The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSDP 98-01A; La Costa Glen North Site; Site Development Plan (SDP) (2)- -• -• • .. .. .. - -• -• -.. ---• ------- - EXPAND ED INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT PART I LA COSTA GLEN-NORTH END SDP/CDP/CUP AMENDMENT REQUEST Prepared for: CONTINUING LIFE COMMUNITIES LLC 1940 Levante St. Carlsbad, CA 92009 Prepared by: PLANNING SYSTEMS 1530 Faraday Ave . Suite 100 Carlsbad, CA 92008 7/31/03 - - -.. - ------- -------------- - - EXPANDED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM-PART I CASE NO: _____ _ DATE: _______ _ BACKGROUND 1. 2. CASE NAME: La Costa Glen North End Site Development Plan Modifications LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Christer Westman (760) 602-4614 4. PROJECT LOCATION: 5. On the west side of El Camino Real between La Costa Glen Drive and La Costa A venue, in the southwest quadrant ofthe city of Carlsbad. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: Continuing Life Communities LLC 1940 Levante St. Carlsbad, CA 92009 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: 7. 8. Combination Designation: Commercial (C)/Office (0)/0pen Space (OS) ZONING: Planned Community (PC) OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): None known - ------ - - - - ---------- - - 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: The proposed project involves the modification of an existing approved site development plan, coastal development permit and conditional permit for the undeveloped north end of the existing La Costa Glen project site. The affected north end area total approximately 27.7 acres. The recently-constructed south end of the La Costa Glen site presently houses approximately half of the approved continuing care retirement community for elderly residents ( 60 years of age or older). The subject property involves the north end (27.7 acres) of the approximate 55 acre La Costa Glen project site which is a subarea of an overall281 acre site known as the Green Valley property. The 55 acre project was approved in 1998 as a health center with approximately 75 skilled nursing care beds and 71 assisted living suites; three buildings with a total of 229 independent living apartment units; 33 personal care suites and 2 guest rooms; 95 twin!townhomes and 76 detached single family homes (called villa units), a recreation building, a maintenance building, a recreational vehicle storage area, and associated parking, landscaping and vehicular and pedestrian circulation areas. The balance of the property (226 ac.) is protected open space. The project site is located within the southwest quadrant of the city of Carlsbad, immediately north and east of property within the city of Encinitas. It is located within Zone 23 of the Carlsbad Local Facilities Management Plan zones. Surrounding properties are primarily open space and residential, however property immediately to the south of the existing retirement community is an under construction retail commercial center. The subject north end of the La Costa Glen project is being modified through this amendment request. The modification will eliminate 124 attached and detached villa units and replace them with 311 additional independent living units, 26 attached villas and 26 garden cottages, and a commons building with associated dining and activity rooms. This north end area has been mass graded, and finish grading will be conducted in association with the proposed project, as approved. All improvements proposed by virtue of this amendment are located within the north end of the La Costa Glen site. The proposed project involves an application for site development plan amendment, conditional use permit amendment and coastal development permit amendment. The Green Valley Master Plan requires that the Site development Plan amendment to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council. The master plan also requires a conditional use permit for a Professional Care Facility in association with an on-site retirement housing permit for a Professional Care Facility in association with an on-site retirement housing community. Thus this permit is being amended. The Planning Commission has the fmal decision authority over the conditional land use while the City Council has the fmal decision over the project's site design and architecture. The project is located within a planned community in the Coastal Zone, and thus requires a coastal permit amendment, approvable through the City of Carlsbad. The retirement project is located within Planning Area 3 of the Green Valley Master Plan. The proposed project is regulated under Chapter 10 of Division 2 of the State of California Health and Safety Code by the State of California Department of Social Services, Community Care Licensing Division and the Certification Division ofthe State Department of Health Services. 2 Rev. 07/26/02 --------.... - --- - --- -.... ---·---------- .... + + .... + + + + + + + + + LA COSTA GLEN NORTH END Proposed Site Plan 3 + ·. NORTH #991146 + + + PLANNING SYSTEMS AUG 2003 ---- .. ----- - - - --------------- - ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. D Aesthetics D Geology/Soils 0Noise D Agricultural Resources D Hazards/Hazardous Materials D Population and Housing [8J Air Quality [8J Hydrology!W ater Quality D Public Services D Biological Resources D Land Use and Planning D Recreation D Cultural Resources D Mineral Resources [8J Transportation/Circulation D Mandatory Findings of Significance D Utilities & Service Systems ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. • • • • A brief explanation is required for all answers except ''No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A ''No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A ''No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly adverse. 4 Rev. 07/26/02 - ·- --------------------------------- • • • • • Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but all potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required. When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment. If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or ( 4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant. 5 Rev. 07/03/02 - - - ---- - - -----·------------ - Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) I. II. 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? AGRICULTRAL 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? m. 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? 6 Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D D D D Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D D D D D D D D D Rev. 07/03/02 - ------ ---... - - - --.. - - --- --- - Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES-Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California Department ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defmed by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 7 Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D D D D D Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D D D D D D D D D D Rev. 07/03/02 - - ----.. ------ - - ----- ------ - - Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES-Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defmed in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi- cance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi- cal resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS-Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: 1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? m. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 1v. 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? 8 Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D D D D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D D D D D D D D Less Than Significant Impact ~ D D D No Impact D D D D D D Rev. 07/03/02 - - ··---------- - - - --- ----- - - - - ------··--··------------------------ Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) d) Be located on expansive soils, as defmed 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? Vll. 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? 9 Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D D D D D D Less Than Significant Impact D D D D D D D No Impact r8J D D Rev. 07/03/02 - -- - ------- - ---- -- --- ------ Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) 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? Vlll. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY-Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Impacts to groundwater quality? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off- site? e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on-or off- site? f) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? 10 Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D D D D D Less Than Significant Impact ~ D D No Impact D D D D D D Rev. 07/03/02 --Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially -(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ... i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, D D D [8J which would impede or redirect flood flows? --j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of D D D [8J loss injury or death involving flooding, including -flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? -k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? D D D [8J -1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface D [8J D D -waters. -m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, D D [8J D pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, -nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of -receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature, -dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or D D ~ D -wetland waters) during or following construction? o) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired D D D [8J -water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303( d) list? p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater D D D -receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? --IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING-Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? D D D ~ --b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or D D D [g) regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the -project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning -ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? --c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation D D D plan or natural community conservation plan? -X. MINERAL RESOURCES-Would the project: -a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral D D D -resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? --- 11 Rev. 07/03/02 - -- .. --- ---- - - - ---------------- Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? XI. NOISE-Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING-Would the project: a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 12 Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D D D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D D D D D D D Less Than Significant Impact D D D D D D D No Impact ~ D D D Rev. 07/03/02 - ----- ---- - - - --------- ----- Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC-Would the project a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 13 Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D D D D D Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D ~ D D D D D D D D Rev. 07/03/02 - ---·--- ·------ - - --------·--- ---- Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) 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 tum- outs, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS-Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 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? 14 Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D D D D D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D D D D D D D D D Less Than Significant Impact D D D D D D D D D D D No Impact ~ D Rev. 07/03/02 -- - --- ---- - - - - --------- - - Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumula- tively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 15 Potentially Significant Impact D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D D D Rev. 07/03/02 ------------ - - ---.. .. --- - DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The following is a technical explanation for each answer provided in the checklist provided on the previous pages. After each question is posed, a summary of the existing conditions is presented, followed by an analysis of potential project impacts, the fmding and appropriate factual justification. In cases where the fmding is "Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated", the fmding is followed by a description of the mitigation measures that would reduce the impact to below a level of significance. Information sources are cited for each discussion. I. AESTHETICS -Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Existing Condition: The subject La Costa Glen North End project is located within the viewshed of a number of residential homes to the east of the site, along the eastern side ofEl Camino Real. It is also somewhat visible from the La Costa Plaza, a small neighborhood commercial project located on the southeast comer ofEl Camino Real and La Costa Avenue. The proposed project is also visible briefly from motorists on El Camino Real. El Camino Real is considered a scenic highway in the City of Carlsbad General Plan. No significant view to the site exists from La Costa Avenue, or the Batiquitos Lagoon area north of La Costa A venue. In addition, the City of Carlsbad Open Space and Conservation Map designates a planned public trail, with parking area and view point traveling within the open spaces along the eastern edge of the site, between the proposed project and the existing Encinitas Creek riparian corridor. This open space corridor is a natural preserve. On the west side of the property is another large open space corridor, protecting coastal sage scrub and chaparral covered hillsides. Although the view of the site from this hillside is visible, no public areas exist along this corridor. Environmental Evaluation: The subject project will be visible primarily from the residential area located on the east side ofEl Camino Real, and briefly from motorists traveling on El Camino Real. The intervening willow trees associated with the Encinitas Creek open space preserve will preclude direct views of the site from El Camino Real. The subject property has been previously approved for development similar in character to the proposed project. The project will include buildings up to 35-feet in height, which is higher in profile than the previously approved 25 feet in height. The site has been previously mass-graded and infrastructure surrounding (and some internal to) the site has been installed, pursuant to the approvals of the Green Valley master subdivision . Finding: Less than significant impact-The proposed project will not significantly impact the viewshed from either the surrounding residential areas, or from El Camino Real or other public streets. Temporary impacts associated with construction of the project will not significant. The site has been previously mass-graded, and no impacts to native or open space areas of the property will result. The project is consistent with the Green Valley Master Plan and the site has been previously approved for similar development. Therefore, the project will not have a substantially adverse impact on any scenic vista. 16 Rev. 07/03/02 ... -... - --- - ..... -- -- • ... • ---- - b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? Existing condition: No trees or rock outcroppings will be impacted by the proposed project. No buildings, including historic buildings, are located in or adjacent to the site. The area of proposed impact is not located within the viewshed of a State scenic highway or any State highway that is designated by CalTrans as eligible for listing as a scenic highway. Environmental Evaluation: Since no trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings, and no State scenic highways are in the vicinity of the proposed project, no significant impact to such resources is anticipated. Finding: No impact -The site is not within the viewshed of a state scenic highway or any state highway that is designated by Cal Trans as eligible for listing. Please also refer to the preceding response. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Existing condition: The existing visual character of the site is that of a mass-graded site, surrounded by open spaces. Coastal sage scrub and chaparral native vegetation covers the surrounding upland areas, and riparian vegetation, including primarily southern willow scrub vegetation occurs to the east of the site, adjacent to existing El Camino Real. The proposed project site has previously received City of Carlsbad and California Coastal Commission approval for development of the project property. Environmental Evaluation: Permanent visual impacts of the proposed project will primarily involve construction of the proposed 311 additional independent living units, 26 attached villas and 26 garden cottages, and a commons building with associated dining and activity rooms. Temporary impacts associated with construction will be short-term and not significant. No impacts to the open spaces, including the southern willow scrub riparian corridor to the east, and the chaparral covered hillsides to the west, will be impacted by the proposed project. Therefore, it is concluded that the project will not have a substantially adverse impact on any scenic vista. Finding: Less than significant impact-Please also refer to response I( a), above. d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Existing condition: The subject area contains no lights and produces no glare at the present time. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project will change the appearance of the subject site from a relatively flat mass-graded site to a retirement and convalescent care facility. Light and glare from the proposed project is anticipated to be not significantly greater than that projected from the presently approved project. The proposed development plan modifications will involve a slight increase in urban appearance than would the originally-approved project, which results from an overall slight increase in use density. This increase should however, not result in significant new sources of light and/or glare, and will not significantly impact overall views to and from the site. Finding: Less than significant impact-It is concluded that the proposed project will not result in a new source of substantial light and glare and will not significantly affect day or nighttime views in the area. 17 Rev. 07/03/02 - ... - - -.. , .. -- - - - .... -- • - ---.. - II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES-Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Existing condition: The subject site is designated as "Farmland of Local Importance" on the "California Department of Conservation -San Diego County Important Farmland" exhibit dated September, 2002. The site has been previously mass-graded and no agriculture is presently practiced on the subject site. Environmental Evaluation: The area which would be impacted by the proposed project is designated as "Farmland of Local Importance" on the "California Department of Conservation-San Diego County Important Farmland" exhibit dated September, 2002. The property is not encumbered by a Williamson Act contract. Agricultural production is an important resource to the City of Carlsbad, and City policy reflects this fact while admitting the ultimate infeasibility of retaining all currently existing farmland due to land values as development, and the cost of water for irrigation. The City has not designated the subject site for agriculture retention. Additional language within the Land Use Element of the General Plan confirms the anticipated depletion of existing agricultural land within the city boundaries. Finding: Less than significant impact-The proposed project involves urban development of a property designated on approved land use documents of the City of Carlsbad and the California Coastal Commission for such. In addition, agriculture preservation, while desirable, is not protected by policy by the City. As a result, it is concluded that the project is not considered a conversion of prime or unique farmland to non-agricultural use. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Existing condition: The subject project is located on property that is zoned for urban uses under a Planned Community (P-C) zoning in both the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance and in the Implementing Ordinances of the Local Coastal Program (LCP). Although agricultural operations are allowed in the properties zoned P-C, no such operations are presently conducted in the area of the proposed project improvements. The City of Carlsbad policy on agricultural uses is articulated in the General Plan Land Use Element. This policy indicates that the City's agricultural policies are intended to support agricultural activities while planning for the possible future transition of the land to more urban uses consistent with the General Plan. The subject property is not encumbered by a Williamson Act contract. Environmental Evaluation: The property is not zoned specifically for agricultural uses, although agricultural uses would be allowed, and is not encumbered by a Williamson Act contract. Finding: No impact-Please refer to the preceding response. The site is on property established for the proposed purpose, and is considered the continuation of such existing uses. No effect on agricultural uses will result from implementation of the project. The property is not zoned for agricultural uses, and no Williamson Act contract encumbers the property. 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? 18 Rev. 07/03/02 - - --- .... - ..... -- • - ------ - Existing condition: Although the site has been historically farmed, and farming was ceased on the site in the early 1990's, no farmland presently exists in the area for which the proposed project urban improvements are proposed. Environmental Evaluation: The subject property does not contain prime farmland, unique farmland or farmland of statewide importance. The site has also been mass graded. Further, the site has been designated for urban development and development plans have been approved by the City of Carlsbad and the Coastal Commission. Farming operations would not be affected through implementation of the proposed plan amendments. Finding: No impact -The proposed project will not affect any existing or identified farmland, nor will it cause changes to any factors, such as water supply, access, or drainage that would affect any active agricultural use. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated with respect to agricultural resources. III . AIR QUALITY-Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Existing condition: The existing use of the site is a mass-graded property, planned for urban use adjacent to an existing urban development. The site produces no significant air pollution at this time. The La Costa Glen project area has a warm-summer Mediterranean climate characterized by warm, dry summers and mild, wet winters. The dominant meteorological feature affecting the region is the Pacific High Pressure Zone, which produces prevailing winds from the west to northwest. These winds tend to blow pollutants away from the coast toward the inland areas. Consequently, air quality near the coast is generally better than that which occurs at the base of the coastal mountain range . Fluctuations in the strength and pattern of winds from the Pacific High pressure Zone interacting with the daily local cycle produce periodic temperature inversions that influence the dispersal or containment of air pollutants in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). The federal Clean Air Act (CAA) was enacted in 1970 and amended in 1977 and 1990 for the purposes of protecting and enhancing the quality of the nation's air resources to benefit the public's health, welfare and productivity. In 1971, in order to achieve the purposes of the CAA, the EPA developed primary and secondary national ambient air quality standards. Six pollutants of primary concern were designated; ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead and suspended particulates. A proposed project's air quality impacts must be addressed relative to compliance with the standards adopted pursuant to these pollutants. The proposed project is located in the northwestern portion of the SDAB and will be required to comply with all San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD) Rules and Regulations. Air emissions will be produced during construction, however this construction period will be temporary in nature. The SDAB is a federal and state non-attainment area for ozone (03), and a state non-attainment area for respirable particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM10). The applicable attainment plan for these criteria pollutants is the Regional Air Quality Strategy, which is prepared and administered by the San Diego APCD. Environmental Evaluation: Short-term air quality impacts during construction of the 27.7 acre project would occur from heavy equipment exhaust emissions, construction-related trips by workers, delivery trucks, and material hauling trucks, and from associated fugitive dust generation. Heavy 19 Rev. 07/03/02 .. .. .. - --- -- .... -• -... - -- - ·- - construction equipment is usually diesel-powered. In general, emissions from diesel-powered equipment contain more nitrogen oxide compounds (NOx), sulfur oxide compounds (SOx), and PM10, and less carbon monoxide (CO) and reactive organic compounds (ROCs), than emissions from gasoline-powered engines. NOx compounds and ROCs are precursors to ozone formation. Mass grading of the site has been completed, and only a moderate amount (68,433 cubic yards) of earthwork will result from the proposed project. Nonetheless, construction is anticipated to involve equipment such as tractors, scrapers, backhoes, cranes, grader, dump and concrete trucks, and miscellaneous tractor-trailer delivery trucks. The type of equipment that may be found at any one time at the site during the construction period will vary. The construction operation is anticipated to extend 6 to 1 0 months in duration, although heavy machinery will not be in operation during this entire period. Short term sources of construction-related air emissions include (a) fugitive dust from grading activities, (b) construction exhaust, and (c) construction related by worker commute, delivery trucks, and material- hauling trucks. The APCD does not have specific significance thresholds for air pollutants generated during construction. However, the APCD does specify Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) Trigger Levels for review of new stationary sources. Although these trigger levels are specified for stationary sources, they are used here to assess the potential impacts due to air emissions during project construction. The AQIA construction Trigger Levels are defmed as: NOx 250 pounds per day SOx 250 pounds per day CO 550 pounds per day PM10 100 pounds per day No AQIA Trigger Levels specified for ROCs have been adopted. If anticipated project emissions exceed any of these Trigger Levels, a more detailed Air Quality Impact Analysis may be required by the APCD. For this evaluation, project construction air emissions were estimated using the California Air Resources Board Urbemis7G version 3.2 air emission estimation program. The Urbemis7G program does not include emission factors for SOx compounds. The equipment emission factors used in Urbemis7G are the same as those found in the South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook, and the Handbook does include emission factors for SOx compounds. A comparison of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook NOx and SOx compound emission factors reveals that the SOx emission factors are consistently less than the corresponding NOx emission factors for the same types of equipment. Therefore, it can be concluded that the total SOx emissions from a project will be less than the total NOx emissions from that project. The San Diego APCD Trigger Levels for NOx and SOx compounds are the same (250 pounds per day) . Consequently, for this assessment it can be concluded that if the total NOx emissions projected by Urbemis7G are less than the AQIA Trigger Levels, then the total SOx emissions will also be below the Trigger Levels. As indicated, the amount and types of equipment on-site at any one time during the construction period will vary. This assessment conservatively assumes that all of the projected equipment could be working on-site simultaneously. Under this assumption, the maximum projected daily air emissions during construction would be: NOx 158 pounds per day SOx <158 pounds per day 20 Rev. 07/03/02 - -----'-- --'-- - ------------- - CO 92 pounds per day PM10 26 pounds per day Regarding vehicular emissions from the proposed development, the air quality analyses identify motor vehicles as the primary source of emissions associated with development projects such as the one proposed on the north end of La Costa Glen. The long-term vehicular trips to and from the project may contribute significant amounts of air pollutant emissions. The revised project will consist of a retirement community (105 units at 4 ADT/du), congregate care units (554 units at 2.5 ADT/du) and convalescent care units (140 units/beds at 3 ADT/du). An analysis has been conducted to determine how the vehicular emissions from this development compare to those reflecting the previously-approved project, and also, those contemplated by the maximum potential project approved in the Green Valley Master Plan. Land Use Proposed Project Retirement Community (105 units@ 4 ADT/du) Congregate Care (554 units@ 2.5 ADT/du) Convalescent Care (140 units/beds@ 3 ADT/du) Total Proposed Project Traffic Generation Approved Max. Green Valley Project Master Plan 1996 Green Valley project (400 units@ 10 ADT/du) Number ADT under 1996 Project Alternative Approved North End Villas Project 1997 WPA Traffic Generation (571 Retirement Units) Number ADT over 1997 WP A study ADT 420 1,385 420 2,225 4,000 -1,775 -1,620 605 The 1996 approved Green Valley Master Plan Alternative (maximum development alternative) documented a maximum number of 400 single family dwelling units for the property. The traffic generation for this scenario is calculated at 4,000 ADT, and a corresponding level of vehicular emissions. The subject project is 1,775 ADT less than this amount. The 1997 WP A Traffic Letter Report for the approved North End Villas project documented a traffic generation of 1,620 ADT, with a corresponding level of vehicular emissions. The subject project is 605 ADT greater than this approved amount, but still significantly less ADT than the maximum allowable on the property. Finding: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated-The project is located within a basin that has a nonattainment status and the project would contribute pollutants, thereby having a cumulatively significant air quality impact unless mitigation measures are adopted. Controls for construction equipment and procedures such as dust control during construction are regulated by the Air Pollution Control District (ACPD). The project is required to comply with all APCD Rules and Regulations. All project construction is required to incorporate best management practices to reduce dust and air pollution impacts. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 21 Rev. 07/03/02 - - -,_ -,_ ------- - - - - - ------ - ,-------------------, Existing condition: The property is in a non-attainment status area, and the proposed project would contribute additional pollution emissions. The site has been previously mass graded and is planned and has been approved for urban development. Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to the preceding technical evaluation in Section III( a). Finding: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated -Emission controls for construction equipment and procedures such as dust control during construction are regulated by the Air Pollution Control District (ACPD). The project is required to comply with all APCD Rules and Regulations. Any air emissions produced during construction would be temporary. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Existing condition: The property is in a non-attainment status area, and the proposed project would contribute additional pollution emissions. Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to the technical evaluation in Section III( a). The project would contribute to pollution emissions however it is consistent with the Green Valley Master Plan and the City of Carlsbad General Plan. The site has been planned for urban development. Finding: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated -Emission controls for construction equipment and procedures such as dust control during construction are regulated by the Air Pollution Control District (ACPD). The project is required to comply with all APCD Rules and Regulations. Any air emissions produced during construction would be temporary. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Existing condition: No sensitive air quality receptors are located near the subject site. Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to evaluation at III( a). The project would not alter wind patterns, moisture levels or temperatures in the area. Finding: No impact-Please refer to response to III( a). e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Existing condition: The site has been previously mass graded, and does not contain objectionable odors under the existing condition. Environmental Evaluation: Urban development of a convalescent facility such as that proposed has not been shown to result in the creation of objectionable odors. There is no evidence that the proposed project will be any different than those previously analyzed. No residences are located in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project. The nearest residences are the La Costa Glen south end, which is a constructed retirement community, of which the developed north end will become a part. The nearest public street to the proposed project is a prime arterial roadway, situated over 400 feet away, easterly of the site. Finding: No Impact-No significant odors are anticipated from the proposed project. 22 Rev. 07/03/02 - -.... --------- - - ,. -·-•• ·--·-- ·• ---- - IV. a) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES-Would the project: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Existing condition: The subject site is located wholly within an area that has been previously disturbed through mass grading. Adjacent to the mass graded project area are (a) a southern willow scrub riparian corridor associated with Encinitas Creek on the east, and (b) chaparral covered hillsides and similar upland natural vegetation on the west side of the property. Both of these areas are protected and encumbered by deed restrictions and open space easements. The two adjacent easterly and westerly open space protection areas are identified in the City of Carlsbad, CDFG and USFWS -adopted Habitat Management Plan (HMP) as areas to remain in open space. The project does not propose any impacts to these areas. Protection and enhancement of these areas was a mitigation measure required through the CEQA review for the Green Valley project, which authorized mass grading of the site. Environmental Evaluation: The Green Valley project has been the subject of several environmental permits which allowed for impacts, and required mitigation, for the taking of sensitive vegetation in order to access the Green Valley site. These impacts have occurred, the mitigation has been implemented, and maintenance, monitoring and annual reporting to the affected agencies is presently occurring. Protection of existing resources has been accomplished through legal easements, and also physically through installation of fencing along trails, and adjacent urban areas. Newly created and restored habitats are located in a large portion of the riparian corridor. The proposed project does not project any direct disturbance to these protected open space areas. The property is surrounded by open spaces on the west (upland chaparral hillsides), north (upland chaparral hillsides and lowlands) and east (Encinitas Creek riparian corridor). Finding: Less than Significant Impact-No direct impacts to sensitive vegetation protected by CDFG and/or USFWS will occur through implementation of the subject project. Indirect impacts associated with construction in the graded areas are projected to be less than significant. 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? Existing condition: Please refer to explanation of existing condition Section IV(a). All impacts on riparian and/or wetland communities have previously occurred, associated with the mass grading and access to the subject site. Authorized mitigation for these impacts has occurred and is being monitored for health and vigor. No additional impacts are anticipated. Environmental Evaluation: No permanent impacts to wetlands vegetation would result from implementation of the project. Finding: Less than Significant Impact-No direct impacts to sensitive vegetation protected by CDFG and/or USFWS will occur through implementation of the subject project. Indirect impacts associated with construction in the graded areas are projected to be less than significant. 23 Rev. 07/03/02 - ---... --------- ... -·--·--·--·----- - c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as delmed by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, liling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Existing condition: No direct filling, hydrological interruption or other impacts to "waters of the U.S." are anticipated through implementation of the subject project. Environmental Evaluation: No impact to wetlands or "waters" is anticipated from the project. Finding: No impact. The project will be developed in an area that does not contain any federally protected wetlands or "waters" as defmed by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 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? Existing condition: Please refer to existing condition response IV(a). Environmental Evaluation: Construction of the proposed project is not expected to significantly impede local wildlife movement or migratory fish or wildlife movement because sufficiently wide open space corridors exist on both the east and west of the subject site. Finding: No impact. Adequate migratory wildlife corridors exist on the upland hillsides to the west, and the riparian corridor to the east of the subject project. The proposed development is considered an urban island surrounded by protected open spaces . e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Existing condition: The City of Carlsbad has no adopted tree preservation policy or ordinance which would affect the subject project. Environmental Evaluation: The subject project will not impact trees or other biological resources protected by policy or ordinance except as otherwise described in response IV( a) and IV( c) above. Finding: No impact-No tree preservation impacts will result from implementation of the project. 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? Existing condition: The Draft City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad, Dec. 1999, identifies the open space corridors on the east and west of the subject site as a "Proposed Hardline Conservation Area", but identifies the proposed project site as urban development area.. This land use pattern is consistent with the open space uses identified in the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. The HMP designates a natural preserve system and provides a regulatory framework for determining impacts and assigning mitigation. This HMP is in a draft form and has not been formally adopted. Nonetheless, this draft document constitutes the most reliable regulatory framework for land use of the subject site. No other local, regional or state habitat conservation plans specific to this site encumber the property. 24 Rev. 07/03/02 , .. ... -... --------·-- - ... ·--·-- - ---·- - - Environmental Evaluation: The proposed use is consistent with the allowable land use on the property. In addition, the improvements proposed avoid the open space easement areas, and are consistent with open space and hardline habitat preserve uses. The project will cause no change to the allowed open space uses on the site . Finding: No impact -The proposed project is co1;1sistent with the Draft City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan. It also does not conflict with the Green Valley Master Plan, the P-C zoning for the site, or General Plan land uses allowed on the site. g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? Existing condition: The subject site adjacent to biologically sensitive areas, as described in the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan. Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to evaluation in response to Section IV(a). Finding: Less than significant impact-Please refer to response IV(a) and IV(b) above. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES-Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? Existing condition: The subject project will be developed on an existing mass-graded site. A review of cultural resource records and historic maps were conducted for identified historical resources in the vicinity of the project. Although the general area represents a favorable location for human habitation, the results indicate that no known historical resources occur in the immediate vicinity of the subject project impacts. Environmental Evaluation: No impacts to historical resources are expected to result from implementation of the proposed project. Finding: No impact-No historical resources have been identified on the site or within the vicinity of the project; and therefore no impacts to historical resources will result from construction of the project. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Existing condition: The property involved in the proposed project is an existing mass graded site. Mitigation, including a resource recovery program for archaeological site GV-4 has been completed and the results reported to the City of Carlsbad. No other archaeological resources have been found to exist in the area. Environmental Evaluation: A review of existing cultural resources in the area of the subject project indicates that no impact to cultural resources will result from implementation of the subject project. No impacts to significant archaeological resources will result from implementation of the proposed La Costa Glen north end project. Finding: No impact-The project will not cause substantial adverse change in the significance of archaeological resources pursuant to § 15064.5. 25 Rev. 07/03/02 .... ... -.... .. -------- . .., - ·- <1111 ----·-- ·- - c) ---····----·-~-· ------------------- Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Existing condition: The subject site is a graded area located in an area geologically characterized by largely Delmar Formation and Torrey Sandstone sedimentary rock and varying quantities and depths of slope wash and alluvial soils. The finish grading associated with development of the revised project will impact a relatively small amount of upper level soil, which could contain fossil fmds, although the maximum excavation area involves an 18-foot cut, in a relatively isolated area . Environmental Evaluation: Torrey Sandstone formation sedimentary soils have been known to contain fossil fmds. The vast majority of the grading for the project has been completed by virtue of the mass grading operation. The minimal grading associated with the subject project will have minimal impact on these sedimentary soils, primarily due to the limited additional excavation required. Findillg: Less than significant impact -The relatively minor amount of excavation required for the project results in the conclusion that the potential for paleontological resource impacts are less than significant. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Existing condition: No record exists which would indicate the likelihood that human remains are interred or would be expected to be encountered during construction of the proposed project. The site has previously been disturbed by the authorized mass grading activities . Environmental Evaluation: remams. The proposed project is not anticipated to impact any known human Finding: project. No impact-No human burials or remains are known to exist in the location of the subject 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. Existing condition: The project area is situated in the western portion of the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province of southern California. This geomorphic province encompasses an area that extends 125 miles from the Transverse Ranges and the Los Angeles Basin, south to the Mexican border, and beyond another 775 miles to the southern tip of Baja California. The westernmost portion of the province in San Diego County, in which the site is located, generally consists of Upper Cretaceous, Tertiary and Quaternary age sedimentary rocks. The most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the north San Diego County area, indicates that the project is considered to be in a seismically active area, as is most of southern California. This map however, indicates that the subject site is not underlain by known active faults, nor is there evidence of ground displacement in the area during the last 11,000 years. 26 Rev. 07/03/02 ... - •• - ----- - - , .. -·------·---- - The Rose Canyon fault zone is the closest known fault, which is the onshore portion of an extensive fault zone that includes the Offshore Zone of Deformation and the Newport-Inglewood fault to the north of the subject site. This fault zone, located approximately six miles westerly of the subject site, is made of predominately right-lateral strike-slip faults that extend south-southeast through the San Diego metropolitan area. The zone extends offshore at La Jolla, and continues north-northwest generally parallel to the coastline. Portions of the Rose Canyon fault zone in the San Diego area have been recognized by the State Geologist to be considered active . Additionally, the Julian and Temecula segments of the Elsinore fault zone, about 23 miles to the northeast of the subject site are also referenced in the Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Environmental Evaluation: Based on resource investigation and field observations by Leighton & Associates (Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation Green Valley, July 11, 1996), no active faults have been mapped across the project site. The closest fault is located approximately six miles westerly of the site. The Elsinore fault zone is located approximately 22 miles east of the site, and the Coronado Bank fault is located approximately 25 miles west of the site. The potential for rupture resulting from earthquake is considered to be low. The subject site is not within a fault-rupture hazard zone as indexed in the Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Because of the lack of known active faults on the site, the potential for surface rupture at the site is considered low. The seismic hazard most likely to impact the site is ground shaking resulting from an earthquake on one of the active regional faults discussed above. Finding: Less than significant impact-The project site is not within a fault-rupture hazard zone as determined in the geotechnical report, and as indexed in the Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42; therefore the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? Existing condition: Southern California is recognized as a seismically-active area. As indicated in the response to Item VI(a)(i), the Rose Canyon fault zone is the closest known fault, located approximately six miles westerly of the subject site. This fault is made of predominately right-lateral strike-slip faults that extend south-southeast through the San Diego metropolitan area. The second-closest active area of potential ground motion is the Julian and Temecula segments of the Elsinore fault zone. No other known active faults are located within the vicinity of the project. The most significant seismic event likely to affect the proposed facilities would be a maximum moment magnitude 6.9 earthquake along the Rose Canyon fault zone, in which the horizontal peak ground acceleration has a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years is 0.27g (27% of the acceleration of gravity) and a 5% probability of exceedance in 50 years is 0.41g. Environmental Evaluation: The project site will likely be subject to ground shaking in response to either a local moderate or more distant large-magnitude earthquake. Seismic risk at the site is comparable to the risk for the San Diego area in general. The closest source to the site for ground motion, and the source that would produce the greatest ground acceleration at the site, is the Del Mar segment of the Rose Canyon/Newport-Inglewood fault zone, about 6 miles west, and potentially the Julian and Temecula segments of the Elsinore fault zone, about 22 miles to the northeast of the project site. Project design will meet or exceed existing earthquake design standards. 27 Rev. 07/03/02 -- -------- - - ..... --.. -- - ·• - - Finding: Less than significant impact -Earthquake faults exist within southern California, including three fault zones within 26 miles of the site. Historical records have indicated however, that the risk of strong seismic ground shaking of the project site is minimal, and thus is considered a less than significant impact. iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Existing condition: Liquefaction of soils with minimal cohesion can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes. Research indicates that loose granular soils and silts that are saturated by a relatively shallow groundwater table are most susceptible to liquefaction. Preliminary geotechnical evaluation of the subject site indicates that the site is underlain by Delmar Formation, which is considered to be potentially expansive. Liquefaction and compressibility are a concern with the relatively shallow depth to compressibility potential. Environmental Evaluation: Liquefaction is a concern on the subject site. Based on the result of subsurface exploration, the alluvial deposits on the site locally consist of saturated fme to medium- grained sands. The results of liquefaction analysis indicate that the minimum factor of safety due to occurrence of the design earthquake is generally less than the currently accepted standard of 1.1 to 1.2. Thus, in the event of a major earthquake, the existing alluvial soils may liquefy. However, recent studies have shown that a nonsaturated surface layer of compacted fill on the order of 15 to 20 feet will limit the significant effects of liquefaction induced damage due to relatively lightly loaded surface structures. This surface layer has been completed. Finding: Less than significant impact-The potential for liquefaction or seismically induced settlement in the vicinity of the proposed improvements is considered to be minimal due to the fact that a nonsaturated surface layer of compacted fill has been placed on the site, in conjunction with surcharging, during the mass grading, and thus the opportunity for liquefaction has been minimized. iv. Landslides? Existing condition: No landslides have been identified as having the potential to damage or affect the proposed project facilities . Environmental Evaluation: improvements. No landslides are anticipated to affect the proposed project development Finding: No impact-No landslides are anticipated to affect the proposed project. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Existing condition: The subject property is a mass graded pad, which presently is protected with a variety of erosion control vegetation and drainage apparatus. Environmental Evaluation: The mass grading for the site has been completed. During the finish grading, the exposure of soils would lead to an increased chance for the erosion of soils from the site. Such grading will follow best management practices for the control of erosion, such as straw bale or sandbag barriers, silt fences, slope roughening, and outlet protection in exposed areas. Finished grades will be promptly hydroseeded or otherwise protected as required per the adopted City Grading Ordinance. If necessary, temporary slope cover such as jute matting or mulch will be applied to newly graded slopes to reduce the impact to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil to a level of less than significant. 28 Rev. 07/03/02 -.... ... - ---- -- - -.... ... ·-- -·---·--- - - Finding: Less than significant impact-It is concluded that impacts to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil will be less than significant, because the project is required to comply with the erosion control requirements of the City of Carlsbad grading ordinance. 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? Existing condition: Please refer to existing condition VI(a)(i, ii, and iii). Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to evaluation VI(a)(i, ii, and iii). Routine soil settlement is expected to undergo total settlements ofless than approximately 0.5 inches. Differential settlements are typically less than about one-half of the total settlement. Finding: Less than significant impact-Please refer to response VI(a)(i, ii, and iii). d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18-1-B ofthe Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? Existing condition: The site of the proposed remedial improvements is composed of largely decomposed Delmar Formation and alluvial sediments. However most of these sediments have been replaced through the compacted fill surcharge effort completed in conjunction with the mass grading. Environmental Evaluation: Table 18-1-B ofthe Uniform Building Code identifies the Delmar Formation as having expansive characteristics, however this soil has been removed andre-compacted through the compacted fill surcharge effort completed in conjunction with the mass grading. Finding: No impact-As a result of completion of the previous surcharge effort, it is concluded that expansive soils are not a geological hazard for the subject project. Therefore no substantial risks to life or property associated with expansive soils exist. 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? Existing condition: Sewers are available for the proposed project. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project will utilize access to the sewage trunk line adjacent to El Camino Real. As a result, no septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal system facilities are proposed. Finding: No impact-No septic tanks or alternative sewage disposal systems are included in the project description. 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? Existing condition: During construction of the proposed project, construction materials such as petroleum projects, paint, oils and solvents will be transported and used on the site. Upon completion of 29 Rev. 07/03/02 - ---------- -- -..... ------ - - construction of the project, some medical use of hazardous products on the site may occur. Other than during this construction phase, the project will not routinely utilize hazardous substances or materials. Environmental Evaluation: There is no evidence of chemical surface staining, or hazardous materials/waste and/or petroleum contamination on the site. Due to the site's historic agricultural use, it is possible that buried/concealed or hidden tanks and agricultural by-products, both below and above ground, may have existed that are not presently apparent. Construction of the proposed project will involve operation of heavy machinery, which utilize petroleum products, and paint, oils and solvents. No permanent use of such hazardous materials is anticipated except for some medical products us associated with the convalescent and congregate care facilities. All transport, handling, use, and disposal of substances will comply with all federal, state, and local laws regulating the management and use of hazardous materials. Finding: Less than significant impact -It is concluded that the routine amount of hazardous materials utilized during the construction period is not significant, and therefore the impact to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials is less that significant. 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? Existing condition: Please refer to the preceding existing condition response. Environmental Evaluation: No significant hazard involving the release of hazardous material into the environment would be anticipated since only a small amount of hazardous materials will be utilized, only in isolated instances . Finding: Less than significant impact-Please refer the response to Section VII(b). No extraordinary risk of accidental explosion or the release of hazardous substances is anticipated with construction, development, and implementation or operation of the proposed project. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Existing condition: proposed school. The subject project site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or Environmental Evaluation: The La Costa Glen project is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The nearest school is Levante Elementary School, located 1.1 mile easterly ofthe site. Finding: No impact-Due to the fact that the proposed project site is not located 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? 30 Rev. 07/03/02 .... - ..... .. ., - .... , ... ----- ·• - ·• - - Existing condition: The subject site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites (Federal database) compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 56962.5. Environmental Evaluation: The subject site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites (Federal database) compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 56962.5. In addition, it is not on the EPA database of current and potential Superfund sites currently or previously under investigation. Also, to the best of EPA's knowledge, it has been determined that no steps will be taken to list this site on the National Priorities List (NPL). It is not on any list of registered hazardous waste generators, or on a database of sites which treat, store, dispose of, or incinerate hazardous waste. Finding: No impact-The subject property is not included on any list of hazardous materials, and has no known previous use history that would involve the use or storage of hazardous materials. 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? Existing condition: The subject site is located approximately 14,000 linear feet (2.65 miles) due south of McClellan-Palomar Airport. The City of Carlsbad does have an adopted airport land use plan. Environmental Evaluation: Since the proposed project is located in excess of two miles (2.65 miles) from the closest airport (McClellan-Palomar Airport), the site does not meet the minimum qualifications as having the potential for safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. Finding: No impact-As a result of its 2.65 mile distance from McClellan-Palomar Airport, the project does not meet the minimum qualifications as a potential safety hazard. 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? Existing condition: No private airstrip exists in the vicinity of the subject project. Environmental Evaluation: The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Finding: No impact-The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Existing condition: The proposed project involves amendment to the approved site development plan. The project is not located on or directly adjacent to an arterial roadway. The project has controlled access onto El Camino Real. Environmental Evaluation: Neither construction nor operation of the proposed project facilities will significantly affect, block, or interfere with traffic on public streets, including any streets that would be used for an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The project has controlled access onto El Camino Real at La Costa Glen Drive. No emergency response or evacuation plan directs evacuees through the project. Finding: No impact-No improvements are proposed by the project in any area which would physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. 31 Rev. 07/03/02 .... - - ------ -.... - ... - •• ·--·--·-- - - - 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? Existing condition: The proposed project site currently consists of a mass graded field, with a temporary office building and associated temporary parking lot and landscaping, located on the southern end of the site. Adjacent to the site on both the east and west are dense native vegetation that is susceptible to wildland fires. Environmental Evaluation: A Fire Suppression Plan has been approved for the project site which is intended to protect the La Costa Glen residences from risk of wildfire damage. This Plan includes a brush management and fuel modification zone in conformance with the policies set forth in the Carlsbad Landscape Manual. The zone provides a buffer along the easterly and northerly border of any portion of the development sited adjacent to the open spaces. When sited on undisturbed land, the Plan requires sufficient thinning of existing vegetation so as to minimize the potential for wildfire. When sited on disturbed or graded lands on the periphery of the proposed project, the zone will provide vegetation in density and of a type so as to reduce the potential for fire hazards. A minimum of 60-foot buffer is required at all times. As a result, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in any significant additional exposure of neighboring residences to wildfire risk. Finding: Less than significant impact -In accordance with Section II.C of the Carlsbad Landscape Manual, a Fire Suppression Plan has been approved for the project site. This plan consists of a written and graphic plan illustrating fire hydrant locations, rear yard setbacks, fire control thinning and planting, emergency and maintenance access, brush maintenance responsibility and schedule of frequency, and details of fire truck access. In conjunction with this Plan, it is anticipated that wildland fire risk is less than significant. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY-Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Existing condition: The subject project 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 the San Diego Basin . The subject project is located adjacent to Encinitas Creek, which is a main tributary to Batiquitos Lagoon. The Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin identifies specific objectives for the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit and Batiquitos Lagoon Hydrologic Subarea. These objectives include the requirement to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Best Management Practices (BMP's). The project must also obtain a NPDES permit prior to construction. The permit will require that the project develop and implement specific erosion control and storm water pollution prevention plans to protect downstream water quality of Encinitas Creek. There is currently no significant development on the site, with the exception of temporary sales office trailers and related parking lot. Environmental Evaluation: After development, there will be an increase in runoff from the study area. A portion of the increase in runoff will be due to the use of imported water into the study area for landscaping, etc. The remaining water increase will be due to the increased impervious area within the project site. This water will all flow into a detention basin located on the downhill side of the project, adjacent to Encinitas Creek. Application, certification and compliance with an NPDES permit for 32 Rev. 07/03/02 .. , - ''" -... -.. --- -- .... .... ... •• ... ... ---- -- ·• -- - implementation of the subject project will ensure that water quality entering Encinitas Creek will be maintained to a level of acceptability. Finding: Significant unless mitigation incorporated -The proposed project could result in temporary degradation of water quality if it does not demonstrate compliance with all federal, state, and local regulations for water quality. The project proponent shall adhere to applicable RWQCB regulations for control of sedimentation and erosion, including the installation of temporary detention basins or other means of stabilization or impoundment required by the State Water Resources Control Board. All exposed graded areas shall be treated with erosion control pursuant to City of Carlsbad erosion control standards, including hydroseed, berms, desiltation basins, jute matting, sandbags, bladed ditches, or other appropriate methods. Other Best Management Practices (BMP"s) will be utilized . 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)? Existing condition: Geotechnical test borings by Leighton & Associates, excavated for the subject project, indicated that surface or near surface ground water conditions can develop in areas where ground water conditions did not exist prior to site development, especially in areas where a substantial increase in surface water infiltration results from landscape irrigation or regional runoff. A permit for construction of the project will necessitate a Section 401 certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, with conditions designed by the RWQCB to prevent adverse water quality effects on surface water and groundwater. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project will not involve depletion of groundwater supplies or interference with ground water recharge. As indicated by Leighton & Associates, the ground water may be significantly increased as discussed above . Finding: No impact -The proposed project is not significantly expected to deplete groundwater supplies, or interfere with ground water recharge . c) Impacts to groundwater quality? Existing condition: Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item VIII( a). Environmental Evaluation: Please see the preceding description of environmental evalution Item VIII( a). Finding: Less than significant impact-Inasmuch as the proposed project must comply with federal, state and local water quality requirements, it is concluded that the potential impacts to groundwater quality will be both temporary and less than significant. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? Existing condition: The tributary drainage area to Encinitas Creek is approximately 8.4 square miles. The average yearly rainfall within this drainage area is 13 inches. Drainage runoff enters Encinitas Creek 33 Rev. 07/03/02 ... .... - - .... ... .... - -.. ""'' -- - ---.... .... via a number of small branch tributaries upstream of La Costa Glen. This drainage extends several miles southward into the city of Encinitas, and eastward into southeast Carlsbad, and unincorporated San Diego County. About 75% of the upstream watershed is outside the City of Carlsbad city limits. Nearly all of the surface runoff within the drainage area that reaches Encinitas Creek occurs between December and late March. The subject project will include improvements to the La Costa Glen north end. The site is presently mass graded, and drainage infrastructure has been installed. The improvements will not significantly alter the existing constructed drainage of the site . Environmental Evaluation: The proposed improvements proposed will not result in a net increase of downstream sedimentation in Encinitas Creek. Runoff from the large acreage of open spaces will be diverted around the urbanized area and into Encinitas Creek. Urban runoff from the proposed development will be retained in an existing detention basin, for pollution control, prior to emptying into Encinitas Creek. The proposed design demonstrates that no mixing of the drainages will occur . Finding: Less than significant impact-The proposed project will not substantially alter the existing pattern of runoff from and through the project. As a result, it is concluded that no significant impact to drainage flow will result from implementation of the project. e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on-or off- site? Existing condition: Please refer to the preceding existing condition. No significant modification to the drainage pattern of the site is proposed . Environmental Evaluation: The proposed improvements will not significantly alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. As a result of the installation of detention basin improvements, the urban improvements proposed will not result in a net increase of downstream sedimentation in Encinitas Creek. The flow rate or volume of runoff through the site and into Encinitas Creek will not significantly increase. The project will also result in a slight, but not significant increase in runoff due to the increase in imported water to the site, and the area of impervious surface of the project. Finding: Less than significant impact -The project will also result in a slight, but not significant increase in runoff due to the increase in imported water to the site and the increase in the area of impervious surface of the project. f) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Existing condition: Impervious surfaces associated with development of the project will incrementally increase runoff. Environmental Evaluation: Existing storm water drainage systems on the project site have been designed, approved, and in some cases constructed to accommodate the runoff projected from the proposed project. No impact to existing storm drain systems and no additional sources of polluted runoff will result from implementation of the project. 34 Rev. 07/03/02 ... •• .. .... .. - ----·-- ·- - •• ·- ·• ----- -- - - Finding: Less than significant impact-No additional pollution of surface waters is anticipated to result from the project. g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Existing condition: The proposed La Costa Glen north end site presently drains to onsite permanent and temporary desiltation basins prior to draining into Encinitas Creek. These drainage facilities serve to maintain a decent water quality . Environmental Evaluation: Construction of the proposed La Costa Glen 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. Therefore temporary impacts associated with the construction operation will be mitigated. The project will not result in permanent or long term degradation of water quality as a result of the proposed pollution control program. Finding: Less than significant impact-Please refer to the preceding responses. h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? Existing condition: The proposed project involves improvements does not involve the placement of housing within the 1 00-year flood hazard area. Environmental Evaluation: No placement of housing is proposed within the flood hazard area. Finding: No impact-All housing is proposed outside of the 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on the Federal Flood Hazard Map. i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? Existing condition: hazard area. The subject project does not propose any structures within the 1 00-year flood Environmental Evaluation: The La Costa Glen north end project will not place any structures within the limits of the identified 100-year flood hazard areas. Thus no impediment to flood flows will result from implementation of the project. Finding: No impact-It is concluded that the proposed project will not impeded or redirect downstream flood flows. j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Existing condition: Please refer to existing condition description VIII(i) above. Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to environmental evaluation discussion VIII(i) above. No levee or dam exists onsite or downstream of the project. 35 Rev. 07/03/02 .... ... -- .. - -... -- - ... .... .... •• --..... -·- - •• - Finding: No impact-It is concluded that the proposed project will not result in increased exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Existing condition: The proposed project site is located at an elevation of 60 ft. minimum above sea level, approximately 2.2 miles from the Pacific Ocean. No mudflow conditions are located within or near the subject area. Environmental Evaluation: Conditions for seiche, tsunami or mudflow do not exist at or near the project site inasmuch as it is located in excess of two miles from the ocean, and no large bodies of water are directly adjacent to the site. Finding: No impact-The potential for damage to the project from seiche, tsunami or mudflow are very low due to the project's location and elevation. I) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. Existing condition: Construction of the proposed project will temporarily create exposed (unvegetated) soil in portions of the proposed project area. The project applicant must however, obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit prior to construction. The permit will require that the project develop and implement specific erosion control and storm water pollution prevention plans to protect downstream water quality of Encinitas Creek. Environmental Evaluation: The construction phase of the project could result in increased erosion into Encinitas Creek. 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. Finding: Significant unless mitigation incorporated -The project will be required to demonstrate compliance with NPDES sediment control requirements during the construction phase. Dl) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? Existing condition: The subject site is situated on the eastern slope side of Encinitas Creek. The project proposes urban development in an area that is planned for such development. The project design does not propose to create or allow any pollutant discharges into receiving surface waters or other waters upstream or downstream of the subject project. Environmental Evaluation: The project proposes no increase in pollutant discharges. The project will be required to process and receive an NPDES permit, and water quality certification from the RWQCB. No significant levels of heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances, or uncontrolled trash will be produced by the project. Finding: Less than significant impact-No significant increase in pollutant discharges will result from implementation of the proposed project.. 36 Rev. 07/03/02 ... ... -.... ~ ... --- •• .... ·- ·- •• n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? Existing condition: Please refer to existing condition Item VIII( a) above. Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to environmental evaluation Item VIII( a) above. Finding: Less than significant impact -No receiving water quality will be adversely affected through implementation of the proposed project. o) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303( d) list? Existing condition: The only downstream waterbody from the subject site is Batiquitos Lagoon and downstream from that, the Pacific Ocean. Batiquitos Lagoon is not listed as an already impaired waterbody on the Clean Water Action Section 303( d) list. Environmental Evaluation: Batiquitos Lagoon is not listed as an already impaired waterbody on the Clean Water Action Section 303(d) list. Finding: No impact -Batiquitos Lagoon is not listed as an already impaired waterbody on the Clean Water Action Section 303(d) list. p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? Existing condition: Please refer to the preceding responses. Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to the preceding responses. Finding: No impact-Please refer to the preceding responses. IX . LAND USE PLANNING-Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? Existing condition: The La Costa Glen north end project is situated on approximately 27.7 acres located in the southeast quadrant of the city of Carlsbad. The site is a long and relatively narrow parcel, running largely north to south. It is surrounded on the west by natural open space hillsides, on the north by a natural floodplain and La Costa A venue, on the east by the Encinitas Creek riparian corridor and El Camino Real, and the south by the existing, recently constructed La Costa Glen south end project. The project is a continuation of that project approved and constructed to the south. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project is a continuation of the existing retirement community developed to the immediate south of the site. The property is surrounded on the other three sides by open space and arterial roadways. As a result of these factors, no division of an existing community would result from development of the project. Finding: No impact-The project would not physically separate any contiguous community areas since none exist within the open spaces that lie on surrounding lands around the site. 37 Rev. 07/03/02 "" - ., .. ... ... -- - - .... - •• --- - 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? Existing condition: The City of Carlsbad General Plan identifies the subject site as Residential Medium-High/Commercial/Office land uses. Zoning is designated Planned Community (P-C), which provides that any development of the site be in conjunction with and in conformance with an approved master plan. The site is also located with the Coastal Zone, specifically within the East Batiquitos!Hunt Properties segment of the Local Coastal Program (LCP). This LCP includes the same land use and zoning designations for the site as the City documents. The project proposes no change to any of the approved land use on the site . The Green Valley Master Plan was approved in 1996. This master plan stipulates that the proposed use is permitted, subject to approval of a conditional use permit. A conditional use permit for a similar project (design changes are proposed) was approved in 1997. The subject project presently under review is a continuation of the allowable land use, subject to CUP approval. A CUP amendment has been requested in conjunction with the present application. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project is consistent with the approved General Plan designations, the zoning and the LCP requirements of the Land Use and Implementation sections of the East Batiquitos!Hunt Properties LCP segment. Adjacent areas designated and protected as open space, including the Encinitas Creek riparian corridor (including the expanded mitigation areas) and the upland hillsides to the west, are not proposed for any development nor are they otherwise impacted by the project. All constrained open spaces, as defmed in the Zoning Ordinance, are avoided. No incompatibility exists between the proposed project and the land use regulations on the property. In addition, the proposed project is consistent with the City Hillside Development Regulations, which have been established to preserve and/or enhance the aesthetic qualities of natural hillsides and manufactured slopes. Also, the project is not located within the 100 year floodplain for Encinitas Creek. Finding: No impact-The project is not in conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of any agency with jurisdiction over the project. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Existing condition: The City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities (HMP) in the City of Carlsbad, Dec. 1999, is intended to lead to citywide permits and authorization for the incidental take of sensitive plant and animal species in conjunction with private developments, public projects and other activities which are consistent with the Plan. Approval of the HMP by the USFWS and the Coastal Commission is pending. The open space preserve system and program established by the HMP is intended to replace that contained within the Open Space Element of the General Plan. As part of the planning process for the HMP, a citywide interconnected open space preserve system was identified. Areas were identified as biological habitat Core and Linkage Areas. Both of the open spaces on either side of the subject project are identified as Existing Hardline Conservation Areas. This is because these areas are already encumbered by the necessary legal protections including open space deed restriction, and open space easements. 38 Rev. 07/03/02 - - - - - .... •• - ·- ..... - Environmental Evaluation: The project does not propose any development impacts into the adjacent subject hardline conservation areas. These hardline conservation areas will remain as protected open space. The proposed development will occur wholly on the approved mass-graded site, adjacent to the open spaces. Therefore the proposed project is not in conflict with the HMP. In addition, the proposed land use is consistent with the open space uses identified in the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. The project is also consistent with a previously approved project for the same property. No other habitat conservation plans specific to this site effect the property. Finding: No impact -The subject project site is consistent with the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad. No other habitat conservation plans specific to this site effect the property X. a) MINERAL RESOURCES-Would the project: Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents ofthe State? Existing condition: The project is proposed to be developed on an existing mass-graded site. No known or expected mineral deposits of future value to the region and the residents of the state are located in the immediate vicinity of the subject project. Environmental Evaluation: The subject site has been already fully disturbed. No known mineral resources have been identified on the site, and such minerals are typically not found in alluvial soils typical of this site. As a result of the finish grading excavation and disruption of the surface of the land that will result from the proposed project, no significant impact to the potential for valuable mineral deposits is anticipated from the project. Finding: No impact-No known mineral resource of regional or statewide value are known that would be affected through implementation of the project. Additionally, the project would affect a relatively small area of earth disruption, and any substantial mineral resource recovery under these minimal circumstances would not be expected. 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? Existing condition: The subject site is not designated on the City of Carlsbad General Plan or the Zoning Ordinance as a locally important mineral resource recovery site. The property is not regulated by any specific plan or other regulatory land use plan. The Green Valley Master Plan does not designate the site as worthy of any mineral recovery or mineral protection efforts . Environmental Evaluation: As a result of the fact that the City has not designated the subject property as an important mineral resource recovery site in any regulatory land use document, it is determined that implementation of the proposed project will not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site. No specific plan or general plan requires protection of the site for mineral deposit conservation or recovery. Finding: No impact-No adopted regulatory land use documents, including the City of Carlsbad General Plan, the Green Valley Master Plan, or the P-C zoning designate the subject site as any mineral resource recovery location . 39 Rev. 07/03/02 ... ... ... .... ... .... -.... .... -·- ·- '"". .... XI. a) NOISE -Would the project result in: 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? Existing condition: The subject area is surrounded on three sides by permanent open space, and on the south by a use almost identical to the proposed use. The project will include residential development, which does not generate significant noise, but constitutes a noise receptor. The City of Carlsbad has adopted noise regulations for uses within the city. The Noise Element of the Carlsbad General Plan states that the City's policy is that 60 dB(A) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is the maximum exterior noise level to which residential units should be subjected, except that 65 dB( A) is the maximum for residential units subject to noise from McClellan-Palomar Airport. The proposed amendment to the approved site development plan for La Costa Glen north end will not significantly change the locations of the approved residential units, in their relation to and distance from El Camino Real and La Costa A venue . Environmental Evaluation: The construction of the proposed project is anticipated to create the greatest amount of noise, inasmuch as the permanent use will not create significant noise. The City of Carlsbad Municipal Code (Chapter 8.48) prohibits construction activity that would create disturbing, excessive, or offensive noise after sunset of any day, and before 7 A.M. Monday through Friday, and before 8 A.M. on Saturday, and all day Sunday and specified holidays. The Noise Ordinance does not set a defmed noise level standard for construction activities, but simply limits the hours of construction. The significance of construction noise produced during project construction is typically assessed in accordance with the County of San Diego Noise Ordinance. San Diego County Noise Ordinance Section 36.410 stipulates that construction noise shall not exceed 75 dB for more than 8 hours during any 24-hour period. In terms of receiving noise, traffic motorist noise from El Camino Real represents the greatest potential for long-term noise impacts to the residences in the proposed development. The outdoor living areas in the project must comply with the City of Carlsbad's 60 CNEL outdoor noise standard. Also, the buildings in the project must comply with the City's 45 dBA CNEL standard. A Noise Analysis for the Green Valley Crossing Health Center, Mestre Greve Associates, December 3, 1997, was conducted for the project which has been previously approved on the La Costa Glen north end site. This analysis concludes that the project site is estimated to be located at least 570 feet from the nearest driving lane ofEl Camino Real. Based on this distance, the nearest outdoor living areas are projected to experience a worst case future traffic noise level of approximately 59.4 CNEL. Since the proposed project includes residential units at effectively the same distance from El Camino Real, and this level is less than the 60 CNEL threshold, no exterior mitigation measures will be necessary . Regarding interior requirements, the nearest residential units along El Camino Real are projected to be exposed to a worst case traffic noise level of approximately 59 CNEL, resulting in a maximum outdoor to indoor noise attenuation of approximately 14 dBA in order to comply with the indoor noise standard of 45 CNEL. Since the buildings in the project are projected to experience traffic noise levels less than 60 CNE, the buildings in the project will comply with the 45 CNEL indoor noise standard, assuming with conventional building construction which usually achieve at least a 20 dBA noise reduction. Finding: Less than significant impact -Both construction noise levels and permanent noise levels are anticipated to comply with City of Carlsbad Noise Policy standards. 40 Rev. 07/03/02 - - - - •• -- ... .... •Ill• .... ..... ... , .. -.. - ..... - b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? Existing condition: The proposed project is a standard planned retirement project, similar in scale to the existing project to the south, and the presently approved project on the site. Environmental Evaluation: Although some ground vibration may occur during construction of the project, the project is not anticipated to expose persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or noise levels. Finding: No impact -The project will not produce any significant groundbourne vibration. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Existing condition: Please refer to response XI( a). Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to response XI( a). Finding: Less than significant impact-The proposed project is a planned retirement project. This project is not anticipated to result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels without the project. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Existing condition: Please refer to response XI( a). Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to response XI( a). Finding: Less than significant impact -During construction, a temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity is anticipated. Construction will be scheduled to conform to the noise level limitations specified in the Carlsbad Municipal Code, so the increase is not considered substantial or significant. 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? Existing condition: The subject project improvements are located approximately 14,000 linear feet (2.65 miles) due south of McClellan-Palomar Airport. The City of Carlsbad has adopted a public airport land use plan . Environmental Evaluation: Since the proposed project is located in excess of two miles (2.65 miles) from the closest airport (McClellan-Palomar Airport), the site does not meet the minimum qualifications as having the potential for safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. No significant impact is anticipated to result from noise generated from this airport . 41 Rev. 07/03/02 .... -- - ---.... ----.... .... "'" -.... ... -'- ... .... .... Finding: No impact-As a result of its 2.65 miles distance from McClellan-Palomar Airport, the project does not meet the minimum qualifications as a potential safety hazard. The project will not 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? Existing condition: No private airstrip exists in the vicinity of the subject project. Environmental Evaluation: The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip Finding: No impact-The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Xll. 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)? Existing condition: The subject project constitutes a modification of the site plan and proposed construction on the La Costa Glen north end. Implementation of the project would result in a minor increase in the intensity (and thus the population) of the site, as compared to the presently-approved plan. It would not reach however, the maximum intensity allowed in the Green Valley Master Plan. The site is designated in the City of Carlsbad Land Use Element of the General Plan/Green Valley Master Plan for residential uses. The Master Plan further refmes the land use options for the site as a potential "Professional Care Facility". As such, the subject site has been identified as a location for urban growth and associated infrastructure . Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project involves the development of the La Costa Glen north end. Population projection for the project is shown in a comparative table with the previously- approved project as follows: Pronosed Project Use Units Population Total Generation Population Retirement Community 105 1.6 168 Congregate Care Facilities 554 1.0 554 Convalescent Care 140 1.0 140 Total units 799 862 1997 Annroved Project Use Units Population Total Generation Population Retirement Community 571 1.6 914 Total units 571 914 The above development is proposed for the north end of Planning Area 3 of the Green Valley Master Plan, which is identified to accommodate such development, in conjunction with a conditional use permit. As a result, no inducement for substantial growth, either directly or indirectly will occur through implementation of the subject project. A slight decrease in projected population of the site by 52 persons is projected . 42 Rev. 07/03/02 - - - .... -- .... ... .... ... ,. - - - - Finding: No impact-The project will not induce substantial grown, nor will it induce population growth by providing infrastructure to support unplanned growth. The property is designated for urban development consistent with the proposed project in the Green Valley Master Plan. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Existing condition: No housing exists within or in the immediate area of the proposed improvements. The subject area is totally surrounded by existing and planned open space. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project will not displace any existing housing because no housing exists in the area of the subject project. The site has previously been found to be appropriate for a similar development project. Finding: No impact-No housing will be displaced by the project. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Existing condition: The project site has been mass graded. It is designated for future urban development in the City of Carlsbad General Plan and the Master Plan. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project will not displace any people because no people, residences or other development presently exists on the site. Finding: No impact-No people or houses will be displaced by implementation of the project. Xill. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i . Fire protection? Existing condition: The La Costa Glen project is located within the Zone 23 Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) area. The approved Zone 23 LFMP stipulates a performance standard of no more than 1 ,500 dwelling units may be allowed outside of a five minute response time, citywide. City of Carlsbad Fire Station No. 2 (1906 Arenal Road) serves the subject site. All future development within Zone 23 is within the five minute response time of Fire Station No. 2. Environmental Evaluation: The subject site is considered by the Carlsbad Fire Department to be within a 2-minute fire response time of Fire Station No.2. The subject project will not measurably affect this anticipated current fire response times. Finding: No impact-The proposed La Costa Glen north end project is within an area anticipated by the Fire Department for urban development, and planned within their standard response time. The 43 Rev. 07/03/02 ... - -- -... --- - - - --- ----- - -- - project will comply with the performance standard identified in the Zone 23 LFMP, and therefore will not have any measurable affect on the fire service demands or needs of the area. ii. Police protection? Existing condition: The Carlsbad Police Department (CPD), located on 2560 Orion Way, services the entire city of Carlsbad. Although the City has not established an official service standard for the department, CPD does maintain a general in-house guideline that is followed in order to assure adequate police service to the community. This guideline suggests a six-minute maximum response time anywhere within the city limits. In order to achieve this level of emergency service and to sufficiently patrol the city, the CPD currently operates seven beats, each patrolled at any given time by one or two officers . Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project would represent a slight increase in demand on CPD resources due to the increase in housing units (although overall population would be decreased). However this increased demand is anticipated to be minimal, and the department is sufficiently staffed to absorb such demand and continue to meet their own general service guideline of maintaining a six-minute emergency response time. Finding: Less than significant impact-The minimal increase in demand on police protection resources represented by the proposed project will not significantly impact this service, inasmuch as their department's service guideline will continue to be met. iii. Schools? Existing condition: The Zone 23 LFMP indicates that the adopted City-adopted performance standard for school facilities is that school capacity to meet projected enrollment within the zone as determined by the school district must be provided prior to projected occupancy. The project is located within the San Dieguito High School District and the Encinitas Union Elementary School District. These school districts possess requirements and standards for capacities of existing and planned facilities. For purposes of long range planning, both districts are projected to be currently operating at capacity, and the districts do not have room to facilitate an increase in student population. The districts are both addressing this situation at this time. The proposed project is a retirement community, in which all residents must be a minimum of 60-years of age. The proposed amendment for the north end development design plans will not change this requirement of the community. Environmental Evaluation: Due to the fact that all residents of the La Costa Glen north end project must be a minimum of 60-years of age, and thus will have no school-age children, the project will have no impact on school student generation. Finding: No impact -The project will not generate any need for school services and, therefore, will have no impact on schools serving the area. iv. Parks? Existing condition: The Zone 23 LFMP indicates that the adopted City-adopted performance standard for park facilities is 3 acres of community park or special use area per 1,000 population within the park district, must be scheduled for construction within a five year period. The project is located within Park District 3. The present status of Park District 3 park supply and demand is as follows; 44 Rev. 07/03/02 -.... ... ------- ·• -- ... .... - ·------ -- - - Name Type Acres Poinsettia Park Community 42.0 Aviara Park Community 24.2 A viara Middle School Special Use Area 6.0 Total 72.2 Veteran's Memorial Regional 25.0 Buildout Total 97.2 Environmental Evaluation: The proposed La Costa Glen north end project will decrease the buildout population projection of the project by approximately 52 persons. This decrease in buildout population will result in a decrease in park demand of0.15 acres. Finding: No impact-The decrease in parkland demand from the previously-approved project will result in no significant impact on park facilities. The previously approved project was considered by the City to comply with the parks facilities standard. v. Other public facilities? Existing condition: Sewer: The Leucadia County Water District provides sewer service to the subject site. Sewage from the site is processed at the Gafner Wastewater Reclamation Facility, via a 15- inch sewer trunk line located in El Camino Real, adjacent to the subject site. The Zone 23 LFMP stipulates that sewer trunk line capacity must meet demand as determined by appropriate sewer districts must be provided concurrent with development. The subject project amendment will generate approximately 228 additional EDU sewage demand over that projected for the previously approved project. A sewage trunk line serving the south-east section of Carlsbad, exists along the east side of Encinitas Creek, adjacent to the west side of the right-of-way for El Camino Real. Water: The Olivenhain Municipal Water District provides water service to the subject site. Water is provided from the existing 16-inch water main located westerly of the site. The Zone 23 LFMP stipulates that water line capacity must meet demand as determined by appropriate water district must be provided concurrent with development. Also, that a minimum ten day average storage capacity must be provided prior to any development. The subject project amendment will generate approximately 228 additional EDU water demand over that projected for the previously approved project. Environmental Evaluation: Sewer: A comparison of equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) demand for the subject plan amendment is as follows: Proposed Project Use Retirement Community Congregate Care Facilities Convalescent Care Total units Units 105 554 140 799 45 EDU Total Generation EDU's 1.0 105 0.6 332 0.5 70 507 Rev. 07/03/02 """' •• ... .... -- - ... - - - •• -- •• - ·• - - - 1997 AQQroved Project Use Units EDU Total Generation EDU's Retirement Community 571 1.0 571 Total units 571 571 As evidenced by the above sewer generation analysis, the proposed project will decrease the overall sewer demand from that projected for the 1997 approved project. Water: Water demand will have a corresponding decrease of approximately 64 EDU projected from the proposed project. Finding: No impact-The proposed project will decrease the sewer and water demand from that previously-approved for the site. XN. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Existing condition: The proposed project will result in a projected decrease in population (by 52 persons) as shown in the tables below. This population decrease will result in a decrease in use of existing neighborhood and regional parks, or other facilities. ProQosed Project Use Units Population Total Generation Population Retirement Community 105 1.6 168 Congregate Care Facilities 554 1.0 554 Convalescent Care 140 1.0 140 Total units 799 862 1997 A:QQroved Project Use Units Population Total Generation Population Retirement Community 571 1.6 914 Total units 571 914 Environmental Evaluation: The proposed La Costa Glen north end project will decrease the buildout population projection of the project by approximately 52 persons. This decrease in buildout population will result in a decrease in park demand of0.15 acres. According the City funding priorities identified in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), the parks identified have been funded . Environmental Evaluation: This population decrease will result in a decrease in use of existing neighborhood and regional parks, or other facilities. Finding: No impact-The proposed project will result in decreased demand beyond that already accommodated, on recreational facilities of any kind. 46 Rev. 07/03/02 ... ... ------ - .... - ·-·- -- ---- - - 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? Existing condition: The proposed project will result in a decrease in recreational facilities demand over that analyzed in previous environmental and public facility analyses for the site. The project also results in a decrease in such demand from the project approved by the City and Coastal Commission in 1997 . Environmental Evaluation: The subject project will have decreased impact on demand for parks or other recreational facilities from that accommodated in the City's park planning. Finding: No impact-No additional recreational facilities, and no construction or expansion of recreational facilities will result from implementation of the proposed project. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC-Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? Existing condition: The subject project is located in the southwest quadrant of the city of Carlsbad, surrounded on the east by El Camino Real, and on the north by La Costa A venue. No significant traffic is presently generated by the site. Environmental Evaluation: A traffic analysis of traffic impacts projected of the proposed project has been prepared (La Costa Glen North End Project Traffic Letter Report), Linscott, Law & Greenspan, June 12, 2003) which analyzes the traffic generation from the proposed project, with the two previously- proposed development scenarios for the site. The previous scenarios included a 400-unit single family development as documented in the 1996 approved Green Valley Reduced Project Alternative, and a retirement community of 571 retirement units which was approved as part of the 1997 La Costa Glen project. Proposed Project Use ADT AM Peak AM Peak PM Peak PM Peak Hour-In Hour-Out Hour-In Hour-Out Retirement Community 420 8 13 18 12 Congregate Care Facilities 1,385 33 22 55 55 Convalescent Care 420 18 12 12 18 Total (779 units) 2,225 59 47 85 85 Approved Green Valley Reduce Project Alternative Use ADT AM Peak AM Peak PM Peak PM Peak Hour-In Hour-Out Hour-In Hour-Out 1996 Green Valley MP Max -4,000 -96 -224 -280 -120 Total (400 SFD) -1,775 -37 -177 -195 -35 1997 Approved Project (Villas} Use ADT AM Peak AM Peak PM Peak PM Peak Hour-In Hour-Out Hour-In Hour-Out Retirement Community -1,620 -40 -25 -60 -70 Total (571 Retirement villas) 605 19 22 25 15 47 Rev. 07/03/02 .... "'"' -------- --- - - - -·---- •• -- - - The 1996 approved Green Valley Master Plan Reduced Project Alternative documented a maximum number of 400 single family dwelling units for the overall site. The traffic generation for this scenario is calculated at 4,000 ADT with 320 peak hour trips (96 inbound and 224 outbound) and 400 peak hour trips (280 inbound and 120 outbound). When compared to the 1996 Green Valley Master Plan Reduced Project Alternative, the La Costa Glen project is calculated to generate 1,775 less ADT, 37less AM inbound peak hour trips, 1 77 less AM outbound peak hour trips, 195 less PM inbound peak hour trips, and 35 less PM outbound peak hour trips. The 1997 analysis for the approved La Costa Glen North End Villas Project documented a traffic generation of 1,620 ADT with 65 AM peak hour trips (40 inbound and 25 outbound) and 130 PM peak hour trips (60 inbound and 70 outbound). When compared to the 1997 analysis, the proposed La Costa Glen project is calculated to generate 605 additional ADT, 19 additional AM inbound peak hour trips, 22 additional AM outbound peak hour trips, 25 additional PM inbound peak hour trips, and 15 additional PM outbound peak hour trips. Finding: Less than significant impact -The proposed project is projected to generate only 605 additional ADT beyond that found previously by the City (in 1997) to have no significant impact to traffic. This increase is not considered an increase so substantial that it will impact the existing roadway system in the vicinity of the site. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Existing condition: All street segments and intersections in the immediate vicinity of the subject project presently operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS "D" or better during the AM and PM peak hour periods). Some intersections and roadway segments within the city operate at unacceptable levels of service, including freeway links. The additional traffic generated by the project will cumulatively add to this traffic congestion. The proposed project (La Costa Glen north and south ends total) will generate approximately 2,225 ADT. Environmental Evaluation: The increase of 2,225 ADT onto the adjacent street system will cumulatively contribute to impacted road segments or intersections exceeding the level of service standard established by SANDAG or by the City of Carlsbad. The proposed project will not significantly impact traffic flow in the area of the project. Finding: Potentially significant impact-The proposed project will add cumulatively to existing significant impacted traffic levels of service within the city. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result in substantial safety risks? Existing condition: patterns. The proposed project will have no impact on air traffic demand or air traffic Environmental Evaluation: No air travel routes to or from McClellan Palomar Airport are routed over the subject site. Therefore no significant impact on air traffic will result from implementation of the project. Finding: No impact-The project would not generate or require air traffic and would not physically interfere with air traffic patterns. 48 Rev. 07/03/02 - •• ---- ------ •• •• ... ·----- •• ---- - d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses? Existing condition: The project will be designed in accordance with City standards for retirement community housing and facilities . Environmental Evaluation: The project will be designed in accordance with City standards for retirement community housing and facilities. This includes adequate fire access and vehicular circulation, and roadway widths, parking configuration, and length and widths of internal roads and driveways. These standards have been adopted and have been demonstrated through long-term use to decrease hazards or incompatible uses. Finding: No impact-The project will not substantially increase hazards due to design features or incompatible uses. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Existing condition: The Carlsbad Fire Department is responsible for review of emergency access plans for development projects. The project site plan will be assessed for emergency access by the Fire Department prior to approval. Environmental Evaluation: The City will review the details of the proposed design ofLa Costa Glen north end to ensure compliance with emergency access plans. Finding: No impact-The proposed project will be required to comply with emergency access plans, and the project will not affect any public or private access to other property. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? Existing condition: The proposed project is required to comply with Chapter 21.44 (Parking) ofthe Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance . Environmental Evaluation: The City of Carlsbad will review the fmal site plan to ensure its compliance with the Parking Ordinance, and will not be approved if sufficient parking is not being provided. Therefore it can be concluded that adequate parking capacity will be provided for the project. Finding: No impact -Sufficient spaces will be provided onsite. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)? Existing condition: The subject site is not identified on any regional or community plans relative to alternative transportation. The site is not central to any transportation corridor or route. Environmental Evaluation: The project is located on a site that is not considered integral to any alternative transportation policies. Thus the project will not conflict with any such policies . Finding: No impact-As a result of the fact that regional and local policies do not include any specific reference to the site in terms of alternative transportation programs, facilities, it is concluded that the project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. 49 Rev. 07/03/02 - -· --------- -- "'"' - - "--- - -·- - - XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS -Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Existing condition: The subject project involves a modification to approved plans for La Costa Glen north end. This results in a difference in quantity of wastewater to be treated. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project has been analyzed for utility demand in comparison to the 1997 approved project. This analysis concludes that the project will result in a total reduction of 64 EDU, as shown in the table below: Pro:Qosed Project Use Units EDU Total Generation EDU's Retirement Community 105 1.0 105 Congregate Care Facilities 554 0.6 332 Convalescent Care 140 0.5 70 Total units 799 507 1997 Approved Project Use Units EDU Total Generation EDU's Retirement Community 571 1.0 571 Total units 571 571 Finding: No impact-The project would have no effect on wastewater treatment. 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? Existing condition: Please refer to the previous response. The project will result in a decrease in quantity of wastewater generation. Environmental Evaluation: The subject project would create a decrease in demand on wastewater treatment facilities, and would not require the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities. It would not require expansion of any existing water or wastewater facilities. Finding: No impact-No additional demand on water distribution or wastewater collection or treatment facilities would result from implementation of the proposed project. 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? Existing condition: The subject project involves the modification of an approved retirement community design on a previously mass-graded site. Environmental Evaluation: The subject project is adequate in size and scope to adequately provide for the project purpose. No additional new or expanded drainage facilities will be necessitated by 50 Rev. 07/03/02 ..• ... ... .... ---.. ""' - .. .., .... ... ------ ·• -- - - implementation of the proposed project. Both upstream and downstream facilities contain adequate capacity and functionality to accept the storm water demands resulting when the project is complete . Finding: No impact -No significant new storm water drainage facilities are proposed or would be required from development of the proposed project. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Existing condition: The La Costa Glen north end project involves the modification of an approved retirement community design on a previously mass-graded site . Environmental Evaluation: The project is planned as a retirement community on approximately 27.7 acres. Water service will be supplied by the Olivenhain Water District. No water supply impacts are proposed through implementation of the project. The project will have no significant impact on water supplies. Finding: Less than significant impact. The project will not result in a significant impact to potable water supplies. 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? Existing condition: Please refer to response XVI( a). Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to response XI( a). Finding: No impact-No measurable increase in wastewater treatment will result from the project. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Existing condition: The subject project is a proposed modification to an approved plan within an approved master planned community. Environmental Evaluation: The project site has been planned as an urban community. No unanticipated significant increase in solid waste disposal is anticipated to result from implementation of the project. Finding: No impact-No measurable significant increase in impact on solid waste creation is expected to result from the subject project. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Existing condition: See previous response. The subject project is not anticipated to create any measurable significant increase in the amount of solid waste. The project is required to comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Environmental Evaluation: The project will create no significant impact on solid waste collection and disposal, and will comply with federal, state and local statutes 51 Rev. 07/03/02 -· - - --- -- - - .. - -·- -·- --... - -- , .. - Finding: No impact-The project will create no significant impact on solid waste collection and disposal, and will comply with federal, state and local statutes. A'VII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Existing condition: The subject project is a mass-graded pad located adjacent to Encinitas Creek, which is a main tributary to Batiquitos Lagoon. Construction of the project has the potential to create sediment in this creek. The project must also obtain a NPDES permit prior to construction. The permit will require that the project develop and implement specific erosion control and storm water pollution prevention plans to protect downstream water quality of Encinitas Creek. There is currently no significant development on the site, with the exception of temporary sales office trailers and related parking lot. Environmental Evaluation: After development, there will be an increase in runoff from the study area. A portion ofthe increase in runoff will be due to the use of imported water into the study area for landscaping, etc. The remaining water increase will be due to the increased impervious area within the project site. This water will all flow into a detention basin located on the downhill side of the project, adjacent to Encinitas Creek. Application, certification and compliance with an NPDES permit for implementation of the subject project will ensure that water quality entering Encinitas Creek will be maintained to a level of acceptability. Finding: Less than significant impact -Please refer to the responses to Sections IV and V. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) Existing condition: The existing use of the La Costa Glen north end project site is a mass-graded property, planned for urban use adjacent to an existing urban development. The site produces no significant air pollution or traffic at this time. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project will contribute incrementally to air pollution and traffic congestion in the vicinity. Finding: Less than significant impact-It is concluded that the cumulative impacts to air quality and traffic will be less than significant. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Existing condition: The site has no impact on human beings at this time. Environmental Evaluation: The project does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 52 Rev. 07/03/02 •• ..... ... .... --------- - - - ---·- •• ---- - - Finding: No impact -Potential adverse effects on the human population have been evaluated in preceding sections of this checklist. No unmitigable adverse environmental effects attributable to the project have been identified . XVlll. 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) b) c) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. 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. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refmed 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. 2. 3. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01), City of Carlsbad Planning Department (March 1994). Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Green Valley, Leighton & Associates, Inc. (July 11, 1996) Green Valley Reduced Project Alternative Master Plan, P&D Consultants and City of Carlsbad, (September 17, 1996) 4. Preliminary Drainage Study for La Costa Glen, O'Day Consultants, (August 1, 2003) 5 . 6. 7. Current Rules and Regulations, County of San Diego Air Pollution Control District (November, 2002). San Diego County Important Farmland, California Department of Conservation (September, 2002). Noise Analysis for the Green Valley Crossing Health Center, Mestre Greve Associates, (December 3, 1997). 53 Rev. 07/03/02 ... .... -- -... -- - ... .... ... --·-- ... ---- - 8. Uniform Building Code-Volume 1 (1997); Table 18-1-B . 9. Special Publication 42, California Geological Survey; State Geologist Division of Mines and Geology (May 1996). 10. Traffic Letter Report La Costa Geln (North End), Linscott, Law and Greenspan Engineers, (June 12, 2003). 11. Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Green Valley Master Plan, Coleman Planning Group (September 1995) . 12. 13. 14. Zone 23 Local Facilities Management Plan, Planning Systems and P&D Technologies, (July 1993). Supplemental Information to the Program Environmental Impact Report for the Green Valley Master Plan, Coleman Planning Group (September 1995). City of Carlsbad, Zoning Ordinance 15. City of Carlsbad, Grading Ordinance ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DISCUSSION: AIR QUALITY The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a "non- attainment basin", any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region . To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan bui1dout, a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master 54 Rev. 07/03/02 ... ... «~~• - -... .... - .... ,.., •• ·----- ·• ---- - EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required . This document is available at the Planning Department. TRANSPORTATION/Cffi.CULATION The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. A MEIR may not be used to review projects if it was certified more than five years prior to the filing of an application for a later project. The City is currently reviewing the 1994 MEIR to determine whether it is still adequate to review subsequent projects. Although the MEIR was certified more than five years ago, the City's preliminary review of its adequacy fmds that no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MEIR was certified. The only potential changed circumstance, the intersection failure at Palomar Airport Rd. and El Camino Real has been mitigated to below a level of significance with new roadway improvements. Additionally, there is no new available information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the MEIR was certified. Therefore, the MEIR remains adequate to review later projects. 55 Rev. 07/03/02 ... ... ... ... ... ... •• --- - -.... - I >IIIII LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES To mitigate potentially significant project impacts, the following mitigation measures shall be applied to the development of the proposed project: HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY: 1. Prior to commencement of the project, and pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, the project proponent shall notify the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) of the activities proposed, and shall receive water quality certification for the construction operation, if required by the RWQCB. 2. The project proponent shall comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit regulations as promulgated by the California RWQCB for the San Diego region. This shall include control of all non-storm discharges during construction, and development and implementation of a monitoring and reporting program to assess the storm water pollution prevention plan. 3. The project proponent shall adhere to applicable RWQCB regulations for control of sedimentation and erosion, including the installation of temporary detention basins or other means of stabilization or impoundment required by the State Water Resources Control Board. The following guidelines shall be utilized during design and implemented during construction to reduce runoff and minimize erosion: a. Comply with current drainage design policies set forth in the City of Carlsbad procedures. b. Create desiltation basins where necessary to minimize erosion and prevent sediment transport until the storm drain system is in place. c. Landscape all exposed, manufactured slopes per City of Carlsbad erosion control standards. d. Phase grading operations and slope landscaping to reduce the susceptibility of slopes to erosion. e. Control sediment production from graded building pads with low perimeter berms, desiltation basins, jute matting, sandbags, bladed ditches, or other appropriate methods. 56 Rev. 07/03/02