Loading...
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.