 12 ALGA ROAD AND LA COSTA AVENUE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6. 13 CASE NAME: LA COSTA RESORT LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 14 CASE NO.: GPA 05-09/ZC 05-06/MP 03-02fA^ 15 WHEREAS, KSL La Costa Resort Company LLC, "Developer/Owner," has 16 filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as 18 Lots 1, 25, 26, and 27 of Carlsbad Tract Map CT 03-01-01, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, 19 according to map thereof No. 14984, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego, March 18,2005, as file number 20 2005-0224598 21 ("the Property"); and 22 WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said Z*j 24 project; and 25 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of May 2006, hold a 26 duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 27 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony 28 and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 g 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 17th day of May 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Segall, and Whitton NOES: ABSENT: Chairperson Montgomery and Commissioner Heineman ABSTAIN: MARTELT^. MONTGOMERY, C»person CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMKfON ATTEST: 2/1. DON NEU Assistant Planning Director PC RESO NO. 6075 -3- ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II CASE NO: GPA 05-09/ ZC 05-06/ MP 03-02f A) DATE: 11/23/2005 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: LA COSTA RESORT LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: Citv of Carlsbad 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Van Lynch (760)602-4613 4. PROJECT LOCATION: The property is generally located east of Estrella De Mar Road and north of Arenal Lane 5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: KSL La Costa Resort Co. LLC. 2100 Costa Del Mar Rd. Carlsbad. CA 92009 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Open Space 7. ZONING: Planned Community 8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): None 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: The applicant. La Costa Resort and Spa, is requesting the Land Use and Zoning of open space property be changed to allow for resort owned property to be adjusted to the adjacent residences which is residentiallv land use and zoned property. The existing Open Space land use designated property will be changed to Residential Low-Medium and the Planned Community zoning will become R-l-7.500. The changes allow the property to be adjusted and not cause any land use or zoning inconsistencies. The adjustment also modifies the Master Plan boundary and requires the Master Plan Amendment. The "finger" lands are the areas of narrow open space designated land within Planning Area 7 of the Master Plan that are westerly of the golf course that extend into the adjacent residential area. Rev. 07/03/04 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. Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources D Geology/Soils CD Hazards/Hazardous Materials CD Hydrology/Water Quality CD Land Use and Planning CD Mineral Resources I I Mandatory Findings of Significance CD Noise I I Population and Housing CD Public Services I I Recreation CD Transportation/Circulation CD Utilities & Service Systems Rev. 07/03/04 DETERMINATION. [>3 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. l~1 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. l~1 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. d 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. |~l 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. C /n^ — -__________ ___ _ Planner SignSire Date ^ 7Sign^Si S b« Assistant Planning Director's Signature Date 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 II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but all 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. Rev. 07/03/02 • An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant. Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. 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 Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? HI. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.) Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Potentially Significant Impact D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D D D D D D D D D D D D D D 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 project: RESOURCES - Would the 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? 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? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 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? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact n m n n n n n n n Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 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: 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? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 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? d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? Potentially Significant Impact D n Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D Less Than Significant Impact D No Impact D D D D D D D D D Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 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? 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? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted 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? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D D D D D D Rev. 07/03/02 VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste l~1 l~~l l~~l discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or Q CD D 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? l~l I"") l"~l d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern l~1 \~\ l~1 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 [~1 l~| l~l 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? f) Create or contribute runoff water, which would l~l l~1 l~l exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? D D D h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard [~] l~| [~| 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 CD CD CD structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk CD CD CD 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? CD CD CD 1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving CD CD CD surface waters. 10 Rev. 07/03/02 m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy CD CD CD 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, CD CD CD fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? o) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired CD CD 0 water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? p) The exceedance of applicable surface or CD CD CD groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? CD Q CD b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, Q CD CD policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation CD CD CD plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known CD CD CD 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 CD CD CD important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise CD CD CD levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of CD CD CD excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient CD CD CD noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 11 Rev. 07/03/02 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ED l~l d ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use D l~l [~1 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 l~l l~l l~1 airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substantial growth in an area either D l~1 [~l 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 |~] [~l f~) housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, l~1 l~l f~1 necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? f~l l~l l~l ii) Police protection? D D D iii) Schools? D D D iv) Parks? D D D v) Other public facilities? D O l~l 12 Rev. 07/03/02 XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing EH Q neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or CD CD CD require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial l~l [~| [~l in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a C] CD CD level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, [~1 l~l [~l including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design l~l l~l [~1 feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? [~1 l~1 l~l f) Result in insufficient parking capacity? l~~l l~~l l~l g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or CD l~l |~l programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn-outs, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of CD C] CD the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new CD CD CD water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? 13 Rev. 07/03/02 c) Require or result in the construction of new l~l CD [~| 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 CD CD CD the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater CD CD CD 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? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted CH CD CD capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and CD CD CD regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade CD CD CD the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are CD CD CD individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) c) Does the project have environmental effects, CD CD CD which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 14 Rev. 07/03/02 XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES 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. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) 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? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? a) through d) No Impact: The lot line adjustment project area does not have scenic vistas and will not impact the visual character of the area. No development is proposed which would create any light or glare. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? a) through c) No Impact: The properties are neither designated, used, zoned, nor are they under Williamson Act contract for farming. Am 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 (O3), and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM10). 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 (SAND AG). A plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state- mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other California non-attainment areas having serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November 9th through 10th in 1994, and was forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996. The proposed project relates to the SIP and/or RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that are incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city's and the County's general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the project presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact. Section 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: • Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area? 16 Rev. 07/03/02 • 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. 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) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No Impact. As noted above, the proposed project would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or concentrations. In addition, there are no sensitive receptors (e.g., schools or hospitals) located in the vicinity of the project. No impact is assessed. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact. No construction is proposed with the lot line adjustment and land use changes. 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? No Impact - The project site involves lot line adjustments to absorb adjacent vacant open space maintained by the property owners, or in some cases the adjacent property owner acquiring the land. The open space portions have exotic plantings, non-native grasses or bare ground. 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? No Impact - No direct impacts to sensitive wetland, riparian or aquatic vegetation will occur through implementation of the subject project. 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? No impact - The project will be developed in an area that does not contain any federally protected wetlands or "waters" as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 17 Rev. 07/03/02 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? No impact - The subject property will not impact the movement of any native resident, migratory fish, or wildlife species as the open space lands terminate into residential areas. The 100 foot wide SDG&E corridor will remain open space. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact - No biological resources exist, therefore no impacts are expected. 0 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact - The project area is defined as "developed area" per the Habitat Management Plan, g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? No Impact - No direct impacts to sensitive wetland, riparian or aquatic vegetation will occur through implementation of the subject project CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §1 5064.5? No impact - No historical resources have been identified on the site or within the vicinity of the project; and therefore no impacts to historical resources will result from construction of the project. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? No impact -The site is not identified as having known archeologically sensitive areas according to MEIR 93-01, map 5.8-2. The project will not cause substantial adverse changes in the significance of archaeological resources pursuant to §15064.5. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No Impact - the site has been previously graded and landscaped and no new development is anticipated. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No impact - No human burials or remains are known to exist in the location of the subject project. 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 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. Existing condition: The project area is situated in the western portion of the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province of southern California. This geomorphic province encompasses an area that extends 125 miles from the Transverse Ranges and the Los Angeles Basin, south to the Mexican border, and beyond another 775 miles to the 18 Rev. 07/03/02 southern tip of Baja California. The westernmost portion of the province in San Diego County, in which the site is located, generally consists of Tertiary and Quaternary age sedimentary rocks. The most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the north San Diego County area, indicates that the project is considered to be in a seismically active area, as is most of southern California. This map however, indicates that the subject site is not underlain by known active faults, nor is there evidence of ground displacement in the area during the last 11,000 years. The Rose Canyon fault zone is the closest known fault, which is the onshore portion of an extensive fault zone that includes the Offshore Zone of Deformation and the Newport-Inglewood fault to the north of the subject site. This fault zone, located approximately 6.2 miles westerly of the subject site, is made of predominately right-lateral strike- slip faults that extend south-southeast through the San Diego metropolitan area. The zone extends offshore at La Jolla, and continues north-northwest generally parallel to the coastline. Portions of the Rose Canyon fault zone in the San Diego area have been recognized by the State Geologist to be considered active. Additionally, the Julian and Temecula segments of the Elsinore fault zone, about 24 miles to the northeast of the subject site are also referenced in the Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Environmental Evaluation: Based on resource investigation and field observations, no active faults have been mapped across the project site. The closest fault is located approximately seven miles westerly of the site. The Elsinore fault zone is located approximately 24 miles east of the site, and the Coronado Bank fault is located approximately 22 miles west of the site. The potential for rupture resulting from earthquake is considered to be low. The subject site is not within a fault-rupture hazard zone as indexed in the Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Because of the lack of known active faults on the site, the potential for surface rupture at the site is considered low. The seismic hazard most likely to impact the site is ground shaking resulting from an earthquake on one of the active regional faults discussed above. Finding: Less than significant impact - The project site is not within a fault-rupture hazard zone indexed in the Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42; therefore the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? Less than significant impact - Earthquake faults exist within southern California, including three fault zones within 24 miles of the site. Historical records have indicated however, that the risk of strong seismic ground shaking of the project site is minimal, and thus is considered a less than significant impact. iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? No Impact - The project does not propose grading or construction at this time. iv. Landslides? No impact - No landslides are anticipated to affect the proposed project. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 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? d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? 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? b), c), d), and e) No impact - The project does not propose development or grading and the existing units are connected to a sanitary sewer system. 19 Rev. 07/03/02 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? 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? 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? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted 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? a) through h) - No Impact - The project involves the adjustment of parcel lines with existing single family homes. The project does not involve or is located near hazardous materials. The site is not located within two miles of an airport and the project area is not adjacent to wildlands. 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? f) 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? g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? k) 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? o) 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? a) through p) No Impact - The project involves the adjustment of parcel lines within an existing single family residential development not within the 100 year floodplain. The project does not propose and development or construction and may actually decrease runoff by the increased landscaping and maintenance of undeveloped land. Downstream waters are not listed as impaired water bodies on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list. LAND USE PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact - The project would not separate any contiguous community areas. 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? No impact - The proposed project will not be in conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of any agency with jurisdiction over the project. The project will reestablish a previous residential zoning and land use designation to allow the adjustment of adjacent open space designated to property to the adjacent residentially developed and designated property. Land use and zoning consistency will be achieved by this project. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No impact - The subject project site is consistent with the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad. The project is identified as a developed area within the HMP. 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? No impact - No known mineral resource of regional or statewide value are known that would be affected through implementation of the project. The site is not located in an area of mineral resources as identified in MEIR 93-01, map 5.13-1. 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? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of 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? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? a) through f) No Impact - The lot line adjustment and land use changes will not create any new noise or groundborne vibrations. The site is not near a public or private airport. 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)? 21 Rev. 07/03/02 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? a) through c) No Impact - The lot line adjustment will not induce growth or displace existing homes or people. PUBLIC SERVICES- Would the project: 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 - The lot line and land use project will not increase the demand for public services. RECREATION- Would the project: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No impact - The proposed project will not result in an increase in demand beyond that already accommodated, on recreational facilities of any kind. No additional recreational facilities, and no construction or expansion of recreational facilities will result from implementation of the proposed project. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC—Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not generate any additional vehicle trips. The impacts from the proposed project are, therefore, less than significant. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less Than Significant Impact. SANDAG acting as the County Congestion Management Agency has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The Existing and Buildout average daily traffic (ADT) and Existing LOS on these designated roads and highways in Carlsbad is: Existing ADT* LOS Buildout ADT* Rancho Santa Fe Road 17-35 "A-D" 35-56 El Camino Real 27-49 "A-C" 33-62 Palomar Airport Road 10-57 "A-D" 30-73 SR78 124-142 "F" 156-180 1-5 199-216 "D" 260-272 *The numbers are in thousands of daily trips. 22 Rev. 07/03/02 The Congestion Management Program's (CMP) acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard is "E", or LOS "F" if that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (e.g., SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS "F" in 1990). Accordingly, all designated roads and highways are currently operating at or better than the acceptable standard LOS. Note that the buildout ADT projections are based on the full implementation of the region's general and community plans. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan and, therefore, its traffic was used in modeling the buildout projections. Achievement of the CMP acceptable Level of Service (LOS) "E" standard assumes implementation of the adopted CMP strategies. Based on the design capacity(ies) of the designated roads and highways and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at acceptable level(s) of service in the short- term and at buildout. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components. It would not, therefore, result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No impact assessed. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses? No Impact. The project does not alter existing traffic facilities; and, therefore, would not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the City's general plan and zoning. Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use. No impact assessed. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The proposed project does not change emergency access. No impact assessed. 0 Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. The proposed project does not require or reduce available parking. No impact assessed. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)? No Impact. The lot line adjustment project does not conflict with any adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation. 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? 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? f) 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? a) through g) No Impact - The project will not increase demand of utility or services facilities as no new development will result from the lot line adjustment and land use changes. No impact assessed. 23 Rev. 07/03/02 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 lot line adjustment and land uses changes proposed will not significantly change the physical environment or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory as none exist within the project area. 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?) No Impact - The project will not result in the increase of population or demand of services or infrastructure to accommodate the existing residential development. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Impact - The project consists of lot line adjustments and land use designations for consistency and will not impact the existing residential development. EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008. 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994. 24 Rev. 07/03/02