Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-05-17; Planning Commission; Resolution 60951 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6095 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION 4 MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO APPROVE A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, TO GRADE AND SUBDIVIDE A 5.12-ACRE SITE INTO (29) SMALL LOTS FOR SINGLE- 6 FAMILY HOMES, (2) OPEN SPACE LOTS, AND (1) DRIVEWAY LOT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY 7 LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOWDER LANE AND POINSETTIA LANE, IN THE MELLO II 8 SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 4. CASE NAME: POINSETTIA PROPERTY 10 CASE NO.: CT 05-10/PUD 05-08/CDP 05-23/V 05-01 WHEREAS, Cottage Development Company, "Developer," has filed a verified 12 application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Eugene Boyland and 13 Shelley Thayer, "Owner," described as 14 Lot 171, of Carlsbad Tract No. 73-24, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, According to Map thereof No. 7996, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, August 2,1974 17 ("the Property"); and 18 WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with 2Q said project; and 21 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of May, 2006, hold a 22 duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 23 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony 24 and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and 25 considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors26 27 relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 28 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 2 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning 3 Commission hereby ADOPTS the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Exhibit "ND," dated May 17, 2006, according to Exhibits "NOI" dated February 7, 2006, and "PII" dated January 26, 2006, attached hereto and made a part hereof, s- based on the following findings: 5 Findings; 7 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: o a. It has reviewed, analyzed, and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration 9 POINSETTIA PROPERTY - CT 05-10/PUD 05-08/CDP 05-23/V 05-01 the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments 10 thereon prior to APPROVING the project. 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. 13 c. It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of 14 Carlsbad. d. Based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. 17 Conditions; IB 1. The applicant shall implement or cause the implementation of the Poinsettia Property Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PC RESO NO. 6095 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th day of May 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES:Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Segall, and Whitton NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Heineman ABSTAIN: MARTEETB. MONTGi CARLSBAD PLANNI ATTEST: 5YV rperson ION DONNEU Assistant Planning Director PC RESO NO. 6095 -3- City of Carlsbad Planning Department NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: CASE NO: PROJECT LOCATION: Poinsettia Property CT 05-10. CDP 05-23. PUD 05-08. and V 05-01 APN: 214-471-53, southwest corner of Lowder Lane and Poinsettia Lane PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Project consists of a Tentative Tract Map, Coastal Development Permit, Planned Development Permit, and Variance to approve twenty-nine (29) small-lot, single-family homes on a 5.12 acre site. PROPOSED DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) 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 (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of the date of this notice. The proposed project and Mitigated Negative Declaration are subject to review and approval/adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council. Additional public notices will be issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Jessica Galloway in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4631. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD February 1, 2006 through March 10. 2006 PUBLISH DATE February 7. 2006 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www!ariuat*rl§b»93ca.us ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CT 05-10. CDP 05-23. PUD 05-08. and V 05-01 DATE: January 26. 2006 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Poinsettia Property 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Jessica Galloway (760) 602-4631 4. PROJECT LOCATION: Southwest corner of Lowder Lane and Poinsettia Lane 5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: Cottage Development Company. 209 Avenida Del Mar. Ste 204. San Clemente. CA 92672 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Medium (RM: 4-8 du/ac) 7. ZONING: Residential Density Multiple (RD-M) 8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): N/A 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: The applicant is proposing a Tentative Tract Map. Coastal Development Permit, Planned Development Permit and Variance to develop twenty-nine (29) small-lot, single-family homes on a 5.12 acre site, located in the southwest corner of Lowder Lane and Poinsettia Lane. The proposed Tentative Tract Map (CT 05-10) will divide the parcel into 32 lots. Lots 1-29 are small- lot single-family home lots. Lot 30 is a recreation lot to be maintained by the Home Owners Association (HOA). Lot 31 includes the private driveways, and Lot 32 is an open space lot which will be maintained and owned by the HOA. The development is impacted by noise caused by Interstate-5. The Variance application is to allow the required 18'xl8' private rear yard to be satisfied a courtyard within the side yard setback area, which will buffer the noise from Interestate-5 and Poinsettia Lane. The project site is surrounded by single-family and multi- family residential to the east, south, and north and Interstate-5 to the west. 1 Rev. 01/11/06 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 j I Agricultural Resources I | Air Quality J Biological Resources Cultural Resources J Geology/Soils Hazards/Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Mandatory Findings of Significance I I Recreation j ) Transportation/Circulation Utilities & Service Systems Rev. 01/11/06 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) I I I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. |/\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 the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. n 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. Planning Director's Signature Date 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. 01/11/06 • 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. 01/11/06 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). I. II. III. 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 quality of the site and its surroundings? or d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - (In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model-1997 prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or 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? 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 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D n D n D D n n n n n n n n n n Rev. 01/11/06 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: 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 Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D El El D D El El El n n Rev. 01/11/06 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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 signifi- cance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi- cal 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 Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact n n D n n n n n n n n n n n Rev. 01/11/06 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? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D D D D D D D Rev. 01/11/06 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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) 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? d) 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? e) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) 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? h) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) 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? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact n n D D n n n n 10 Rev. Ol/l1/06 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? 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? 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact D El n EI EI El n 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? XII. 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? El El n n EI Rev. 01/11/06 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). c) Displace substantial numbers of people, 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? 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 Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? D El El El 12 Rev. 01/11/06 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in insufficient parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn- outs, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D D n a n 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 n n n 13 Rev. 01/11/06 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact XVII. 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? 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?) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? D D 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. 14 Rev. 01/11/06 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AESTHETICS: No Impact (a-d). The project will have not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista since the site is located in an urbanized area and will be constructed at or below the maximum 30-foot height limitation allowed in the Planned Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.45.070 of the CMC). Although the project is located in the coastal zone, the project would not obstruct any coastal views from 1-5. The project would obstruct private coastal views from the existing project to the east across this development site, the City of Carlsbad does not have a view ordinance with respect to private views. The site has been previously graded and is currently vacant and the development will not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and it's surroundings. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: No Impact (a-c). 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 residential medium density projects (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 farmland to non-agricultural uses. The site has been previously graded and is currently vacant. AIR QUALITY—Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a federal and state non-attainment area for ozone (O3), and a state non-attainment area for paniculate 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 (SANDAG). A plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state- mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other California non-attainment areas having serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by the Air Resources Board (ARE) 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? • Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions hi 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. 15 Rev. 01/11/06 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 from the project will be minimal. Although air pollutant emissions would be associated with the project, they would neither result in the violation of any air quality standard (comprising only an incremental contribution to overall air basin quality readings), nor contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. 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. The construction of the proposed project could generate fumes from the operation of construction equipment, which may be considered objectionable by some people. Such exposure would be short-term or transient. In addition, the number of people exposed to such transient impacts is not considered substantial. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: No Impact (a-f). The subject site is a previously graded infill site and there will be no impacts on biological resources. No sensitive natural habitats or wildlife species occur on-site. The subject site is designated as a "Urban Developed" area in the City's Habitat Management Plan. CULTURAL RESOURCES: No Impact (a-d). The project site does not appear on either the City of Carlsbad Cultural Resources Map or the list of archeological sites prepared by San Diego State University, 1987. The subject site is a previously graded infill site which is surrounded by urban development and there will be no impacts on cultural resources. There are no known historical, archeological, paleontological, or human remains on the project site. 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? 16 Rev. 01/11/06 iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than Significant Impact (a.i. - a.iii.) - 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 Lawson and Associates Geotechnical Consulting, Inc., dated February 25, 2005. The report indicated that secondary effects from ground shaking at the site may be considered as approximately similar to the southern California region as a whole. The report also states the potential for Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement is considered very low. iv. Landslides? No Impact. The report prepared by Lawson and Associates Geotechnical Consulting, Inc., showed no evidence of land slides on the subject site. The site is relatively flat and according to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992, the project site is in an area of stable soil conditions that are not subject to landslides. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact. Although the soils on the site are relatively prone to erosion, the site is relatively flat and erosive velocities are not expected to be obtained in site runoff. A preliminary Storm Water Management Plan for the project was prepared by Rick Enineering Company. A grading and erosion control plan will be required prior to any construction and the latest technologies will be used to eliminate the potential of soil erosion and sedimentation from the site, both during and post construction. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? No Impact. The report prepared by Lawson and Associates Geotechnical Consulting, Inc., showed no evidence of land sliding on the subject site. The report also states the potential for Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement is considered very low. Ground rupture is not expected due to an abscense of known active fault traces. The subject site, as well as surrounding sites, is relatively flat and according to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992, the project site is in an area of stable soil conditions that are not subject to landslides. d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? No Impact. The report prepared by Lawson and Associates Geotechnical Consulting, Inc., included laboratory test results of soil samples taken from the site. These results showed the onsite soils are generally very low in expansion potential. 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. Sewers are available to the subject site and the project will be served by a public wastewater system. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS No Impact (a-h). The proposed residential development does not propose any transportation or storage of hazardous materials. Therefore, there is no potential of a significant hazard associated with the project from accidents involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment, or from the emission of hazardous substances within the proximity of a school. The project site is not included on any known list of hazardous materials sites. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan. While the project site is located approximately 2 miles from the McClellan-Palomar Airport (public general aviation airport), the project site is not located with 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 17 Rev. 01/11/06 by urban development which is adequately served by emergency services. There are no wildlands adjacent to the site that could expose people to significant risk from wildland fires. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? No Impact. An erosion control plan and storm water management plan will be prepared prior to construction of the project. These plans will ensure acceptable water quality standards will be maintained both during the construction phase as well as post-development. 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)? No Impact. This project does not propose to directly draw any groundwater. The project will be served via existing public water distribution lines adjacent to the site. c) 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? Less than significant impact. The Preliminary Drainage Study prepared by Rick Engineering Company, dated January 20, 2005, indicates that drainage patterns will not be altered significantly. Runoff currently sheet flows westward to an existing storm drain system which crosses the 1-5 freeway (Caltrans right-of-way). Overall, drainage will continue to flow westward and will be collected by an onsite private storm drain system which will connect to the existing stormdrain system within the Caltrans right-of-way. The report indicates that the existing system is capable of accepting the additional flows created from the development during a 100-year storm event. Erosion and siltation will be controlled both during construction and post-construction, via surface flow, to a series of private inlets/catch basins. d) 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? Less than significant impact. The Preliminary Drainage Study prepared by Rick Engineering Company, dated January 20, 2005 shows the site will have a peak post-development increase in storm water runoff of 13.64 CFS during a 100-year, six-hour storm event. The results of the study indicate that the existing storm drain system within the Caltrans right-of-way will be adequate to convey runoff away from the subject property. e) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less than significant 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. The Preliminary Drainage Study prepared by Rick Engineering Company shows that the 24-inch and 36-inch storm drains accepting the increased runoff are more than capable of accommodating the additional flow therefore runoff from this site will not have a significant impact on the stormwater system. The project does not propose uses that cause a substantial, additional source of polluted runoff. The completed project will incorporate biofilters and drainage inserts, which are structural BMPs. The filtration system and drainage inserts are flow based BMPs and have been sized for the project to meet the requirements of the Storm Water Standards. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? No Impact. The proposed project will not substantially degrade water quality of adjacent receiving waters. The completed project will incorporate biofilters and drainage inserts, which are structural BMPs. The filtration system and drainage inserts are flow based BMPs and have been sized for the project to meet the requirements of the Storm Water Standards. 18 Rev. 01/11/06 g) 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? h) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact (g and h) - The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according to the Flood Insurance Rate Map. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in the placement of housing or structures and within a 100-year flood hazard area. i) 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? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact (i and j) - 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, tsunami or mudflow. LAND USE AND PLANNING No Impact (a-c). The project is a residential development consistent with the surrounding uses. The site does not physically divide an established community. The proposed project does not conflict with any existing or proposed land use plans or policies of the City of Carlsbad. The project is consistent with the City of Carlsbad General Plan. The General Plan Land Use designation is Residential Medium (RM), which anticipates medium density residential development (4 to 8 du/ac). The project is providing 29 dwelling units that will yield 5.66 du/ac, within the anticipated range. The property is located in the Mello I Segment of the City's Local Coastal Program and is subject to the requirements of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone. The project will be conditioned to comply with all applicable coastal zone policies, including, and the project will be conditioned to adhere to the City's Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan and Grading Ordinance to avoid increased runoff and soil erosion. 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 Habitat Management Plan MINERAL RESOURCES No Impact (a-b). According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992, the project site does not contain any mineral resources. The Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, prepared by Lawson and associates, dated February 25, 2005, did not identify any mineral resources on site. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or mineral resource recovery site. NOISE -Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. An Acoustical Analysis report was prepared for the proposed project by Investigative Science and Engineering Inc., dated April 26, 2005, which indicates that the project site will be subject to a traffic noise level of 78.7 dBA CNEL at the western property boundary. Traffic noise levels were found to impact the required private recreation area for lots 1-14. As a result, a mitigation measure has been included to require sound attenuation walls and relocation of the private recreation areas to the side yards in order to reduce the exterior noise levels to below 60 dBA CNEL. The project will require the approval of a Variance to locate the private recreation areas within the side yards. Traffic noise impacts to units 1-14 could also exceed the City's maximum interior noise levels of 45 dBA CNEL. The report indicates that noise mitigation for the interior space is feasible and attainable through special design considerations (i.e. mechanical ventilation and specialized door and window treatments). Therefore, a mitigation measure has been included to require the following: "prior to issuance of a building permit, a supplemental exterior-to-interior acoustical noise attenuation analysis will be required to ensure that the construction plans have been designed so that interior noise levels are mitigated to 45 dBA CNEL or less." With the inclusion of the two above noted mitigation measures, all potential noise impacts have been reduced to below a level of significance. 19 Rev. 01/11/06 b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? 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? d) 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 and 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 development of the project. The City incorporates standard regulations on all project construction activity to ensure that noise and other potential impacts to surrounding properties are not significant. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in a substantial 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? 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? No Impact (e and f) - The project site is located approximately 2 miles from the McClellan-Palomar Airport. However, the site is not located within an area impacted by excessive noise levels generated by the airport. The site is not located near any other public or private airport. Therefore, the proposed project will not expose people to excessive noise levels generated from an airport. POPULATION AND HOUSING No Impact (a-c). The area surrounding the proposed development is designated for residential development and was analyzed in the City's Growth Management Plan accordingly. The proposed development's density is consistent with the City of Carlsbad General Plan. The GP Land Use designation is RM, which anticipates medium density residential development (4 to 8 du/ac). The project is providing 29 dwelling units that will yield 5.66 du/ac, within the anticipated range. No major infrastructure facilities are proposed for extension to serve the project. In addition, the project site is currently vacant, therefore no existing housing or people will be displaced due to the development of the site. PUBLIC SERVICES—Would the project: No Impact. The proposed project is in compliance with the City of Carlsbad's Growth Management Plan and is not exceeding the population projections anticipated for the site or the northwest quadrant. As a result the project will have no impacts on 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? No Impact. The proposed project will not generate uses that would substantially cause physical deterioration to a regional or existing neighborhood park. In addition, the project is providing a common recreation area. The central common recreation area is 6,018 square feet and includes a tot-lot. 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? 20 Rev. 01/11/06 No Impact. The grading and construction of the proposed common recreation area is developed within the scope of project grading and will not have an adverse effect on the environment. The proposed recreation area will serve the recreation needs of the development. 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. A traffic report, dated November 1, 2005, was completed for this project by LOS Engineering, Inc. The project will generate 290 Average Daily Trips (ADT) and 23 AM and 29 PM peak hour trips. This traffic will utilize the following roadways: Paseo Del Norte (secondary arterial), Sumac Lane (not classified) and Poinsettia Lane (major arterial). Per the traffic report, existing traffic counts on Paseo Del Norte and Sumac Lane and on Poinsettia Lane from 1-5 to Paseo Del Norte were collected by LOS Engineering in 2005. ADT on Poinsettia Lane from Paseo Del Norte to Batiquitos Drive was derived from the 2004 Traffic Monitoring Program (City of Carlsbad). Poinsettia Lane from 1-5 to Paseo Del Norte has an ADT of 35,000 and between Paseo Del Norte and Batiquitos Lagoon approximately 24,000 ADT. The design capacity of Poinsettia Lane adjacent to the proposed project is 20,000-40,000 vehicles per day. The project traffic would represent approximately 1% of the existing traffic volume and 0.07% of the design capacity. While the increase in traffic from the proposed project may be slightly noticeable, the street system has been designed and sized to accommodate traffic from the project and cumulative development in the City of Carlsbad. The proposed project would not, therefore, cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. In addition, a queuing analysis was completed and the report concluded that additional project queuing of the left turn lane from Paseo Del Norte onto Poinsettia Lane would not block the proposed project driveways or the Sea Cliff development entrance at Sumac Lane. 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. 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? 21 Rev. 01/11/06 No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the McClellan-Palomar Airport. It would not, therefore, result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No impact assessed. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses? No Impact. All project circulation improvements will be designed and constructed to City standards; and, therefore, would not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the City's general plan and zoning. Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use. No impact assessed. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and Police Departments. No impact assessed. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. The proposed project is not requesting a parking variance. Additionally, the project would comply with the City's parking requirements to ensure an adequate parking supply. No impact assessed. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)? No Impact. The project has access to bus stops along Poinsettia Lane which can be accessed by pedestrians. These bus routes provide direct access to the Poinsettia Coaster Station. Single family residential projects are not required to provide bike racks. The proposed project does not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS No Impact (a-g) - The proposed residential development will be required to comply with all Regional Water Quality Control Board Requirements. In addition, the Zone 4 LFMP anticipated that the project site would be developed with a residential use and wastewater treatment facilities were planned and designed to accommodate 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 project will increase the demand for these facilities. However, the proposed 29 units would not result in an overall increase in the City's growth projection in the SW quadrant. Therefore, the project will not result in development that will result in a significant need to expand or construct new water facility supplies, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage facilities. Existing waste disposal services are adequate to serve the proposed subdivision without exceeding landfill capacity. In addition, the proposed development will be required to comply with all federal, state, and local statues 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 project will not degrade the quality of the environment. The project site does not contain any sensitive fish or wildlife species. Therefore, the project will not reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species. The project site is vacant and disturbed, currently undeveloped, and is surrounded by existing residential development and a transportation corridor. The site is not identified by any habitat conservation plan as containing a protected, rare or endangered plant or animal community. The project will not threaten 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. 22 Rev. 01/11/06 b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) Less Than Significant Impact. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projects regional growth for the greater San Diego area, and local general plan land use policies are incorporated into SANDAG projections. Based upon those projections, region-wide standards, including storm water quality control, air quality standards, habitat conservation, congestion management standards, etc., are established to reduce the cumulative impacts of development in the region. All of the City's development standards and regulations are consistent with the region wide standards. The City's standards and regulations, including grading standards, water quality and drainage standard, traffic standards, habitat and cultural resource protection regulations, and public facility standards, ensure that development within the City will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact. There are two regional issues that development within the City of Carlsbad has the potential to have a cumulatively considerable impact on. Those issues are air quality and regional circulation. As described above, the project would contribute to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the development is implemented. The County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The CMA had 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 impacts from the project to the regional circulation system are less than significant. With regard to any other potential impacts associated with the project, City standards and regulations will ensure that development of the site will not result in any significant cumulatively considerable impacts. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less than Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated - Based upon the residential nature of the project and the fact that future development of the site will comply with City standards, the project will not result in any direct or indirect substantial adverse environmental effects on human beings. However, the project site is located in an area where human beings could be exposed to significantly high noise levels generated from traffic on the adjacent freeway and roadways. As discussed above, any potential impact from noise can be mitigated to a level less than significant. Those identified mitigation measures will be incorporated as conditions of project approval. 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. 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. Acoustical Site Assessment. Poinsettia Property Residential Development, Carlsbad, CA, Project #05-016", prepared by Investigative Science and Engineering, Inc., dated April 26, 2005. 2. City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study. November 1992. 3. City of Carlsbad Cultural Resources Map and the list of archeological sites prepared by San Diego State University, 1987. 4. Drainage Study for Tentative Map of 29-Lot Subdivision In Carlsbad. California. Job No. 14826 prepared by Rick Engineering Company, dated January 20, 2005. 5. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994. 23 Rev. 01/11/06 6. Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad. City of Carlsbad, November 2004. 7. Traffic Impact Analysis. Poinsettia Property (CT 05-10) City of Carlsbad Southwest Corner of Poinsettia Lane/Paseo Del Norte, prepared by LOS Engineering, Inc., in cooperation with Investigative Science, Inc., dated November 1, 2005. 8. Storm Water Management Plan. Poinsettia Lane City of Carlsbad, California, Job No. 14826, prepared by Rick Engineering Company, dated May 20, 2005. 9. Water Quality Technical Report for Tentative of 29-Lot Subdivision in Carlsbad California. Job No. 14826. prepared by Rick engineering Company, dated May 20, 2005. 10. Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, prepared by Lawson and Associates Geotechnical Consulting, Inc., dated February 25, 2005. 24 Rev. 01/11/06 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES 1. Prior to the issuance of building permits for future homes, the project landscape plans shall indicate a 6-foot tall solid, decorative masonry, sound attenuating barrier extending along the north property lines of lots 1-6 and along the western property lines of lots 6-14. In addition, the building plans shall indicate that the homes have been design such that the private recreation areas will be accommodated in the side yard, to reduce exterior noise levels to below 60 dBA CNEL. 2. Prior to the issuance of building permits for future homes, the project shall complete an interior noise analysis, compliant with the CCR, Title 24, Noise Insulation Standards, to demonstrate that the proposed architectural design would limit interior noise to 45 dBA CNEL or less. 3. Prior to the recordation of the Final Map, the developer shall prepare and record a notice that this property may be subject to noise impacts from Interstate-5 and Poinsettia Lane, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney. 4. Prior to the recordation of the Final Map, the developer shall prepare and record a notice that this property is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating from McClellan-Palomar Airport, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney. 25 Rev. 01/11/06 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date 26 Rev. 01/11/06 Page 1 of 2 PROJECT NAME: Poinsettia Property FILE NUMBERS: CT 05-10. CDP 05-23. PUD 05-08. and V 05-01 APPROVAL DATE: January 26. 2006 The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). Mitigation Measure Monitoring Type Monitoring Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementatio n Remarks 1. Prior to the issuance of building permits for future homes, the project landscape plans shall indicate a 6-foot tall solid, decorative masonry, sound attenuating barrier extending along the north property lines of lots 1-6 and along the western property lines of lots 6-14. In addition, the building plans shall indicate that the homes have been design such that the private recreation areas will be accommodated in the side yard, to reduce exterior noise levels to below 60 dBA CNEL. Project Planning Department 2. Prior to the issuance of building permits for future homes, the project shall complete an interior noise analysis, compliant with the CCR, Title 24, Noise Insulation Standards, to demonstrate that the proposed architectural design would limit interior noise to 45 dBA CNEL or less. Project Planning Department Prior to the recordation of the Final Map, the developer shall prepare and record a notice that this property may be subject to noise impacts from lnterstate-5 and Poinsettia Lane, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney. Project Planning Department Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. information. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other RD - Appendix P. Page 2 of 2 ---, '•'•' Mitigation Measure ;: '• •'^Y-',^-; '•• ' • . '• ';'-'; ••-.•'•'".'' ' " ' ' -O-, : •'" '"•" " ' . • ' '">• - 4. Prior to the recordation of the Final Map, the developer shall prepare and record a notice that this property is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating from McClellan-Palomar Airport, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney. Monitoring • "''~%$$:. Project : Monitoring! Department Planning Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementatio n Remarks Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. information. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other RD - Appendix P. City of Carlsbad Planning Department MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: CASE NO: PROJECT LOCATION: Poinsettia Property CT 05-10. CDP 05-23. PUD 05-08. and V 05-01 APN: 214-471-53, southwest corner of Lowder Lane and Poinsettia Lane PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Project consists of a Tentative Tract Map, Coastal Development Permit, Planned Development Permit, and Variance to approve twenty-nine (29) small-lot, single- family homes on a 5.12 acre site. DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows: I I 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. [XI 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. (Mitigated Negative Declaration applies only to the effects that remained to be addressed). I | Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. ADOPTED: ATTE 6, pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 6095 MA&CELA ESCOBAR-ECK Planning Director 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us