HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-06-04; Planning Commission; Resolution 64241 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6424
2
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO DEMOLISH A
4 35 BED SENIOR ASSISTED CARE FACILITY AND DEVELOP
A 50 UNIT SENIOR CONDOMINIUM BUILDING WITH
UNDERGROUND PARKING ON .9 ACRES ON PROPERTY
6 GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF PALM AVENUE AND
EAST OF HARDING STREET IN LOCAL FACILITIES
7 MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: HARDING STREET SENIOR
8 CONDOMINIUMS
9 CASE NO.: CT 06-14/CP 06-12/SDP 06-12
10 WHEREAS, Paragon Investment, LLC, "Developer and Owner," has filed a
11 verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
12 All of Lot 5 and Lot 6 and the northerly 4.85 feet of Lot 4 in
13 Block "B" of the resubdivision of a portion of Alles Avocado
Acres, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
14 California, according to map thereof No. 2027, filed in the
Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, May 17,
15 1927, and;
That part of that portion of Lots 7 and 8 in Block "B" of the
resubdivision of a portion of Alles Avocado Acres as shown on
17 map No. 2027, filed in the Office of the County recorder of San
Diego County, May 17, 1972, as said portion was conveyed to
18 the State of California, by deed recorded January 6, 1967 as
file No. 1884 of official records of San Diego County.
2Q ("the Property"); and
21
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with
22
said project; and
24 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on June 4, 2008, hold a duly noticed
25 public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
26 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
27 and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
28
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
2 Commission as follows:
3
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.4
<- B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby ADOPTS the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Exhibit
6 "MND," according to Exhibits "NOI", and "PIT, attached hereto and made a part
hereof, based on the following findings:
7
Findings:8
o 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
10 a. it has reviewed, analyzed, and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration
prepared for the Harding Street Senior Condominiums and the environmental
impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to
APPROVING the proj ect; and
13 b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines
14 and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
1, Carlsbad; and
17 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.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PC RESO NO. 6424 -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 June 4, 2008, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: Commissioners Baker, Boddy, Cardosa, Douglas, and Chairperson
Whitton.
NOES: Commissioner Dominguez
ABSENT: Commissioner Montgomery
ABSTAIN:
FRANK H. WHITTON, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
DON NEU
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 6424 -3-
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME: Harding Street Senior Condominiums
CASE NO: CT 06-14/CP Q6-12/SDP 06-12
PROJECT LOCATION: South of Palm Avenue and east of Harding Street, City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project is the demolition of an existing 35 bed senior care
facility and the construction of a 50-unit age-restricted senior condominium project. The
proposed project is one three-story building over an underground garage on a 0.9 acre property.
The project also includes a request for a residential density increase equal to 55.50 dwelling units
per acre, a modification to the onsite parking standards to allow 10 required onsite spaces to be
located on-street, a modification to the building setback standard to allow for the encroachment
of the upper 4 feet of the garage into portions of the side and rear setback areas, and a
modification to the private open space standard to permit 20 residential units to be constructed
without a private balcony or patio.
PROPOSED DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental
review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of
Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially
significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made
by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are
released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly
no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in
light of the whole record before the City that the project "as revised" may have a significant
effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be recommended
for adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission.
A copy of the initial study (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 20 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. Additional public notices will
be issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call
Christer Westman in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4614.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD April 4, 2008 through April 24, 2008
PUBLISH DATE April 4, 2008
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - INITIAL STUDY
CASE NO: CT 06-14/CP 06-12/SDP 06-12
DATE: March 13. 2008
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Harding Street Senior Condominiums
2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad
3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Christer Westman
4. PROJECT LOCATION: south east corner of Harding Street and Palm Avenue
5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: Paragon Investment. LLC. 3574 Harding
Street. Carlsbad. CA 92008
6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Medium (RM)
7. ZONING: Multiple-Family Residential (R-3)
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:
Demolition of an existing 35 bed senior care facility and construction of a 50-unit age-restricted
senior condominium project. The project includes one three-story building over an underground
garage on a 0.9 acre property. The project also includes a request for a residential density
increase equal to 55.50 dwelling units per acre, a modification to the onsite parking standards to
allow 10 required onsite spaces to be located on-street, a modification to the building setback
standard to allow for the encroachment of the upper 4 feet of the garage into portions of the side
and rear setback areas, and a modification to the private open space standard to permit 20
residential units to be constructed without a private balcony or patio. The project is generally
located within a developed neighborhood south of Palm Avenue, west of and adjacent to the 1-5
freeway, and east of Harding Street in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. To the north are
both single family homes and apartments as well as Pine Street Park and the Harding Senior
Center. To the south and west are predominantly single family homes.
r rCi 06-14/CP 06-12/SDP 06-12
HARDING STREET SENIOR CONDOMINIUMS
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 below checklist and on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Agricultural Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology/Soils
Hazards/Hazardous Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Mineral Resources
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
X Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Circulation
Utilities & Service Systems
Rev. 11/02/07
Ci 06-14/CP 06-12/SDP 06-12
HARDING STREET SENIOR CONDOMINIUMS
DETERMINATION
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have
been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis
as described on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects
that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed"
adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required.
Date
Planning Director's Signature Date
Rev. 11/02/07
c
Ci 06-14/CP06-12/SDP06-12
HARDING STREET SENIOR CONDOMINIUMS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) 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-Initial Study", 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.
• 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-Initial Study analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse
Rev. 11/02/07
C i 06-14/CP 06-12/SDP 06-12
HARDING STREET SENIOR CONDOMINIUMS
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 after each related set of questions.
Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined
significant.
Rev. 11/02/07
Ci 06-14/CP06-12/SDP06-12
HARDING STREET SENIOR CONDOMINIUMS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
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?
a-d) No Impact. The site is located within an already developed neighborhood of single-family and multi-family
one and two-story structures. Structures range in age and architectural style. The site is located west and adjacent to
the 1-5 freeway which is 22 feet above the project site. The redevelopment of the property will result in a larger but
more modern and visually appealing structure. Lighting associated with the development of the site is at a level
consistent with residential structures. There are no significant views or scenic vistas of or through the property.
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
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?
a-c) No Impact. The site is currently developed with an assisted care facility for seniors. The site is not and has
not been used for agricultural production and is not listed as a property that is Farmland of Statewide Importance.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Rev. 11/02/07
Ci 06-14/CP 06-12/SDP 06-12
HARDING STREET SENIOR CONDOMINIUMS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
III. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied
upon to make the following determinations.) Would the
project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
a) No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a state non-attainment area for ozone
(O3) and for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PMi0). The periodic violations of
national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in
inland foothill areas, -requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to
improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality
Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San Diego Association of
Governments (SANDAG).
A Plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state-
mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other California non-attainment areas having
serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by
the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November 9th through 10th in 1994, and was forwarded to
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly
regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996.
The proposed project relates to the SIP and/or RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that are
incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city's and the
County's general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the project
presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that
the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact. While this 50 unit project is 44 more residential
units than would typically be expected in the Residential Medium Density General Plan Land Use designation, the
increased density will not create a conflict with the RAQs in that the project is located in an urban area where mass
transit transportation alternatives are readily available and where service uses are in close proximity to prospective
senior residents, thereby minimizing potential vehicle trips and resultant air pollutants associated with vehicle
emissions.
Section 15125(B) of the State of California Environmental 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
Rev. 11/02/07
C i 06-14/CP 06-12/SDP 06-12
HARDING STREET SENIOR CONDOMINIUMS
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 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 regional air quality plan and will in no way conflict or obstruct
implementation of the regional plan.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is at Camp
Pendleton. Data available for this monitoring site from 2000 through December, 2004, indicate that the most recent
air quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (a total of 10 days during the 5-year
period). No other violations of any air quality standards have been recorded during the 5-year time period. 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) Less Than Significant Impact. The air basin is currently in a State 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) Less Than Significant Impact. As noted above, the proposed 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. The project is located immediately adjacent to the 1-5, however, it includes mechanical
ventilation for all units and therefore provides some protection from excessive exposure to vehicle emissions. Any
impact is assessed as less than significant.
e) 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.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
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?
Rev. 11/02/07
Ci 06-14/CP 06-12/SDP 06-12
HARDING STREET SENIOR CONDOMINIUMS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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,
filling, 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?
a-f) No Impact. The site is located within a developed neighborhood of single-family and multi-family structures.
The project site is fully developed with a 35 bed senior care facility. There are no 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 onsite or within the adjoining properties. There is no 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 onsite. There are no
federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act on the property. The property is not
known to be subject to the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or be within
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or contain native wildlife nursery sites. Since the property
is devoid of animal or plant species that could be considered as sensitive or protected, the development of the site
will not conflict with the provisions of the City's adopted Habitat Management Plan.
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 pale
ontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
• Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Rev. 11/02/07
Ci 06-14/CP 06-12/SDP 06-12
HARDING STREET SENIOR CONDOMINIUMS
a-d) No Impact. The project site has been previously excavated and graded for the development of an existing 35
bed senior care facility. There are no known historical resources, archeological resources, paleontological resources,
or human remains on-site.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
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?
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?
a.i.-a.iii.) Less than Significant Impact. A geotechnical investigation of the project site was prepared by
Geosoils, Inc. (May 12, 2006) to provide subsurface information and geotechnical recommendations specific to the
proposed site. According to this report, the subject site is not located within any Earthquake Fault Zones as created
by the Alquist-Priolo Act, nor are there any known major or active faults on or in the immediate vicinity of the site.
Because of the lack of known active faults on the site, the potential for surface rupture at the site is considered low.
The main seismic hazard that may affect the site is ground shaking from one of the active regional faults, with the
nearest known active fault being the Rose Canyon Fault Zone located 6.9 miles west of the site. Based on on-site
soils, risk of seismic-related ground failure or liquefaction is very minimal.
a.-a.iv.) No Impact. The topography of the site is flat with elevations ranging from approximately 64 feet above
mean sea level (msl) in the southeast portion of the site to approximately 62 feet msl at the northwest corner of the
site. The geotechnical report prepared by Geosoils, Inc. (May 12, 2006) reports that there is no evidence of ancient
landslides existing on the subject site. However, the study discovered undocumented fill which will be removed and
re-compacted; soils are anticipated to be very low in expansion potential; the eastern slope constructed for the
freeway should be shored; perched water was discovered 12 feet below existing grade and will require shoring and
10 Rev. 11/02/07
Ci 06-14/CP06-12/SDP06-12
HARDING STREET SENIOR CONDOMINIUMS
dewatering for construction of the underground garage; and no adverse geologic structures (active faults, significant
landslides, etc.) were encountered.
b) No Impact. The topography of the site is flat with elevations ranging from approximately 64 feet above mean
sea level (msl) in the southeast portion of the site to approximately 62 feet msl at the northwest corner of the site.
Regardless, the project's compliance with standards in the City's Excavation and Grading Ordinance that prevent
erosion through pad and slope planting and installation of temporary erosion control means will avoid substantial
soil erosion impacts.
c) Less than Significant Impact. See Section a.i to a.iii above.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. A geotechnical investigation of the project site was prepared by Geosoils, Inc.
(May 12, 2006) to provide subsurface information and geotechnical recommendations specific to the proposed site.
The study discovered undocumented fill which will be removed and re-compacted; soils are anticipated to be very
low in expansion potential; the eastern slope constructed for the freeway should be shored; perched water was
discovered 12 feet below existing grade and will require shoring and dewatering for construction of the underground
garage; and no adverse geologic structures (active faults, significant landslides, etc.) were encountered.
e) No Impact. The proposed project does not propose septic tanks and will utilize the public sewer system.
Therefore, there will be no impacts involving soils that support the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems.
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
11 Rev. 11/02/07
Ci 06-14/CP 06-12/SDP 06-12
HARDING STREET SENIOR CONDOMINIUMS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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-h) No Impact. The project is a condominium building restricted to ownership by seniors. Other than common
household hazardous materials like household cleaners, paint, and glues, etc. there will not be a significant presence
of hazardous materials. Therefore the project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; create a significant hazard to the public or
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment; emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The project site is not 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 not create a significant hazard to the public or environment. The project site is not within the airport
influence area of the McCIellan Palomar Airport, or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The
property is not within close proximity of a private airstrip. An emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan has not been adopted for the area surrounding the project site. The site is not adjacent or near an area 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?
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
12 Rev. 11/02/07
Ci 06-14/CP 06-12/SDP 06-12
HARDING STREET SENIOR CONDOMINIUMS
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
E
k) Increase erosion (sediment) into receiving surface
waters.
1) Increase 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?
m) Change receiving water quality (marine, fresh or
wetland waters) during or following construction?
n) Increase any pollutant to an already impaired water
body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d)
list?
o) Increase impervious surfaces and associated runoff?
p) Impact aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat?
q) Result in the excedance of applicable surface or
groundwater receiving water quality objectives or
degradation of beneficial uses?
a) No Impact. The subject property is required by law to comply with all federal, state and local water quality
regulations, including the Clean Water Act, California Administrative Code Title 23, and specific basin plan
objectives identified in the "Water Quality Control Plan for San Diego Basin." (WQCP) The WQCP contains
specific objectives for the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit which includes the requirement to comply with National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs). The project
must also obtain a NPDES permit prior to construction. The permit will require the project to develop and
implement specific erosion control and storm water pollution prevention plans to protect downstream water quality.
These plans will ensure acceptable water quality standards will be maintained both during the construction phase as
well as post-development.
b) 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-d) No Impact. The Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) prepared by Conway and Associates
(November 8, 2007), indicates that the site has been designed to mimic historic runoff patterns. Existing drainage
generally surface flows from the site to Harding Street and is intercepted by existing curb inlets. The post
development pattern will also be to Harding Street.
13 Rev. 11/02/07
C'l 06-14/CP06-12/SDP06-12
HARDING STREET SENIOR CONDOMINIUMS
e) No Impact. Estimated pre and post flows for the 100 year storm were computed for the project site. The peak
pre-development storm water runoff rate was computed at 1.9 cfs and post -development at 2.9 cfs. The minor
increase will not substantially alter the existing drainage patterns of the site or area, or create or contribute runoff
water which would exceed the capacity of the existing stormwater drainage system, nor does the project propose
uses that cause a substantial, additional source of polluted runoff.
f) No Impact. Construction of the proposed project improvements is required by law to comply with all federal,
state and local water quality regulations, including the Clean Water Act and associated NPDES regulations. As
mentioned above, the project includes a Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan and temporary impacts
associated with the construction operation have been incorporated into the plan resulting in no impact.
g-j) No Impact. The project site is not located within the 100-year flood hazard area, and based on the distance
between the site and large, open bodies of water, and given the elevation of the site with respect to sea level (64 to
62 feet above mean sea level), the possibility of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow is considered to be low.
k) No Impact. The construction phase of the project could result in increased erosion. However, as a result of the
NPDES permit requirements associated with the proposed project, no significant increase in erosion (sediment) into
receiving surface waters will result from the project. Standard construction water control methods will be
implemented including a stabilized construction entrance; storm inlet protection; material delivery and storage
specifications; concrete waste management specifications; and sanitary waste specifications. Standard conditions
require compliance with NPDES sediment control requirements during the construction phase and implementation
of the post construction BMPs for the project
1-m) No Impact. The Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) indicates that the project shall be
designed to remove pollutants of concern through storm water conveyance systems to the maximum extent
practicable (MEP) through the incorporation of treatment control BMPs. As proposed, subject to compliance with
the proposed BMPs, the project will not result in the increase of pollutants into downstream waters, and no receiving
water quality will be adversely affected through implementation of the proposed project. Post construction BMPs
will further ensure that the project does not change the receiving water quality following construction activities.
n) No Impact. The project does not drain to an impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section
303(d) list.
o) No Impact. The net increase in impervious surface from the existing development of a 35 bed senior care
facility to a 50 unit condominium project is not significant. The associated runoff increases discussed in paragraph
"e" above are minor and less than significant.
p) No Impact. Runoff from the proposed project will not impact aquatic, wetland or riparian habitats, as none of
these habitats exist on site or in the vicinity of the site.
q) No Impact. The project will not result in the excedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water
quality objectives or degradation of beneficial use. Please refer to the preceding responses.
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
Potentially Unless
Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
X
14 Rev. 11/02/07
Cr 06-14/CP 06-12/SDP 06-12
HARDING STREET SENIOR CONDOMINIUMS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
a) No Impact. The project site is a single parcel of land of less than one acre. Given the project's location and
size, it is clear that it will not divide an established community. However, the project is proposed at a density that is
higher than established by the General Plan Land Use designation. The City recognizes the need for housing
affordable to lower-income families and that in order to achieve affordability that density must often be increased to
offset the cost of producing that housing. Residential Implementing Policy and Action Program C2 of the Housing
Element states that density increases may be allowed for the purpose of providing affordable housing and shall be
evaluated on an individual project basis. The project complies with the Policy since 15 units (30% of the total
project) are designated and deed restricted as available only to lower income households. In addition to the
provision of this high number of income restricted housing units onsite, the property is well situated to serve the
needs of seniors and income restricted households in that it is near public transportation, a large public open
space/recreation area, the Carlsbad Village, and Harding Senior Center.
b) No Impact. There is no applicable land use plan, policy, regulation, or habitat conservation plan which includes
this property that is adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
c) No Impact. The project is not subject to the habitat preservation and mitigation measures of the Carlsbad
Habitat Management Plan.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
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?
a-b) No Impact. There is no indication that the subject property contains any known mineral resources that would
be of future value to the region or the residents of the State.
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
15 Rev. 11/02/07
Ci 06-14/CP06-12/SDP06-12
HARDING STREET SENIOR CONDOMINIUMS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
a) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. An acoustical analysis for the proposed project was
prepared by Eilar Associates, Inc., dated July 13, 2007, to determine compatibility with the City of Carlsbad Noise
Guidelines Manual. The report found that the primary noise source in the vicinity of the site is the adjacent
Interstate freeway, 1-5. The calculated on-site vehicle traffic noise level measured at approximately 50 feet east of
the center line of Harding Street is 71 dB(A) CNEL. The design of the buildings will be required to provide a noise
reduction of 26 dB in order to comply with the interior CNEL standard of 45 dB(A), and a noise reduction of 11 dB
is required in order to comply with the City's exterior standard of 60 dB(A). The report indicates that conventional
residential building construction, such as that being used at the project site and the provision of mechanical
ventilation such as air- conditioning so that windows and doors can be closed will provide the necessary mitigation.
The project is required o provide air conditioning for each if the units. Noise barriers will be provided for the
private exterior patio and balcony spaces to achieve 60 dB(A) CNEL to the greatest extent feasible without fully
enclosing the space. Through implementation of the recommendations outlined in the acoustical analysis, the
project will comply with the City noise standards, and impacts as a result of noise will be less than significant.
b and d)Less than Significant Impact. The anticipated grading operation associated with the development of the
proposed project would result in a temporary and minor increase in groundborne vibration and ambient noise levels.
Following the conclusion of the grading, the ambient noise level and vibrations are expected to return to pre-existing
levels.
e, c and f) No Impact. The project will not generate a substantial increase in noise levels above what exist at the
site. The project will replace a commercial residential facility with a condominium ownership project. The project
is not located within two miles of a public airport or within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
16 Rev. 11/02/07
Ci 06-14/CP06-12/SDP06-12
HARDING STREET SENIOR CONDOMINIUMS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
a) No Impact. The project will result in an increase in the number of housing units onsite. However, the increased
density on this individual site will not have a growth inducing effect on the area. Individual properties in the area
are already developed and the potential for growth through redevelopment of those properties already exists and is
not dependant on the project to be a catalyst.
b-c) No Impact. The property is currently developed as a commercial building providing assisted care to senior
citizens. The project will create new ownership housing opportunities for seniors where there did not exist
possibilities before.
XIH. 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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
a.i.-a.v.) No Impact. The proposed project will not effect the provision and/or availability of public facilities (i.e.,
fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, etc.). The proposed project shall be subject to the conditions and
facility service level requirements within the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1, therefore no significant
public service impacts will occur.
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
XIV. RECREATION
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
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?
17 Rev. 11/02/07
Ci U6-14/CP06-12/SDP06-12
HARDING STREET SENIOR CONDOMINIUMS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
a-b) No Impact. The project is a residential condominium development age restricted to seniors. The need for
active recreation facilities for senior citizens is very low. The need for the expansion of recreation facilities
generated by the proposed project is non-existent. A community park and senior center are located two blocks to the
north of the project site and are of a size that can accommodate the needs of the future project residents.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
^
Kl
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) 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)?
The site is currently occupied by an assisted living facility with 35 beds. The project will replace the existing
facility with a 50 unit for-sale condominium project. Pursuant to the Draft Traffic Impact Study prepared by LOS
Engineering (May 7, 2007) the project will result in a net increase of 112 ADT with 10 am peak hour trips and 14
pm peak hour trips. The net increase is not-considered significant and will not have an affect on the operation levels
of the existing surrounding street system.
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will generate 200 Average Daily Trips (ADT) and between 10 and
14 peak hour trips. This traffic will use Harding Street. The existing northbound traffic from the project site on
Harding Street is approximately 5,200 ADT and southbound from the project site is 2,900 ADT. Traffic flows north
and south to the signalized intersections with Carlsbad Village Drive and Tamarack Avenue respectively. The peak
design capacity of Harding Street affected by the proposed project is 1,800 ADT vehicles per day. Current peak
volumes range between 128 (northbound P.M.) and 236 ADT (southbound P.M.). The project's greatest increase in
peak hour trips is 3 ADT in the A.M. northbound from the project site to Carlsbad Village Drive. The 3 ADT at peak
X
X
18 Rev. 11/02/07
Ci U6-14/CP06-12/SDP06-12
HARDING STREET SENIOR CONDOMINIUMS
hour would represent about 1.5% of the total peak hour traffic volume (existing plus the project). While the increase
in traffic from the proposed project may be slightly noticeable on Palm Avenue, both Palm Avenue and the larger
street system has been designed and sized to accommodate traffic from the project and cumulative development in
the City of Carlsbad. The proposed project would not, therefore, cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. The impacts from the proposed project are,
therefore, less than significant.
b) 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 APT* 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) 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) 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 an allowed use pursuant to the City's General
Plan and Zoning. Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use. No impact assessed.
e) No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and
Police Departments. No impact assessed.
f) Less than Significant. The proposed project includes a modification to the onsite parking standards to allow 10
required onsite spaces to be located on-street. The modification, as allowed by Section 21.53.120 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code for affordable housing projects however will not result in a significant parking impact in that there
is adequate parking capacity on Harding Street and Palm Avenue to accommodate these additional 10 spaces.
g) No Impact. The project is served by the North County Transit District (NCTD) with bus routes serving the
Carlsbad Village and surrounding neighborhoods.
19 Rev. 11/02/07
Cl 06-14/CP 06-12/SDP 06-12
HARDING STREET SENIOR CONDOMINIUMS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
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-g) No Impact. The proposed project will be required to comply with all Regional Water Quality Control Board
Requirements. The existing project wastewater demand capacity is 7,700 and the proposed project demand is
11,000. The increase is not considered significant and will not have an effect on the Encina Wastewater Treatment
Facility's capacity. All public facilities, including water facilities, wastewater treatment facilities and drainage
facilities, have been planned and designed through the Local Facilities Management Ordinance and the individual
Zone Plans to accommodate the residential growth projections for the City at build-out. The project site is located in
Zone 1. Zone 1 is an infill zone and has not been developed to its capacity. In addition, there are several thousand
residential units included in the citywide buildout projection that will not be built. The project therefore does not
result in development that will require expansion or construction of new water facilities/supplies, wastewater
treatment or storm water drainage facilities.
Less Than
Significant "No
Impact Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
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?
20 Rev. 11/02/07
C1 06-14/CP 06-12/SDP 06-12
HARDING STREET SENIOR CONDOMINIUMS
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
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?
a) No Impact. The project does not 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
in that the site is infill, is developed, and is not adjacent to any habitat preserves or wildlife corridors.
b) No Impact. The project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
The redevelopment of the site will result in a minimal increase in density and traffic generation. It will also result
in a larger building onsite than currently exists. However, the increases are minimal and will not result in impacts
that are unacceptable or raise impact limits near a threshold of significance.
c) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. No impacts of any significant level have been identified.
Mitigation has been incorporated into the project and made conditions of approval to attenuated interior and exterior
noise levels to 45 dB(A) CNEL and 60 dB(A) CNEL respectively. The project will therefore not have
environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on humans, either directly or indirectly.
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.
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.
2. Carlsbad General Plan, City of Carlsbad Planning Department, dated March 1994.
21 Rev. 11/02/07
CT 06-14/CP 06-12/SDP 06-12
HARDING STREET SENIOR CONDOMINIUMS
3. City of Carlsbad Municipal Code. Title 21 Zoning. City of Carlsbad Planning Department, as updated,
4. Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad, City of Carlsbad Planning
Department, final approval dated November 2004.
5. Draft Traffic Impact Study, dated May7,2007 and prepared by Justin Rasas - LOS Engineering
6. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, dated May 12, 2006 and prepared by Gcosoils Inc.
7. Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan, dated November 2007 and prepared by Conway and
Associates, Inc.
8. Acoustical Analysis Report, dated July 2007 and prepared by Eilar Associates Inc.
9. Rethinking Residential Parking, dated April 2001ancl prepared by the Non-Profit Housing Association of
Northern California (NHP)
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
1. All of the units shall be equipped with air conditioning.
2. Balconies and patios facing north, south, and cast shall be equipped with clear noise attenuation barriers,
that to the greatest extent feasible as determined by the Planning Director, achieve an exterior balcony or
patio noise level of 60 dB(A) CNEL.
3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, evidence shall be submitted to the Planning Director's satisfaction,
that all units shall have an interior noise level, with windows closed, of no greater than 45 dB(A) CNEL.
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
Li-(L
22 Rev. 11/02/07
Page 1 of 1
PROJECT NAME: Harding Street Senior Condominiums
APPROVAL DATE: TBD
FILE NUMBERS: CT 06-14/CP 06-12/SDP 06-12
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
• • :- ...- '"•: • •"•••- "•••• . rv^- '-••!•[••. ••••: •- <•",.-•! '-'.: •'•;?":'•'.:';.
All of the units shall be equipped with air conditioning.
Balconies and patios facing north, south, and east shall be
equipped with clear noise attenuation barriers that to the
greatest extent feasible as determined by the Planning Director
achieve an exterior balcony or patio noise level of 60 dB(A)
CNEL.
Prior t o issuance of a building permit, evidence shall be
submitted to the Planning Director's satisfaction, that all units
shall have an interior noise level, with windows closed, of no
greater than 45 dB(A) CNEL.
^Monitoring :
.>•'"••.• Type; •• •,:.>'•
Project
Project
Project
• Monitoring
Department
Planning
Planning
Planning
Shown on
Plans
Verified
Implementation 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.