HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 98-05; De Jong Property; Tentative Map (CT) (3)XV \J l^
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident
of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of
eighteen years and not a party to or interested in
the above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk
of the printer of
North County Times
formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have
been adjudged newspapers of general
circulation by the Superior Court of the County of
San Diego, State of California, for the cities of
Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad, Solana Beach
and San Diego County; that the notice of which
the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not
smaller than nonpareil), has been published in
each regular and entire issue of said newspaper
and not in any supplement thereof on the
following dates, to-wit:
May 4, 2001
This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
SAn Marcos
Dated at , California
4th
this
of
_day
May, 2001
Proof of Publication of
Negative Declaration
NEGATIVE DECLARATION 'Project Address/Location: Northeast corner of Black Rail
Road and future Poinsettia Lane.Project Description: One year extension of Tentative TractMap 98-05 and Coastal Development Permit 98-26 for 3 28:
unit residential subdivision.The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental re-view of the-above described project pursuant to the Guide-lines for Implementation of the California EnvironmentalQuality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance ofthe City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a NegativeDeclaration (declaration that the project will not have a sig-nificant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for thesubject project. Justification for this action is" on file in the
Planning Department.A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive docu-ments is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 FaradayAvenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from thepublic are invited. Please submit comments in writing to thePlanning Department within 30'days of date of issuance. Ifyou have any questions, please call Van Lynch in the Plan-
ning Department at (760) 602-4613.
DATED'. MAY 4, 2001CASE NO: CT 98-05X1 /CDP 98-26X1
CASE NAME: DEJONG PROPERTY
/s/MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning DirectorLegal 69955. May 4, 2001 '
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
Notice of Determination FILE COPY
To: Office of Planning and Research
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121
Sacramento, CA 95814
From: CITY OF CARLSBAD
Planning Department
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
(760)438-1161County Clerk
County of San Diego
Mailstop 833, Arm: MITA
POBox 1750
San Diego, CA 92112-4147
Project No: ZC 98-02/LCPA 98-01/CT 98-05/HDP 98-03/CDP 98-26/V 98-04
Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public
Resources Code.
Dejong Residential Project
Project Title
98111082 City of Carlsbad, Don Neu (760)438-1161 ext. 4446
State Clearinghouse No.Lead Agency, Contact Person Telephone Number
Northeast corner of the intersection of Black Rail Road and future Poinsettia Lane in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego
Project Locations (include County)
Project Description: A Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment to change the land
use designations for the site from L-C to R-1-7,500-Q and OS on a 33.4 acre property. Also
included is a Tentative Tract Map to create 28 residential lots and 2 open space lots with
related permits.
This is to advise that the City of Carlsbad has approved the above described project on May 11,
1999, and has made the following determination regarding the above described project.
1. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment
2. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of
CEQA.
3. Mitigation measures were made a condition of the approval of the project.
4. A statement of Overriding Considerations was not adopted for this project.
5. Findings were made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
This is to certify that the final Mitigated Negative Declaration with comments and responses and
record of project approval is available to the General Public at THE CITY OF CARLSBAD.
JMICHAEL J.
Date received for filing at OPR:
A_if_mTM—i, Planning Director Date
Revised October 1989
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location:
Project Description:
Northeast corner of the intersection of Black Rail Road and future
Poinsettia Lane.
A Local Coastal Program Amendment and Zone Change to change
the land use designation for the site from Limited Control (L-C) to
One-Family Residential, 7,500 square foot minimum lot size,
Qualified Development Overlay Zone (R-1-7.500-Q) and Open
Space (OS) on a 33.4 acre property. Also proposed is a Tentative
Tract Map to create 28 residential lots and 2 open space lots, a
Hillside Development Permit, Coastal Development Permit and a
Variance to allow two proposed lots to exceed the maximum
panhandle length.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the
initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1)
revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the
proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment
would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City
that the project "as revised" may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this
action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the
Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30
days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Don Neu in the Planning
Department at (760) 438-1161, extension 4446.
DATED:
CASE NO:
NOVEMBER 30, 1998
ZC 98-02/LCPA 98-01/CT 98-05/HDP 98-03/CDP 98-26/V 98-04
CASE NAME: de Jong Residential Proj ect
PUBLISH DATE: NOVEMBER 30,1998
MICHAEL J.SHOLZMILLER
Planning Director
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (76O) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 438-O894
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
DATE: Januarys, 1999
TIME SENT:
Number of Pages Being Transmitted
(Including Cover Sheet): 4
TO: Melissa Allen
COMPANY: Jack Henthorn & Associates
PHONE #: 438-4090
FAX #:438-0981
FROM: Don Neu
DEPT.: PLANNING
PHONE: (760) 438-1161 ext. 4446
FAX: (760) 438-0894
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
Transmitted is a copy of the response from the wildlife agencies in regard to the environmental
document for the DeJong Project. It appears that they need some additional information.
Please review the letter and contact me in regard to addressing the issues raised.
Thanks.
Return Fax
2075 Las Palmas Drive * Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 * (760)438-1161
DE.C-30-98 WED 4:46 PM FWS FAX NO. 760 43! 5902
US Fish & Wildlife Service
Carlsbad Field Office
2730 Loker Avenue, West
Carlsbad, CA 92008
(760)431-9440
FAX (760) 431-9624
Dept. of Fish & Game
1416 Ninth Street
PO Box 944209
Sacramento, CA 94244-2090
(916) 653-9767
FAX (916) 653-2588
Mr. Don Neu
Planning Department
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, California 92009
DEC 3 0 1998
Re: Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed DeJong Residential Development Project;
ZC 98-02/LCPA 98-01/CT 98-05/HDP 98-03/CDP 98-26/V 98-04
Dear Mr. Neu:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and California Department of Fish and Game
(Department), collectively the Wildlife Agencies, have completed their respective reviews of the
Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND) prepared by the City of Carlsbad for the proposed DeJong
property development project. The following materials were consulted as part of this review: The ND
(publish date November 30, 1998), inclusive of the Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Part II
dated October 15, 1998; the "Biological Resources Report and Impact Assessment for the DeJong
Property, City of Carlsbad, California" prepared by Dudek & Associates, February 11,1998; and a
letter report prepared by Dudek & Associates regarding offsite impacts of the proposed DeJong
property development dated July 17, 1998.
The 33.4-acre project site is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Black Rail Road and
future Poinsettia lane, west of El Camino Real, east of Paseo del Norte, north of Aviara Parkway, and
south of Palomar Airport Road within Local Facilities Management Zone (LFMZ) 20, City of Carlsbad
(City). Project implementation entails a subdivision of land to create 28 residential lots (minimum lot
size of 7,500 square feet) and two open space lots. A zone change and local coastal program
amendment are proposed to allow conformance with the existing general plan land use designations.
An irrevocable offer of dedication (IOD) will be required for the open space lots, and a portion of the
residential density from these parcels is being transferred to the are of the site proposed for
development. In addition to the approval of a tentative map, the project also requires a hillside
development permit, coastal development permit and variance to allow two lots to exceed the
maximum panhandle length currently set by the City.
Surrounding land uses include agriculture to the south and west and native habitat to the north and east.
Topographically, the southwestern portion of the site is relatively flat and has been under agricultural
and greenhouse uses; the remaining portions of the site are comprised of steep slopes with two
drainages that are tributary to Encinitas Creek. The slopes are vegetated with southern maritime
chaparral and oak woodland is present in the drainages. Site elevations range from 200 feet above
mean sea level (ASML) to 360 feet ASML. Underlying soils consist of the Chesterton fine sandy loam
(5-9 percent slope) and loamy alluvial land-Huerhuero complex (9-50 percent slope). Approximately
OPTIONAL FORM 99 (7-90) 0y" | flit/^ (JU.^M, ' ' ' '
FAX TRANSM1TTAL [*oi7aaes,
DFX-30-98 WED 4:48 PM FWS FAX HO. 7604315902 P. 2
Mr. Don Neu 2
40 percent (13.2 acres) of the site consists of developed lands or disturbed habitat. The remaining
acreage (60 percent; 20,2 acres) consists of native habitats which include the following: southern
maritime chaparral (10.8 acres, which includes scrub oak chaparral), coastal sage scrub (4.1 acres),
valley needlegrass (native) grassland (0.10 acre), non-native grassland (2.9 acres), and coast live oak
woodland (2.3 acres). Sensitive plant species identified on-site as part of surveys conducted in
September and October 1997 include Del Mar manzanita {Arctostaphylos glcmduhsa ssp. crossifolia),
wart-stemmed (coast white) lilac (Ceanothus verrucosus), summer-holly (Comarostaphlis diversifolia
ssp. diversifolia), and Nuttall's scrub oak (Quercus dumosd). A focused survey was not conducted for
the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californ\ca; gnatcatcher), however, this
species was detected within coastal sage scrub in the central portion of the site. No other sensitive
animal species were identified on-site. Records for thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaeafilifolia) and
Nuttall's lotus (Lotus nuttallianus) exist for the site, however, neither species was observed, likely
because surveys were conducted outside of the time in which they could be detected. It is unlikely that
these species would be affected by project implementation as their recorded locations would be
preserved in biological open space.
Project impacts would result in the direct on-site loss of 0.7 acres of southern maritime chaparral, 0.8
acre of non-native grassland, and 11.5 acres of agricultural lands. Direct, off-site impacts will also
occur as a result of the project's requirement to complete a portion of Poinsettia Lane. These impacts
are predominantly in disturbed habitat (2.7 acres), however approximately 0.2 acre of southern
maritime chaparral and six individuals of Del Mar manzanita will also be affected. Impacts will be
mitigated through the on-site preservation and IOD for 4.1 acres of coastal sage scrub, 10.2 acres of
southern maritime chaparral, 0.1 acre of valley needlegrass (native) grassland, 2.1 acres of non-native
grassland, and 2.3 acres of coast live oak woodland at an acceptable ratio and in a configuration which
contributes to long-term conservation planning goals proposed for LFMZ 20 in the City's draft Habitat
Management Plan (October 1998; HMP).
Based upon the our review of the ND and pertinent biological and conservation planning information,
the Service and Department offer the following recommendations:
1. Any clearing of native habitat be conducted outside of the breeding season for the gnatcatcher
which is considered to be February 15 through August 30, annually.
2. It is not clear that all fuel modification activities would be restricted to the lots. Fuel
modification impacts which would occur in proposed native habitat to be conserved as
biological open space are not acceptable. Please provide additional information on this issue
for our review.
3. The Wildlife Agencies concur with the IOD for those lands to be conserved as biological open
space. We recommend, however, that these lands be dedicated to the City prior to the
issuance of grading permits or approval of improvement plans in lieu of grading permits.
Information as to the specific uses allowed in the open space and who will be responsible for
the long-term maintenance and management of these lands should be provided in the ND and
mitigation monitoring plan.
BE£-3(H 4:50 PM FWS FAX HO. 760 431 5902 P. 3
Mr. Don Neu
The Service and Department appreciate the opportunity to review this ND for the DeJong residential
development project. If you have any questions regarding the contents of this letter, please contact
Julie Vanderwier at (760) 431-9440 or David Lawhead at (619) 467-4211.
Sincerely,
Sheryl L.
Assistant Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
cc: David Lawhead, CDFG
1-6-99-HC-069
William E. Tippets
Habitat Conservation Planning Supervisor
California Department of Fish and Game
Pete Wilson
GOVERNOR
Paul F Miner
DIRECTOR
ATE OF CALIFORNIA
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
1400 TENTH STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044
December 30,1998
Don Neu
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Subject: De Jong Residential Project - CT 98-05
SCH#: 98111082
Dear Don Neu:
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental document to selected state agencies for
review. The review period is closed and none of the state agencies have comments. This letter
acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft
environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
Please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the
environmental review process. When contacting the Clearinghouse in this matter, please use the eight-digit
State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly.
incerely,
Antero A. Rivasplata
Chief, State Clearinghouse
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
Mail to: State Clearinghouse, 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121,
Project Title: De Jong Residential Project - CT 98-05
nto, CA 95814 - (916) 445-0613
Lead Agency: CITY OF CARLSBAD Contact Person: Don Neu
Street Address: 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE Phone: (760)438-1161. ext.4446
City: CARLSBAD Zip: 92009 County: SAN DIEGO COUNTY
See NOTE Below:
PROJECT LOCATION;
County: San Diego City/Nearest Community: Carlsbad
Cross Streets: Black Rail Road & Poinsettia Lane Total Acres: 33.4
Assessor's Parcel No. 215-080-01 Section: Twp. Range:
Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #: 1-5 Waterways: Batiquitos Lagoon
Airports: McCLELLAN/PALOMAR Railways: MCJI
Base:
Schools: Avaira Oaks
DOCUMENT TYPE:
CEQA: Q
D
D
NOP
Early Cons
Neg Dec
Draft EIR
D
Dra
Supplement/Subsequent
EIR (Prior SCH No.)
Other: Mitigated Neg. Dec.
NEPA: Q
Dn
D
NOI
EA
Draft EIS
FONSI
OTHER: rj
Dn
Joint Document
Final Document
Other:
LOCAL ACTION TYPE:
fj General Plan Update
Q General Plan Amendment
Q General Plan Element
Q Community Plan
Specific Plan
Master Plan
Planned Unit Development
Site Plan
Rezone
Prezone
Use Permit
Land Division (Subdivision,
Parcel Map, Tract Map, etc.)
Annexation
Redevelopment
Coastal Permit
Other: Local Coastal Program
Amendment. Hillside Dev.
Permit. & a Variance
DEVELOPMENT TYPE:
Q Residential: Units 2£nnnnn
Office:Sq. Ft.
Commercial: Sq. Ft.
Industrial:Sq. Ft.
Educational:
Acres 33.4
Acres Employees
Acres Employees
Acres Employees
Recreational:
Q] Water Facilities:
D Transportation:
D Mining:
Q Power:
Q Waste Treatment:
fj Hazardous Water:
rj Other:
Type
Type
MGD
Mineral
Type
Type
Type
Watts
PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN DOCUMENT:aa
El
Elnaaa
Aesthetic/Visual
Agricultural Land
Air Quality
Archaeological/Historical
n
DnnCoastal Zone g]
Drainage/Absorption
Economic/Jobs
Fiscal
n
Da
Flood Plain/Flooding
Forest Land/Fire Hazard
Geological/Seismic
Minerals
Noise
Population/Hsg. Balance
Public Services/Facilities
Recreation/Parks
nnnnn
Na
Schools/Universities
Septic Systems
Sewer Capacity
nnnSoil Erosion/Compaction/Grading g
Solid Waste
Toxic/Hazardous
Traffic/Circulation
Vegetation
nn
(x]n
Water Quality
H,O Supply/Ground H,O
Wetland/Riparian
Wildlife
Growth Inducing
Land Use
Cumulative Effect
Other:
Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Use
Agriculture and native vegetation/Limited Control (L-C)/Residential Low to Medium Density (RLM) and Open Space (OS)
Project Description:
A proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment and Zone Change to change the land use designations for the site from Limited Control (L-C) to
One-Family Residential, 7,500 square foot minimum lot size, Qualified Development Overlay Zone (R-1-7.500-Q) and Open Space (OS) on a 33.4
acre property. Also proposed is a Tentative Tract Map to create 28 residential lots and 2 open space lots, a Hillside Development Permit, Coastal
Development Permit and a Variance to allow two proposed lots to exceed the maximum panhandle length.
State Clearinghouse Contact: Ms. DeLicia Wynn
(916)445-0613
State Review Began: // - i3fc? - "To
Dept Review to Agency /&• -&J- fO
Agency Rev to SCH /•* -ZX -Iff
SCH COMPLIANCE & ."TO . /£
Please note State Clearinghouse Number
(SCH#) on all Comments
SCH#: 'Ttf/J/O ?2-
Please forward late comments directly to the
Lead Agency
,OMn>A^h #? n,*^,. **<*£>
Project Sent to the following State Agencies
X Resources State/Consumer Svcs
Boating
^. Coastal Comm
Coastal Consv
Colorado Rvr Bd
Conservation
X Fish & Game # J5>
Delta Protection
Forestry
Xl_ Historic Preservation
X Parks & Rec
Reclamation
Bay Cons & Dev Comm
DWR
OES
Bus Transp Hous
•v.- Aeronautics
CMP
X Cairns # //
__*_« Trans Planning
General Services
Cal EPA
fr^-ARB
CA Waste Mgmt Bd
SWRCB: Clean Wtr Prog
SWRCB: Delta
SWRCB: Wtr Quality
SWRCB: Wtr Rights
X Reg.WQCB# 9
Toxic Sub Ctrl-CTC
Yth/Adlt Corrections
Corrections
Independent Comm "'
Energy Commission
X NAHC
Public Utilities Comm
Santa Monica1 Mtns
X State Lands Comm
Tahoe Rgl Plan
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
Mail to: State Clearinghouse, 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121, Sacramento", CA 95814^ (916)445-067J
Project Title: De Jong Residential Project - CT 98-05
Lead Agency: CITY OF CARLSBAD Contact Person: Don Neu
Street Address: 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE Phone: (760) 438-1161. ext.444fi
City. CARLSBAD Zip: 92009 County: SAN DIEGO COUNTY
See NOTE Below:
SCH#
PROJECT LOCATION:
County: San Dieeo City/Nearest Community: Carlsbad
Cross Streets: Black Rail Road & Poinsettia Lane Total Acres: 33.4
Assessor's Parcel No. 215-080-01 Section: Twp. Range: _
Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #: 1-5 Waterways: Batiquitos Lagoon
Airports: McCLELLAN/PALOMAR Railways: NCTD
Base:
Schools: Avaira Oaks
DOCUMENT TYPE:
CEQA: Q NOP [
£] Early Cons [
p Neg Dec £
fj Draft EIR
3 Supplement/Subsequent
3 EIR (Prior SCH No.)
g Other: Mitigated Neg. Dec.
NEPA: £] NOI OTHER: [
D EA C
fj Draft EIS [
fj FONSI
~] Joint Document
3 Final Document
-] Other:
LOCAL ACTION TYPE:
rj General Plan Update
Q General Plan Amendment
[3 General Plan Element
Q Community Plan
Specific Plan
Master Plan
Planned Unit Development
Site Plan
Rezone
Prezone
Use Permit
Land Division (Subdivision,
Parcel Map, Tract Map, etc.)
Annexation
Redevelopment
Coastal Permit
Other: Local Coastal Program
Amendment. Hillside Dev.
Permit. & a Variance
DEVELOPMENT TYPE:
fj Residential: Units 28
n Office: Sq. Ft.
Q Commercial: Sq. Ft.
Q] Industrial: Sq. Ft.
Q Educational:
fj Recreational:
PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED
Q Aesthetic/Visual Q
Q Agricultural Land [~]
[x] Air Quality Q
^ Archaeological/Historical Q
Q Coastal Zone ^
Q Drainage/Absorption Q
Q Economic/Jobs Q
r~| Fiscal r~i
Acres 3 3. 4
Acres Employees
Acres Employees
Acres Employees
IN DOCUMENT:
Flood Plain/Flooding Q
Forest Land/Fire Hazard Q
Geological/Seismic £
Minerals £
Noise rj
Population/Hsg. Balance rj
Public Services/Facilities g
Recreation/Parks N
Q Water Facilities:
Q Transportation:
Q Mining:
Q Power:
fj Waste Treatment:
fj Hazardous Water:
n Other:
] Schools/Universities
] Septic Systems
] Sewer Capacity
Tvpe MOD
Tvpe
Mineral
Tvpe Watts
Tvpe
Tvpe
Q Water Quality
Q H,O Supply/Ground H,O
Q Wetland/Riparian
] Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading ^ Wildlife
] Solid Waste
3 Toxic/Hazardous
^ Traffic/Circulation
3 Vegetation
Q Growth Inducing
Q Land Use
g] Cumulative Effect
n Other:
Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Use
Agriculture and native vegetation/Limited Control (L-C)/Residential Low to Medium Density (RLM) and Open Space (OS)
Project Description:
A proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment and Zone Change to change the land use designations for the site from Limited Control (L-C) to
One-Family Residential, 7,500 square foot minimum lot size, Qualified Development Overlay Zone (R-1-7,500-Q) and Open Space (OS) on a 33.4
acre property. Also proposed is a Tentative Tract Map to create 28 residential lots and 2 open space lots, a Hillside Development Permit, Coastal
Development Permit and a Variance to allow two proposed lots to exceed the maximum panhandle length.
NOTE: Clearinghouse will assign identification numbers for all new projects. If a SCH number already exists for a project (i.e.j from a Notice of
Preparation or previous draft document) please fill it in. Revised October 1989
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: Northeast comer of the intersection of Black Rail Road and future
Poinsettia Lane.
Project Description: A Local Coastal Program Amendment and Zone Change to change
the land use designation for the site from Limited Control (L-C) to
One-Family Residential, 7,500 square foot minimum lot size,
Qualified Development Overlay Zone (R-1-7,500-Q) and Open
Space (OS) on a 33.4 acre property. Also proposed is a Tentative
Tract Map to create 28 residential lots and 2 open space lots, a
Hillside Development Permit, Coastal Development Permit and a
Variance to allow two proposed lots to exceed the maximum
panhandle length.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the
initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1)
revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the
proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment
would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City
that the project "as revised" may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this
action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the
Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30
days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Don Neu in the Planning
Department at (760) 438-1161, extension 4446.
DATED:
CASE NO:
NOVEMBER 30, 1998
ZC 98-02/LCPA 98-01/CT 98-05/HDP 98-03/CDP 98-26/V 98-04
CASE NAME: de Jong Residential Project
PUBLISH DATE: NOVEMBER 30, 1998
MICHAEL J. HOLZ
Planning Director
LLER
2O75 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (760) 438-1161 • FAX (76O) 438-0894
DE JONG PROPERTY
ZC 98-02/LCPA 98-01/CT 98-05/
HDP 98-03/CDP 98-26/V 98-04
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART TT
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: ZC 98-Q2/LCPA 98-01/CT 98-05/HDP 98-03/CDP 98-26/V 98-04
DATE: October 15. 1998
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CASE NAME: de Jong Residential Project
APPLICANT: Arie de Jong. Jr. Family Trust
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 622 E. Mission Road. San Marcos. CA
92069: (76(T)_744-3222
DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: February 13. 1998
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment and Zone Change
to change the land use designation for the site from Limited Control (L-O to One-Family
Residential. 7.500 square foot minimum lot size. Qualified Development Overlay Zone (R-l-
7.500 -QJ and Open Space (OS) on a 33.4 acre property. Also proposed is a Tentative Tract Map
to create 28 residential lots and 2 open space lots, a Hillside Development Permit. Coastal
Development Permit and a Variance to allow two proposed lots to exceed the maximum
panhandle length. The project site is located at the northeast corner of Black Rail Road and
future Poinsettia Lane.
SUMMARY OF 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.
[ | Land Use and Planning
[ | Population and Housing
[~~[ Geological Problems
PI Water
Air Quality
Transportation/Circulation | j Public Services
Biological Resources | | Utilities & Service Systems
Energy & Mineral Resources | | Aesthetics
Hazards M Cultural Resources
Noise | j Recreation
| | Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
[J I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
Q] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
[~] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
[X] I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An Mitigated
Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be
addressed.
Q I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Master Environmental
Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-01),
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
Planner Signature Date
Planning Director's Signature Date
Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
• A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
"No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
• "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, 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 significant.
• Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but all potentially significant 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 (Prior Compliance).
• When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant 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 effect on the environment.
Rev. 03/28/96
• If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce 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 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 impact to less than
significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18; #2: Pgs 111-74 - III
-87)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18; #2 Pgs 111-74 - III -87)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18; #2 Pgs III -74 - III -87)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18; #2 Pgs ffl-74 - III -
87)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18; #2 III -
74 - III -87)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
a
a
a
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a
a
D
a
a
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 -
5.5-6)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
D
D
D
D D
D
D
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2: Pgs III-112 -
III-l 18; #6)
b) Seismic ground shaking? ((#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2:
PgsIII-112-III-118;#6)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
((#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1.15; #2: Pgs III-112 - III-118; #6)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15;#2: Pgs III-l 12 - III-l 18; #6)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2:
Pgs III-112-III-l 18; #6)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2: Pgs III-l 12 - III -118; #6)
g) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2: Pgs
III-l 12-III-l 18; #6)
h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2: Pgs III-112
-III-118; #6)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15; #2 Pgs III -112 - III -118; #6)
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-
ii; #7)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5. 2-11; #7)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5. 2-11; #7)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? ((# 1 :Pgs 5.2-1 - 5. 2-11; #7)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11; #7)
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1-5.2-11; #7)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
((#l:Pgs5.2-l-5. 2-ll;#7)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5. 2-
11; #7)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? ((#l:Pgs
5.2-1-5.2-11)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impact
Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5,3-
1 -5.3-12)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1
-5.3-12)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
d) Create objectionable odors? ((#1 :Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
D
D
D
D
D D
D EEI
D IE1
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #2: Pgs 111-58 -111-69)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #2: Pgs
111-58 -111-69)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #2: Pgs 111-58 -111-69)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #2: Pgs 111-58 - HI-69)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #2: Pgs 111-58 -111-69)
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #2: Pgs HI-58 - ffl-69)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -
5.7.22; #2: Pgs 111-58 -111-69)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
n
n
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
n
n
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24; #2: Pgs III-
37 -111-57; #3)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24; #2: Pgs 111-37 -111-57; #3)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24; #2:
Pgs 111-37 -111-57; #3)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24; #2: Pgs 111-37 -111-58; #3)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (# 1 :Pgs 5.4-1
- 5.4-24; #2: Pgs 111-37 -111-57; #3)
D
D
n
n
n n
n
n n
n n
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
1 -5.13-9)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5
& 5.13-1 -5.13-9)
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1-5.10.1-5)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -
5.10.1-5)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5; #2: Pgs 111-97 -
HI-105)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5; #2: Pgs
III-97-III-105)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9-
15;#2:Pgsffl-88-ffl-96;#5)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-
1 - 5.9-15; #2: Pgs 111-88 - 111-96; #5)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
D
D
No
Impact
D
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6)a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4)
Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (#1,
pgs 5.12.1-1-5.12.8-7)
Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
5.12.8-7)
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-1-5.13-9)
b) Communications systems? (#1; pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
e) Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
f) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.12.3-7)
D
D
D
nn
Dn
n
nn
nnnn
n
'nn
nnnn
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
5.1 1-1 - 5.11-5; #2: Pgs III-119 - III-151)
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5; #2: Pgs
III-119-III-151)
D
D
D
D
D
D
n
n
n
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
10;#2:PgsIII-106-III-107)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
10;#2:PgsIII-70-III-73)
c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10;#2:
Pgs 111-70 -111-73)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs
5.8-1 - 5.8-10; #2: Pgs 111-70 -111-73)
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Rev. 03/28/96
•^r
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10; #2: Pgs
111-70 -111-73)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
D
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 -
5.12.8-7)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs
5.12.8-1-5.12.8-7)
D
D
D
D
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the I I
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 r\7|
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will i i
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
D
D D
D
Rev. 03/28/96
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis of this proposed single family residential project has been completed through
the General Plan Update (GPA 94-01) and related Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR
93-01). The MEIR is cited as source #1 in the preceding checklist. This proposal is consistent
with the applicable portions of the General Plan and is considered a project that was described
in MEIR 93-01 as within its scope. All feasible mitigation measures identified in MEIR 93-01
which are appropriate to the project have been incorporated into this project.
The project site is located in an area which is subject to the requirements of the Zone 20
Specific Plan approved by the City Council in 1994. A program EIR was certified for the Zone
20 Specific Plan. The Zone 20 Program EIR identified, analyzed, and recommended mitigation
to reduce potentially significant impacts to insignificant levels. The Zone 20 Program EIR
(PEIR) analyzed potential impacts to agriculture, air quality, biology, circulation, land use,
noise, pesticide residue, paleontology, public facilities financing, soils/geology, and visual
aesthetics that could result from the development of the Specific Plan area. The Program EIR
is intended to be used in the review of subsequent projects within Zone 20. The project
incorporates the required Zone 20 Program EER. mitigation measures, and through the analysis
of the required additional biological, geotechnical, hydrology, and noise analysis a
determination has been made that no additional significant impacts beyond those identified and
mitigated by the Program EIR will result from this project. The following environmental
evaluation briefly explains the basis for this determination along with identifying the source
documents which support the environmental determination. The Zone 20 Program EIR and
additional technical studies are cited as source documents for this environmental evaluation.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project site is approximately 33.4 acres in size and is located at the northeast corner of Black
Rail Road and future Poinsettia Lane. The project consists of 28 residential lots with a minimum
lot area of 7,500 square feet and 2 open space lots which contain a total of 22.68 acres. The site
contains coastal sage scrub, southern maritime chaparral, scrub oak chaparral, coast live oak and
areas which have been used for agriculture. The site elevation decreases from a high of
approximately 350 feet in the southwestern comer to a low of 204 feet in the canyon located in
the central portion of the north end of the site.
A total of 23.42 acres of the site are designated as Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM 0-4
DU/AC) and 9.99 acres are designated as Open Space (OS) on the General Plan Land Use Map.
The project site is zoned Limited Control (L-C). A zone change and local coastal program
amendment are proposed to designate the site as One-Family Residential, 7,500 square foot
minimum lot size, Qualified Development Overlay Zone (R-l-Q) and Open Space (OS) to
correspond to the existing general plan land use designations. An irrevocable offer of dedication
will be required over the two open space lots. A portion of the residential density from these
parcels is being transferred to the area of the site which is proposed to be developed.
In addition to approval of the tentative map application a hillside development permit, coastal
development permit, and a variance application approval are being requested. The requested
variance is to exceed the maximum panhandle length for two lots caused by the location of an
existing SDG&E easement and tower. The project also includes some offsite grading for
Poinsettia Lane parallel to the southern boundary line of the site.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
B. Environmental Impact Discussion
V. a) Air Quality
The implementation of 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 buildout, 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 projects within
the scope of the General Plan's Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further
environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
VI. a) Transportation/Circulation
The implementation of projects that fall within the scope of and are 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
12 Rev. 03/28/96
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. The
project will generate 280 average daily trips. Conditions of project approval will include
constructing a portion of Poinsettia Lane and Black Rail Road along the project frontages. The
project will generate 280 average daily trips. Conditions of project approval will include
constructing a portion of Poinsettia Lane and Black Rail Road along the project frontages.
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 projects that fall within the scope of the General Plan's
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation
impacts is required.
VII. a, c. & d) Biological Resources
The Zone 20 Program EIR identified the mitigation requirement that future site specific
biological survey studies that focus on the impacts created by individual subsequent development
projects be prepared. The additional biological studies are required to consider the baseline data
and biological open space recommendations of the Zone 20 Program EIR and provide more
detailed and current resource surveys. The site specific biological survey is required to identify
mitigation for any project specific impacts.
A report titled, "Biological Resources Report and Impact Analysis for the de Jong Property, City
of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," dated February 11, 1998 by Dudek & Associates
has been prepared for the project. In addition, a report title, "Offsite Impacts of the Proposed de
Jong Property Development, dated July 27, 1998 has been prepared to analyze the biological
impacts of the offsite impacts associated with grading for Poinsettia Lane which are depicted on
the tentative tract map.
The biology report for the de Jong property determined that implementation of the project would
result in the direct loss of 13 acres, including impacts to the following habitat types:
• 0.0 acre of coastal sage scrub - less than significant
• 0.7 acre of southern maritime chaparral - significant
• 0.8 acre of annual non-native grassland - less than significant
• 11.5 acres of agricultural land - less than significant
In general, the proposed plan results in the preservation of 20.4 acres (61 percent), 16.7 acres of
which are native habitats, in natural open space, including 100 percent of coast live oak
woodland, coastal sage scrub, disturbed coastal sage scrub, disturbed southern maritime
13 Rev. 03/28/96
chaparral, scrub oak chaparral, valley needlegrass grassland, and 93 percent (9.8 acres) of
southern maritime chaparral. The location and configuration of the open space land is conducive
to long-term viability as it is a single, large, concentrated block of habitat linked with offsite
natural habitat. No impacts would occur to sensitive animal species. The California gnatcatcher
observed onsite within the canyon was located within the proposed large block of open space. If
the bird is resident within the property, there is adequate habitat to support it. There will be no
impact to its preferred habitat, coastal sage scrub. Because of the time of year that the survey
took place (late summer), it is likely that the birds were dispersing or roaming within the vicinity.
Coastal sage scrub habitat is located nearby both to the north and west and gnatcatcher locations
have been recorded nearby. No impacts are expected to occur to the California gnatcatcher.
Indirect impacts may result in the reduction of the carrying capacity of the native habitats,
however, the patch of habitat onsite is connected to additional habitat offsite. These indirect
impacts are considered less than significant.
The following onsite impacts associated with implementation of the proposed development plan
are considered significant:
a) Loss of 0.7 acre of southern maritime chaparral.
Although the project results in the loss of 0.7 acre of southern maritime chaparral, the project
contributes to the preservation of resources and the ultimate development of the subregional
preserve system by contributing open space, a total of 20.4 acres of predominately native
habitats.
The de Jong property is located within Preserve Planning Area 4 of the Carlsbad Draft HMP
which has been designated for 50 to 60 percent preservation by the MHCP and is subject to the
project level conservation requirements outlined within the Carlsbad HMP. On a overall project-
level basis, the property is proposed to receive 61 percent preservation, with the native habitats
onsite proposed to receive approximately 97 percent preservation which far exceeds the goals set
by the MHCP. The proposed project meets the project-level conservation requirements outlined
by the Draft Carlsbad HMP: the project does not preclude the functioning of preserve linkages
due to the preserve design; over 50 percent of the southern maritime chaparral is preserved; there
is no net loss of the coast live oak riparian forest habitat, coastal sage scrub, valley needlegrass
grassland; the project has been designed to avoid and minimize impacts to sensitive habitats and
species. Thus, the proposed project is consistent with the Draft Carlsbad HMP.
Mitigation Measures
The project design mitigates direct impacts to southern maritime chaparral and the sensitive plant
species that occur within this habitat. Included in the project design is the granting of an
irrevocable offer of dedication to the City of Carlsbad or an acceptable entity for an open
space/conservation easement over Lots Number 29 and 30 of the tentative map. This covers over
93 percent (9.8 acres) of the southern maritime chaparral on the de Jong property. This is greater
than the 2:1 mitigation ratio that is typically required by the resource agencies for the impact of
southern maritime chaparral. The open space easement also includes the preservation of 100
percent of the Del Mar manzanita, wart-stemmed ceanothus, summer holly, Nuttall's scrub oak,
and California gnatcatcher occurring onsite.
14 Rev. 03/28/96
Offsite Impacts
The letter quantifying the impacts that will occur as part of the construction of the offsite portion
of Poinsettia Lane, a major circulation element roadway indicates that there are two vegetation
communities present within the area proposed to be impacted. They are disturbed habitat and
southern maritime chaparral. A total of 0.18 acre of southern maritime chaparral is located at the
eastern edge of the offsite impact area. The remaining 2.7 acres of offsite area to be impacted is
disturbed habitat. This refers to areas that lack vegetation entirely. One species of plant listed as
endangered by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and proposed for listing as
endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was detected within the offsite
impact area: Del Mar manzanita (Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. Crassifolia).
Implementation of the proposed project would result in the direct loss of 2.88 acres of offsite
area including impacts to the following habitat types:
• 2.70 acres of disturbed habitat - - less than significant.
• 0.18 acre of southern maritime chaparral - significant.
In addition, implementation of the proposed project would result in the direct loss of the
following sensitive plant species:
• 6 individuals of Del Mar manzanita - significant.
The impact to the southern maritime chaparral vegetation community and the Del Mar manzanita
require mitigation.
Offsite Mitigation Measures
The de Jong project includes in the project design the granting of an irrevocable offer of
dedication for an open space easement over 93 percent (9.8 acres) of the southern maritime
chaparral on the property. The onsite impact to southern maritime chaparral is 0.7 acre. When
combined with the offsite impact, the total impact to this sensitive habitat type due to the project
is 0.88 acre. The onsite preservation is greater than the 2:1 mitigation ratio that is typically
required by the resource agencies for the impact of southern maritime chaparral. With the
preservation of 9.8 acres onsite, the impact to southern maritime chaparral is fully mitigated.
The open space easement also includes the preservation of 100 percent of the Del Mar manzanita
(the current focused survey indicates 21 individuals are present within the property; 27
individuals present in total), as well as wart-stemmed ceanothus, summer holly, and Nuttal's
scrub oak. Thus the impact to Del Mar manzanita from the offsite road impacts is fully mitigated
by the preservation of 78% of the Del Mar manzanita present within the property and the offsite
areas combined and the large patch of southern maritime chaparral onsite.
IX. c) and d) Hazards
Agricultural chemicals have previously been used on the site according to the Zone 20 Program
EIR. Because of this prior use there is the potential for soil contamination resulting from the
varying degrees of degradation, prevalence in the environment, and toxicity of the agricultural
chemicals which may have been used. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented
to lessen this potential impact to a level of less than significant as required by the Zone 20
Program EIR:
15 Rev. 03/28/96
1) Prior to approval of the final map or grading plan a detailed soils testing and analysis
report shall be prepared by a registered soils engineer, and submitted to the City Planning
and Engineering Departments as well as the County Department of Environmental Health
for review and approval. This report shall evaluate the potential for soil contamination
on-site due to historic use, handling, or storage of restricted agricultural chemicals. The
report shall also identify a range of possible mitigation measures to remediate any
potentially significant public health impacts if hazardous chemicals are detected at high
concentrations in the soil. Such mitigation measures shall include, at a minimum:
a. Remove any contaminated soils and haul to a State-certified landfill.
b. Cap the area of soil contamination with materials appropriate for the containment
of the specific type of chemical, taking into account its rate of absorption and
toxicity level.
c. Place the area of soil contamination in an open space easement, with restrictions
on future construction of permanent buildings and human uses. Fencing and
warning signs shall also be installed, where appropriate, prohibiting potential use
of the site.
2) The applicant shall notify, in a manner satisfactory to the City Attorney, all tenants/users
of new development that these areas are subject to dust, pesticides, and odors associated
with adjacent agricultural operations, and that the tenants/users occupy these areas at their
own risk.
X. b) Noise
A noise study was prepared for the project as required by a mitigation measure identified in the
Zone 20 program EIR. All projects located within 500 feet of existing/future Poinsettia Lane are
required to analyze the projected traffic noise impacts. The acoustical evaluation prepared for
the project by Ogden Environmental and Energy Services concluded the following:
1) No ground floor receptors were found to be exposed to future traffic noise in excess of
the prescribed 60 dBA CNEL level set by the City. As a result of this finding, no ground-
level exterior mitigation is required (e.g., noise walls).
2) The second floor noise for Lots # 1, 2, 3, and 8 were found to be in excess of the
prescribed 60 dBA CNEL level and would require an interior noise analysis in
accordance with CCR Title 24 to limit interior noise levels to 45 dBA CNEL.
3) No lots within the property boundaries were found to be within the 60+ dBA CNEL
aircraft noise contours for the McClellan-Palomar Airport.
The following noise mitigation measures are required for the project:
1) The second floor noise for Lots # 1, 2, 3, and 8 were found to be in excess of the
prescribed 60 dBA CNEL level and would require an interior noise analysis in
accordance with CCR Title 24 to limit interior noise levels to 45 dBA CNEL. Prior to
16 Rev. 03/28/96
the issuance of a building permit for Lots # 1, 2, 3, and 8 the applicant shall submit a
copy of the required interior noise analysis documenting what construction materials or
measures must be utilized to meet the required interior noise levels. In addition a letter
signed by the acoustician and the project architect and containing the project architect's
registration stamp shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit certifying
that the recommendations of the interior noise analysis have been incorporated into the
building plans.
2) Prior to the recordation of the first final tract map or the issuance of building permits,
whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property
may be subject to noise impacts from the proposed or existing Transportation Corridor, in
a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney (see Noise Form
#1 on file in the Planning Department).
3) Prior to the recordation of the first final tract map or the issuance of building permits,
whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property
is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating from McClellan-Palomar
Airport, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and the City Attorney
(see Noise Form #2 on file in the Planning Department).
XIV. a) Cultural Resources - Paleontology
According to the Zone 20 Program EIR the geologic formations present within the Zone 20
Specific Plan Area have the potential to contain significant fossils. There is a high potential for
the discovery of fossils during future grading and construction activities. The following
mitigation measures shall be implemented during future grading of the site to reduce potentially
significant impacts on the region's paleontological resources to an acceptable level:
a. Prior to any grading of the project site, a paleontologist shall be retained to
perform a walkover survey of the site and to review the grading plans to
determine if the proposed grading will impact fossil resources. A copy of the
paleontologist's report shall be provided to the Planning Director prior to issuance
of a grading permit;
b. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of the
site and to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the fossils
present in the geologic strata, it may be necessary to collect matrix samples for
laboratory processing through fine screens. The paleontologist shall make
periodic reports to the Planning Director during the grading process;
c. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an
exposed fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage artifacts;
d. All fossils collected shall be donated to a public, non-profit institution with a
research interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum;
e. Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading activities of
the project shall be resolved by the Planning Director and City Engineer.
17 Rev. 03/28/96
III. EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92009,
(760) 438-1161, extension 4446.
1. "Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan
Update" (MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
2. "Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Zone 20 Specific Plan" (EIR 90-
03), dated June 1992, Brian F. Mooney Associates.
3. "Biological Resources Report and Impact Analysis for the de Jong Property, City of
Carlsbad, San Diego County, California", dated February 11, 1998, Dudek & Associates,
Inc.
4. "Offsite Impacts of the Proposed de Jong Property Development, dated July 27, 1998,
Dudek & Associates, Inc.
5. "Acoustical Evaluation Study - de Jong Property" , dated February 18, 1998, Ogden
Environmental and Energy Services.
6. "Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation - de Jong Property" (Job No. 97-
7157), dated January 12, 1998, Geotechnical Exploration, Inc.
7. "Hydrology Study for de Jong Property in the City of Carlsbad" (W.O. 2074-1), Revised
July 30, 1998, Hunsaker & Associates, Inc.
18 Rev. 03/28/96
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES OF APPLICABLE^
1. The project design mitigates direct impacts to southern maritime chaparral and the
sensitive plant species that occur within this habitat. Included in the project design is the
granting of an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City of Carlsbad or an acceptable
entity for an open space/conservation easement over Lots Number 29 and 30 of the
tentative map. This covers over 93 percent (9.8 acres) of the southern maritime chaparral
on the de Jong property. This is greater than the 2:1 mitigation ratio that is typically
required by the resource agencies for the impact of southern maritime chaparral. The
open space easement also includes the preservation of 100 percent of the Del Mar
manzanita, wart-stemmed ceanothus, summer holly, Nuttall's scrub oak, and California
gnatcatcher occurring onsite.
2. The de Jong project includes in the project design the granting of an irrevocable offer of
dedication for an open space easement over 93 percent (9.8 acres) of the southern
maritime chaparral on the property. The onsite impact to southern maritime chaparral is
0.7 acre. When combined with the offsite impact, the total impact to this sensitive habitat
type due to the project is 0.88 acre. The onsite preservation is greater than the 2:1
mitigation ratio that is typically required by the resource agencies for the impact of
southern maritime chaparral. With the preservation of 9.8 acres onsite, the impact to
southern maritime chaparral is fully mitigated. The open space easement also includes
the preservation of 100 percent of the Del Mar manzanita (the current focused survey
indicates 21 individuals are present within the property; 27 individuals present in total),
as well as wart-stemmed ceanothus, summer holly, and Nuttal's scrub oak. Thus the
impact to Del Mar manzanita from the offsite road impacts is fully mitigated by the
preservation of 78% of the Del Mar manzanita present within the property and the offsite
areas combined and the large patch of southern maritime chaparral onsite.
3. Prior to approval of the final map or grading plan a detailed soils testing and analysis
report shall be prepared by a registered soils engineer, and submitted to the City Planning
and Engineering Departments as well as the County Department of Environmental Health
for review and approval. This report shall evaluate the potential for soil contamination
on-site due to historic use, handling, or storage of restricted agricultural chemicals. The
report shall also identify a range of possible mitigation measures to remediate any
potentially significant public health impacts if hazardous chemicals are detected at high
concentrations in the soil. Such mitigation measures shall include, at a minimum:
a. Remove any contaminated soils and haul to a State-certified landfill.
b. Cap the area of soil contamination with materials appropriate for the containment
of the specific type of chemical, taking into account its rate of absorption and
toxicity level.
c. Place the area of soil contamination in an open space easement, with restrictions
on future construction of permanent buildings and human uses. Fencing and
warning signs shall also be installed, where appropriate, prohibiting potential use
of the site.
19 Rev. 03/28/96
4. The applicant shall notify, in a manner satisfactory to the City Attorney, all tenants/users
of new development that these areas are subject to dust, pesticides, and odors associated
with adjacent agricultural operations, and that the tenants/users occupy these areas at their
own risk.
5. The second floor noise for Lots # 1, 2, 3, and 8 were found to be in excess of the
prescribed 60 dBA CNEL level and would require an interior noise analysis in
accordance with CCR Title 24 to limit interior noise levels to 45 dBA CNEL. Prior to
the issuance of a building permit for Lots # 1, 2, 3, and 8 the applicant shall submit a
copy of the required interior noise analysis documenting what construction materials or
measures must be utilized to meet the required interior noise levels. In addition a letter
signed by the acoustician and the project architect and containing the project architect's
registration stamp shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit certifiying
that the recommendations of the interior noise analysis have been incorporated into the
building plans.
6. Prior to the recordation of the first final tract map or the issuance of building permits,
whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property
may be subject to noise impacts from the proposed or existing Transportation Corridor, in
a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney (see Noise Form
#1 on file in the Planning Department).
7. Prior to the recordation of the first final tract map or the issuance of building permits,
whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property
is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating from McClellan-Palomar
Airport, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and the City Attorney
(see Noise Form #2 on file in the Planning Department).
8. a. Prior to any grading of the project site, a paleontologist shall be retained to
perform a walkover survey of the site and to review the grading plans to
determine if the proposed grading will impact fossil resources. A copy of the
paleontologist's report shall be provided to the Planning Director prior to issuance
of a grading permit;
b. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of the
site and to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the fossils
present in the geologic strata, it may be necessary to collect matrix samples for
laboratory processing through fine screens. The paleontologist shall make
periodic reports to the Planning Director during the grading process;
c. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an
exposed fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage artifacts;
d. All fossils collected shall be donated to a public, non-profit institution with a
research interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum;
e. Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading activities of
the project shall be resolved by the Planning Director and City Engineer.
20 Rev. 03/28/96
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
21 Rev. 03/28/96
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date
22 Rev. 03/28/96
PROJECT NAME: de Jong Residential Project
APPROVAL DATE:
FILE NUMBERS: ZC 98-02/LCPA 98-01/CT 98-05/HDP 98-
03/CDP 98-26/V 98-04
CONDITIONAL NEC. DEC.:
The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate
identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that
this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly
Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6).
rnz
55oz
3,m
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Type
Monitoring
Department
Shown on
Plans
Verified
Implementation Remarks
1. The project design mitigates direct impacts to
southern maritime chaparral and the sensitive
plant species that occur within this habitat.
Included in the project design is the granting of
an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City of
Carlsbad or an acceptable entity for an open
space/conservation easement over Lots Number
29 and 30 of the tentative map. This covers
over 93 percent (9.8 acres) of the southern
maritime chaparral on the de Jong property.
This is greater than the 2:1 mitigation ratio that
is typically required by the resource agencies for
the impact of southern maritime chaparral. The
open space easement also includes the
preservation of 100 percent of the Del Mar
manzanita, wart-stemmed ceanothus, summer
holly, Nuttall's scrub oak, and California
gnatcatcher occurring onsite.
Project Planning
o
S
O
Z
G)
o
Xrno
&>
(Q
(D
9,
O)
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular
mitigation measure.
Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be
initialed and dated.
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented,
this column will be initialed and dated.
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other
information.
RD - Appendix P.
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Type
Monitoring
Department
Shown on
Plans
Verified
Implementation Remarks
m
7JO
mz
^m
I
2. The de Jong project includes in the project
design the granting of an irrevocable offer of
dedication for an open space easement over 93
percent (9.8 acres) of the southern maritime
chaparral on the property. The onsite impact to
southern maritime chaparral is 0.7 acre. When
combined with the offsite impact, the total impact
to this sensitive habitat type due to the project is
0.88 acre. The onsite preservation is greater
than the 2:1 mitigation ratio that is typically
required by the resource agencies for the impact
of southern maritime chaparral. With the
preservation of 9.8 acres onsite, the impact to
southern maritime chaparral is fully mitigated.
The open space easement also includes the
preservation of 100 percent of the Del Mar
manzanita (the current focused survey indicates
21 individuals are present within the property; 27
individuals present in total), as well as wart-
stemmed ceanothus, summer holly, and Nuttal's
scrub oak. Thus the impact to Del Mar
manzanita from the offsite road impacts is fully
mitigated by the preservation of 78% of the Del
Mar manzanita present within the property and
the offsite areas combined and the large patch
of southern maritime chaparral onsite.
Project Planning
zO
O
Xmo
7s
55
0)
(Q
0>
to
o-*«o
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular
mitigation measure.
Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be
initialed and dated.
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented,
this column will be initialed and dated.
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other
information.
RD - Appendix P.
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Type
Monitoring
Department
Shown on
Plans
Verified
Implementation Remarks
mz
m
H
3. Prior to approval of the final map or grading plan
a detailed soils testing and analysis report shall
be prepared by a registered soils engineer, and
submitted to the City Planning and Engineering
Departments as well as the County Department
of Environmental Health for review and
approval. This report shall evaluate the potential
for soil contamination on-site due to historic use,
handling, or storage of restricted agricultural
chemicals. The report shall also identify a range
of possible mitigation measures to remediate
any potentially significant public health impacts if
hazardous chemicals are detected at high
concentrations in the soil. Such mitigation
measures shall include, at a minimum:
a. Remove any contaminated soils and haul
to a State-certified landfill.
b. Cap the area of soil contamination with
materials appropriate for the containment
of the specific type of chemical, taking
into account its rate of absorption and
toxicity level.
c. Place the area of soil contamination in an
open space easement, with restrictions
on future construction of permanent
buildings and human uses. Fencing and
Project County
Environmental
Health/
Engineering/Pi
anning
OZ
3
Z
O
oXmo
B)
(£2
CO
9,
o>
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular
mitigation measure.
Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be
initialed and dated.
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented,
this column will be initialed and dated.
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other
information.
RD - Appendix P.
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Type
Monitoring
Department
Shown on
Plans
Verified
Implementation Remarks
mz
55oz
m
warning signs shall also be installed, where
appropriate, prohibiting potential use of the site.
The applicant shall notify, in a manner
satisfactory to the City Attorney, all
tenants/users of new development that these
areas are subject to dust, pesticides, and odors
associated with adjacent agricultural operations,
and that the tenants/users occupy these areas
at their own risk.
The second floor noise for Lots # 1, 2, 3, and 8
were found to be in excess of the prescribed 60
dBA CNEL level and would require an interior
noise analysis in accordance with CCR Title 24
to limit interior noise levels to 45 dBA CNEL.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lots
# 1, 2, 3, and 8 the applicant shall submit a copy
of the required interior noise analysis
documenting what construction materials or
measures must be utilized to meet the required
interior noise levels. In addition a letter signed
by the acoustician and the project architect and
containing the project architect's registration
stamp shall be submitted prior to the issuance of
a building permit certifying that the
recommendations of the interior noise analysis
have been incorporated into the building plans.
Project Planning
Project Planning
O
O
O
oXmo
B>
(Q
(D
O)
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular
mitigation measure.
Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be
initialed and dated.
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented,
this column will be initialed and dated.
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other
information.
RD - Appendix P.
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Type
Monitoring
Department
Shown on
Plans
Verified
Implementation Remarks
mz
55o
m
i
3
*
5oz
2
zo
o
Imo
fi)
(Q(D
01
O^i
O
6. Prior to the recordation of the first final tract map or
the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs
first, the Developer shall prepare and record a
Notice that this property may be subject to noise
impacts from the proposed or existing
Transportation Corridor, in a form meeting the
approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney
(see Noise Form #1 on file in the Planning
Department).
7. Prior to the recordation of the first final tract map or
the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs
first, the Developer shall prepare and record a
Notice that this property is subject to overflight,
sight and sound of aircraft operating from
McClellan-Palomar Airport, in a form meeting the
approval of the Planning Director and the City
Attorney (see Noise Form #2 on file in the Planning
Department).
8. a. Prior to any grading of the project site, a
paleontologist shall be retained to perform a
walkover survey of the site and to review the
grading plans to determine if the proposed
grading will impact fossil resources. A copy of
the paleontologist's report shall be provided to
the Planning Director prior to issuance of a
grading permit;
Project Planning
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular
mitigation measure.
Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be
initialed and dated.
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented,
this column will be initialed and dated.
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other
information.
RD - Appendix P.
Mitigation Measure
b. A qualified paleontologist shall be
retained to perform periodic inspections
of the site and to salvage exposed fossils.
Due to the small nature of some of the
fossils present in the geologic strata, it
may be necessary to collect matrix
samples for laboratory processing
through fine screens. The paleontologist
shall make periodic reports to the
Planning Director during the grading
process;
c. The paleontologist shall be allowed to
divert or direct grading in the area of an
exposed fossil in order to facilitate
evaluation and, if necessary, salvage
artifacts;
d. All fossils collected shall be donated to a
public, non-profit institution with a
research interest in the materials, such as
the San Diego Natural History Museum;
e. Any conflicts regarding the role of the
paleontologist and the grading activities
of the project shall be resolved by the
Planning Director and City Engineer, the
San Diego Natural History Museum;
Monitoring
Type
Project
Monitoring
Department
Planning
Shown on
Plans
Verified
Implementation Remarks
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular
mitigation measure.
Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be
initialed and dated.
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented,
this column will be initialed and dated.
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other
information.
RD - Appendix P.
Mitigation Measure
f. Any conflicts regarding the role of the
paleontologist and the grading activities
of the project shall be resolved by the
Planning Director and City Engineer.
Monitoring
Type
Project
Monitoring
Department
Planning
Shown on
Plans
Verified
Implementation Remarks
m
O
Zsm
O
Z
zO
O
Xmo
(O(D
-J
O
-*O)
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular
mitigation measure.
Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be
initialed and dated.
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented,
this column will be initialed and dated.
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other
information.
RD - Appendix P.
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
INSTRUCTION SHEET FOR FILLING OUT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I
This Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Form - Part I will be used to determine what type
of environmental documentation (i.e., Environmental Impact Report, Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Negative Declaration or Exemption) will be required to be prepared for your
application, per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Title 19 of Carlsbad's
Municipal Code. The clarity and accuracy of the information you provide is critical for purposes
of quickly determining the specific environmental effects of your project.
Recent judicial decisions have held that a "naked checklist," that is checklist that is merely
checked "yes" or "no," is insufficient to comply with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality act. Each "yes" or "no" answer must be accompanied by a written
explanation justifying the "yes" or "no" answer. This is especially important when a Negative
Declaration is being sought. The more information provided in this form, the easier and quicker
it will be for staff to complete the Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Part II.
2O75 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-O894
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT)
CASE NO:
DATE RECEIVED:
(To be completed by staff)
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: de Jong Property . ___
2. APPLICANT: Arie de Jong
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: c/o Hollandia Dairy, 622 E .Mission
Road, San Marcos, CA 92069 (760) 744-3222 X 171
4 PROTECT DESCRIPTION- A residential subdivision in Zone 20 with 29
single family 7,500 Sq. Ft. lots and 2 open space lots. The applications
submitted include a zone change from L-C to R-l with related local
coastal plan amendment, tentative map, Hillside development permit,
coastal development permit and environmental initial assessment.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
Please check any of the environmental factors listed below that would be potentially affected by this
project. This would be any environmental factor that has at least one impact checked "Potentially
Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" in the checklist
on the following pages.
[ [ Land Use and Planning ]fx] Transportation/Circulation | | Public Services
| | Population and Housing | | Biological Resources | | Utilities & Service Systems
| | Geological Problems | | Energy & Mineral Resources [~~| Aesthetics
| | Water [ | Hazards [~| Cultural Resources
Q Air Quality | | Noise [ [ Recreation
| | Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
• A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
"No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
• "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, 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 significant.
• Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but all potentially significant 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 (Prior Compliance).
• When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant 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 effect on the environment.
Rev. 03/28/96
• If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce 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 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 impact to less than
significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (sources 1 £ 2
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (sources 2 & 5
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(sources 1 & 2
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (Source 2 )
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (Source 2'" )
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
D
D
D
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
No
Impact
D
D
D
D
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? §ources 1 S$ 2
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)?
(Source 2 )
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (Source 2 )
D
D
n
D
D
D
D
D
D
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (Sources 2 A 3
b) Seismic ground shaking? ( Ibid )
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
( Ibid )
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
( Ibid )
e) Landslides or mudflows? ( Ibid )
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
( Ibid )
g) Subsidence of the land? ( Source 3 )
h) Expansive soils? ( Source 3 )
i) Unique geologic or physical features?
(Source 3 )
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
LXJ
D
fxl
n
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?^ource 3 &4)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (Sources 3 §, 4 n n
txJ
n
n
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? £ o u r c e s 1 & 4j
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (Sources 1 f 4
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? §our ces 1&4)
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? Sources 1, 3)&4
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(Sources 1,$&4
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? Sources 1 , 3&4
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
(Sources 1
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
D
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
No
Impact
D
D
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an rr~I
existing or projected air quality violation?
(Sources 1&£
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? i—i
(Sources 1&£ '—'
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause I—I
any change in climate? ( Ibid )
d) Create objectionable odors? ( Ibid ) i—i
D
D
D
n
D
D
n
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
(Sources 1 $< 2
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? ( )
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(source 2 )
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(Source 2 )
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(Source 2 )
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(Source 2 )
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
( Source 2 )
D
D
D
D
D
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
[xj
[xl
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? ( Sources 2 )& 5
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
( Sources 2)& 5
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Sources 2 & 5
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(Sources 2 § 5
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
(Sources 2 § 5
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
n
n
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
n
n
n
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
No
Impact
n
n
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
( Source 1 )
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? ( Source 1 )
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State? ( Source 1 )
n
D n
n
n
n
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? ( Source 1 )
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? ( Source 1 )
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? ( Source 1 ; )
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? ( Source 2 )
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (Source 2 )
D
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
a
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( Sources 2 )& 6 i \
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? I I
(Source 6 )D D
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? ( Sources 1 )& 2
b) Police protection? ( Ibid )
c) Schools? (
D
Dn
n
n
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
( Sources 1 )& 2
e) Other governmental services? ( Ibid )
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (Source 1 )
b) Communications systems? ( Source 1 )
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (Sources 1^2
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( Ibid )
e) Storm water drainage? ( Sources 2 )& 4
f) Solid waste disposal? (Sources 1 £ 2
g) Local or regional water supplies? ( Sources I§c2
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
D
D
No
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
D
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway?
(Sources 1^2
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect?
( Source 2 )
c) Create light or glare? ( Source 2 )
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (Source 2 )
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (Source 2 )
c) Affect historical resources? ( Ibid )
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
( Ibid )
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? ( Ibid )
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities?(Source 2 )
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
(Source 2 )D
D
D
Rev. 03/28/96
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
No
Impact
D D
D D
D D D
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
XVI. 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?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Please use this area to discuss any of the environmental factors that were checked "No impact"
yet lack any information citations and any factors that were checked "Potentially Significant
Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." The City has
adopted a "Statement of Overriding Consideration" with regard to air quality and circulation
impacts resulting from the normal buildout according to the General Plan. The following sample
text is intended to guide your discussion of the impacts to these environmental factors.
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 buildout, 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 EIR, including this project, therefore, no
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
CIRCULATION:
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
9 Rev. 03/28/96
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.
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
N/A
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
N/A
10 Rev. 03/28/96
DE JONG PROPERTY
->>fEiImpNMENTAL IMPACT ASSES&xt£i£*#t?ji~*. »Jia^S^O._ *,-W£^SM k»*a»#&)K •&<, **. " , "„ i, * 15ux^_ i „ _ .JWi-WisSSjgiS
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION / EARLIER ANALYSES DISCUSSION
PROJECT BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. Earlier Analysis and its applicability to project
The project is part of the Zone 20 Specific Plan approved by the City Council in 1994. CEQA compliance for the
specific plan was achieved through the certification of the Zone 20 Program EIR which identified, analyzed, and
recommended mitigation to reduce potentially significant impacts to insignificant levels. The Zone 20 Program EIR
(PEIR) analyzed potential impacts to agriculture, air quality, biology, circulation, land use, noise, pesticide residue,
paleontology, public facilities financing, soils/geology, and visual aesthetics that could result from the development
of the Specific Plan area. The PEIR was intended to be used in the review of subsequent projects within Zone 20.
This project incorporates the required Zone 20 PEIR mitigation measures and, through the aid of the required
additional biological, soils/geological, slope and noise analyses, a determination can be made that no additional
significant impacts beyond those identified and mitigated by the PEIR will result from this project and no additional
environmental documentation is required (Prior Compliance). The following discussion of environmental
evaluation briefly explains the basis for this determination along with identifying the source documents which verify
the PEIR impact identification, analysis, and mitigation requirements.
B. Environmental Analysis
The subdivision site consists of 33.4 acres of vacant land previously used for agricultural use and surrounded by
residential and agricultural properties. The site is bisected diagonally by an existing SDG&E major power line
easement. The elevations onsite vary from a high of about 360 feet on a relatively flat plateau along the western and
southern portions of the site to a low of about 200 feet above mean sea level within the lower canyon areas in the
central and northeastern portions of the site. The site drains predominantly down the steep slope areas leading to
two natural drainages which converge, flowing to the north toward Encinas Creek. The majority of the plateau
portion of the site has been cultivated in the past. The steep slope areas contain southern mixed chaparral and oak
woodlands habitat is located along the lower drainages.
Onsite facility improvements necessary for the project include the extension along the southern property boundary
of Poinsettia Lane with V* width improvements and grading. A patch of southern maritime chaparral will be
impacted by the proposed grading necessary for the construction of the circulation element roadway. Black Rail
Road, located along the subject site's western boundary, should be under construction prior to the TM approvals for
this project as it is a condition of the Cobblestone development. No major offsite improvements are necessary for
the development of the project. Existing improvements to the overall site include fences, dirt roads, water lines and
overhead powerlines.
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING
a) The proposal is consistent with the existing underlying General Plan designation of Residential Low Medium (RLM)
(0-4 du/ac). A Zone Change is being processed concurrent with this application to rezone the subject property from
the "holding" zone of Limited Control (L-C) to Residential (R-1-7500), consistent with the existing general plan
designation. This will not alter the anticipated General Plan land use for the property and thus, no significant land
use impacts are anticipated.
JACK HENTHOR1M & ASSOCIATES
DE JONG PROPERTY
February 12, 1998
JHA/mka/EIA
b) The proposed project does not conflict with any existing or proposed environmental plans or policies of the City of
Carlsbad, including the HMP. The property is within and consistent with the coordinated conservation planning
effort by SANDAG, the Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP), with the goal to establish biological
reserve areas in conformance with the State of California's Natural Community Conservation Program (NCCP).
(See Biological Resources Report and Impact Analysis by Dudek & Associates dated October 7, 1997.) The project
is subject to the Mello II Local Coastal Program (LCP). A Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) is required
to change the zoning from L-C to R-l and is being processed concurrent with the project for this purpose. The
project is consistent with the Mello II land use policies.
c) The proposal is consistent with existing and proposed land use in the vicinity. Adjacent residential land uses consist
of RLM and Residential Medium (RM) designated properties with R-l, L-C and Planned Community (P-C) zoning
that have residential subdivisions under construction, approved and/or are vacant. The Cobblestone (MarBrisa, CT
84-32A) 212-unit residential subdivision to the northwest and the Aviara Phase III (CT 92-03) subdivision to the
southeast are currently under construction. Adjacent to the west there is an approved TM for the Ocean Bluff (CT
93-09A) 92-unit single family subdivision. An existing office business park located down the embankment to the
north has a general plan designation and zoning of Planned Industrial (P-I and P-M). A community park is proposed
on the parcel adjacent to the east which is zoned Planned Community (P-C) with a general plan designation of Open
Space (OS).
Topographically, the southwestern portion of the site is relatively flat and has been in agricultural/greenhouse use.
Most of the remaining portion of the site is represented by steep slopes leading to two drainages. The proposed
project will be topographically separated and buffered from the adjacent parcels to the north and east by steep slope
and natural habitat areas as part of the project open space area. The proposed project will be buffered from
properties to the south by Poinsettia Lane.
Due to the project's direct access from Black Rail Road (which terminates in a cul de sac to the north) off of
Poinsettia Lane, project traffic would not impact surrounding properties. The projected ADT for this 29 unit
residential project (290 ADT) is also considerably less than the number of average daily trips (500 ADT),
determined by multiplying the net acres onsite by the growth control factor of 3.2, which was allocated for in the
Zone 20 LFMP and Specific Plan, based on a gross analysis of the entire zone.
d) 13.1 acres of the site have been used for agricultural cultivation. Crops and greenhouses currently exist within the
majority of the this portion of the site. The project site is located within the Coastal Agricultural Overlay Zone (Site
III) of the Mello II Segment of Carlsbad's Local Coastal Program. Several mitigation options are provided in the
Local Coastal Plan (LCP) for the conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses. These include the option to pay an
agricultural conversion mitigation fee. PEIR mitigation provided to reduce impacts to neighboring properties which
provide agricultural uses (i.e. to the south) includes notification to future residential land owners that this area is
subject to dust, pesticide, and odors associated with adjacent agricultural operations. Temporary road connections to
maintain continued access to adjacent agricultural properties must also be provided during construction.
e) The project site is located within an area of the City which is relatively undeveloped, with the exception of the
Cobblestone subdivision to the northwest, the Aviara Phase III subdivision to the southeast and the approved Ocean
Bluff development to the west. The proposed project will not adversely impact the access to these subdivisions as
the onsite circulation was designed to tie into the surrounding circulation patterns. Potential residential
developments to the south and southwest will not be adversely impacted. Accordingly, this proposed 29 residential
lot subdivision project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community.
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING
a) The City of Carlsbad's Growth Management Program established performance standards for public facilities, a
population limit and a housing limit at buildout of the City. The proposed project contains fewer units than was
anticipated in the Zone 20 LFMP. The anticipated density based on the allowed growth management control point
multiplied by the site net acreage (as analyzed on a zone basis in the facilities plan) provides for 50 units for the
subject parcel, whereas 29 units are currently being proposed. Thus, the Citywide Growth Management dwelling
2 JACK HENTHORN & ASSOCIATES
DE JONG PROPERTY
February 12, 1998
JHA/mka/EIA
unit and population buildout caps will not be exceeded and public facilities and services will be available to meet the
anticipated demand for the project.
b) As specified by the Zone 20 PEIR, the development of projects including transportation routes, public services, and
land uses within the Zone 20 planning area is not growth inducing since the area has been previously planned and
designated for residential development by the City's General Plan, Growth Management Program, and Zone 20
LFMP. The construction of Poinsettia Lane onsite will provide the final segment of the extension from Aviara
Parkway to the Aviara Phase III project. Although the extension of Poinsettia Lane may provide access to
undeveloped parcels and could enable the development of these properties, this growth inducing impact would not
be regarded as significant in that the development of these parcels has been planned for through the Zone 20
Specific Plan and LFMP and the Zone 19 LFMP to the south. Also, it is a planned east-west circulation arterial and
development already exists to the east, west, north, and south of Zone 20 properties; therefore, urbanization of the
area is inevitable.
c) The project site is currently undeveloped, so no existing housing will be displaced. No existing affordable housing
units will be negatively impacted by the proposed development. The project proposes to satisfy the 15%
inclusionary housing requirement by purchasing 4.35 offsite credits in the existing Villa Loma affordable apartment
project. The offsite proposal for this property was acknowledged by the Carlsbad Housing Commission in their
recent review of the southwest quadrant analysis regarding the use of affordable housing credits in the Villa Loma
project.
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS
Consistent with the PEIR for Environmental Area I, an additional geotechnical investigation has been prepared for
the project. The Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, De Jong Property, prepared by Geotechnical
Exploration, Inc., dated January 12, 1998 states that "from a geotechnical standpoint, our investigation indicates that
the site is favorable for the proposed development, provided the recommendations in this report are followed".
Compliance with the recommendations in this report will avoid significant unstable earth conditions and/or increased
exposure of people or property to geologic hazards. These recommendations will be incorporated as project
conditions in accordance with the Zone 20 PEIR.
a) Fault Rupture - Reference to a geologic map for the area indicates the presence of a northeast-trending fault
approximately '/2-mile west of the site, however, this fault is considered minor and does not impact the site. The
local Rose Canyon Fault, located approximately 6 miles west of the subject site, may be classified as an active fault.
The closest active regional fault is the Coronado Bank Fault located approximately 21 miles southwest of the site.
Although this fault is considered active, due to the seismicity within the fault zone, it is significantly less active than
the Elsinore Fault, which is located approximately 24 miles to the northeast. Deposits found along several segments
of the fault zone suggest portions of the fault may be active., though it has not been the site of a major earthquake in
historic time, since 1910. Since a fault does not cross the subject site, the risk of ground rupture at the site is
considered remote.
b) Seismic ground shaking - The chance that a large earthquake, originating on a nearby strand of the Rose Canyon
Fault Zone or one of the major regional active faults, could occur within the proposed development is low. Design of
structures should comply with the requirements of the UBC, City of Carlsbad Building Code, standard practices of
the Association of Structural Engineers of California and the recommendations in the report for construction..
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction - Since no submerged loose sand or silt conditions exist at the site, the
probability of occurrence of soil liquefaction is negligible. No soil liquefaction is anticipated to occur in the
buildable areas of the site and no loss of strength or stability is anticipated in the soils of the same buildable area due
to seismic activity. The site is underlain by dense, sandy and silty formational material of good bearing strength for
support of the proposed development. Some loose fill and topsoil was found on the mesa top and slope edges,
however, so to provide a firmer, more uniform soil base, the loose soils and topsoils should be removed and properly
compacted (to at least 90%) prior to any addition of new fill.
3 JACK HENTHORN & ASSOCIATES
DE JONG PROPERTY
February 12, 1998
JHA/mka/EIA
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard - Because there are no volcanoes located within the City of Carlsbad and
because the project site is not located proximate to a bay, lake or ocean, no impacts involving seiches, tsunamis or
volcanic hazards are anticipated.
e) Landslides or mudflows - According to the geologic investigation and review of geologic mapping and aerial
photographs, there are no known or suspected ancient landslides located on the site. Specific slope stability
conditions were added to address out-of-slope dipping bentonite beds found in the northwest portion of the site,
along the canyon slope. With the implementation of the geotechnical report recommendations and standard City of
Carlsbad erosion control measures, no landslide impact should occur.
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill - The proposed cut and
fill slopes should remain stable for the proposed elevations and/or configurations shown in the preliminary plans for
the project. The slopes possess a factor of safety against deep shear failure of at least 1.5. The fill slope toe in the
area of Lot 29 shall be cut below the clay seam at approximately elevation 300 with a key of at least 25 feet wide.
Two subdrains shall be provided in this fill slope. In cut areas, any remaining underlying loose soils should be
removed and properly compacted. Cut/fill transition pads should be undercut to at least 3 feet and replaced as
compacted fill. With the implementation of the geotechnical report recommendations and standard City of Carlsbad
erosion control measures, no significant erosion impacts or unstable conditions should occur.
g) Subsidence of the land - Due to the removal and compaction of loose fill and topsoil in certain areas, subsidence
should be very low.
h) Expansive soils - Onsite soils are considered to be of low to medium expansion potential, with a tested expansion
index ranging from 12 to 90. Any soils possessing an expansion potential equal to or higher than 50 shall be
compacted with a moisture content at or higher than 5 percent over the optimum moisture content. The removal and
recompaction of expansive soils should adequately address potential soil expansion impacts.
i) Unique geologic or physical features - There are no unique geologic or physical features which exist on the subject
property.
IV. WATER
a,c,d) Additional impervious surfaces will be created with development of the project, which as a result, reduces
absorption rates and increases surface runoff. Grading permit standards and the Zone 20 Local Facilities
Management Plan require adequate drainage facilities to service the site. Post development surface runoff must not
carry any increased velocity at the property line from a 10-year/6 hour storm event based on the hydrology standards
of the Mello II Segment of Carlsbad's Local Coastal Program. Compliance with the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) requirements will reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge.
These measures and erosion control mitigations (i.e. landscaping, adequate drainage facilities and proper soil
compaction) will serve toward reducing water quality impacts to below a level of significance.
b) The project site is not located within a floodplain or within an area which is subject to flooding. Due to the site's
elevation and the proposed grading, there is little risk of flooding on the proposed site building pads. Also, with the
construction of an adequate on-site drainage system and proper finish surface grades, the risk of flooding should be
minimized within the proposed building areas. Therefore, no portions of the property or future project residents
would be exposed to flood hazards.
e) Two natural drainageways are located onsite, converging toward the north to form a minor tributary to Encinas
Creek. The south/north trending drainageway is located along the eastern portion of the property and the west/east
drainageway begins in the northwestern portion of the site. The proposed project is designed to not affect this
drainage area, to leave it in a natural state in a permanent open space easement. Drainage control measures will be
incorporated into the project design to ensure that the project will not change the course or flow of water into the
creek.
4 JACK HENTHORN & ASSOCIATES
DE JONG PROPERTY
February 12, 1998
JHA/mka/EIA
f-i) There exist no potable ground water basins within the City. Groundwater was not encountered in any of the trenches
dug onsite, the deepest being 8 feet. The boring found groundwater seepage at a depth of 40' (from a height of 315'
MSL). Due to project drainage and erosion control prevention measures and the depth of the ground water onsite,
no impacts to groundwater quantity, quality, or direction or rate of flow are anticipated.
V. AIR QUALITY
a) In that a greater number of units were allocated in projections for development of the area, the air quality impacts for
this 29-unit project have already been considered in the Master EIR for the Updated 1994 Carlsbad General Plan.
The 29 units proposed will present less air quality impacts than the 50 units assumed for the property in projected
buildout calculations. The project also implements various air quality mitigation measures. For example, due to the
location of new units in close proximity to a major roadway (Poinsettia Lane) and employment opportunities,
vehicle cold starts, vehicle trip lengths and roadway congestion may be reduced in that residents are more likely to
bike or walk to work.
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 the City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding
Considerations" for air quality impacts. This "Statement of Overriding Consideration" applies to all subsequent
projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental
review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. The applicable
and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have been incorporated into the design of the project or
will be included as conditions of project approval.
Construction activities associated with the project would result in potential short-term air quality impacts. Principal
pollutants from these activities include fugitive dust particles due to grading and transportation of construction
materials and, to a lesser degree, emissions from construction vehicles. The Grading Ordinance contains provisions
to minimize the release of construction related pollutants; therefore, air quality impacts resulting from future project
related construction activities would not be considered significant in that the project shall be conditioned to comply
with the Grading Ordinance.
b) Other than project air emissions associated with gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled, this
29 unit residential project will not generate any other air pollutants. There exist no sensitive receptors (schools or
hospitals) within several miles of the project site, therefore potential exposure of sensitive receptors to project air
emissions is not considered a significant impact.
c,d) Because of the project's small size (29 dwelling units) and it's location within a relatively undeveloped area, no
significant impacts to air movement, moisture, temperature, or climate are anticipated. This residential project is not
anticipated to create objectionable odors.
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
a) 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 1) 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
5 JACK HENTHORN & ASSOCIATES
DE JONG PROPERTY
February 12, 1998
JHA/mka/EIA
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 circulation impacts. This "Statement" 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.
The proposed project would generate approximately 290 ADT. A Circulation Impact Analysis is not required for
projects proposing an increase of less than 500 ADT's. The project is providing access from Black Rail Road off of
Poinsettia Lane. Poinsettia Lane is being constructed to the western and eastern property boundaries by adjacent
developments. The major improvements identified in the Zone 20 LFMP have already been installed, will be
provided for by other nearby developments or are provided onsite concurrent with this development to accommodate
increased vehicle trips and mitigate traffic congestion. Thus, it is anticipated that with the implementation of these
circulation improvements, all corridors and intersections in the project vicinity would operate at acceptable levels of
service and there would be no significant circulation or traffic impacts.
b,c) All project on-site circulation improvements shall be required to comply with minimum engineering design and
safety standards. Internal access between the project site and the adjacent development to the west is provided in the
design. Poinsettia Lane and the onsite circulation are designed in accordance with the General Plan Circulation
Element and City standards thereby avoiding hazards to safety from design features. Additionally, temporary road
connections to maintain continued access to adjacent agricultural properties that could be impacted by future
improvements will be provided.
d) Required parking will be provided onsite. Each proposed lot will be required to have a minimum 2-car garage per
unit.
e) Pedestrian and bicycle access will be accommodated by standard full width right of way improvements including
sidewalks along all internal streets. Poinsettia Lane will also provide standard half-width improvements. This
project also proposes a 20' wide easement to provide for the construction of the City Trail, located within the
landscaped Poinsettia Lane open space buffer area.
f) The project as proposed complies with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. Specifically, in that
the project will be located in proximity to a major roadway (Poinsettia Lane) and employment opportunities within
the surrounding businessparks, and that alternative transportation opportunities exist including bus transit, and
bicycle or pedestrian access.
g) The project is not located in close proximity to a railroad or navigable waterway, therefore, no rail or waterborne
impacts are anticipated. The project is also consistent with the McClellan Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land
Use Plan. Therefore, no air traffic impacts are anticipated.
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a-e) See "Biological Resources Report and Impact Analysis for the De Jong Property" dated October 7, 1998, prepared
by Dudek & Associates, Inc., Anita M. Hayworth, Ph.D., Biological Consultant. This subsequent biological study
provides more focused, current and detailed project level analysis of site specific biological impacts and provides
more refined project level mitigation measures as required by the Zone 20 PEIR.
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
a) Consistent with Title 24 regulations of the State Building Code, the project will be designed to incorporate energy
conservation measures where feasible. Otherwise, the project does not conflict with any adopted energy
conservation plans.
b) The project's compliance with Building Codes, Title 20, and Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code in accordance with
the MEIR (Electricity and Natural Gas Section) mitigation measures to reduce impacts associated with the use of
nonrenewable resources in a wasteful manner will ensure the implementation of energy conservation measures. The
6 JACK HENTHORN & ASSOCIATES
DE JONG PROPERTY
February 12, 1998
JHA/mka/EIA
subject property does not contain any known non-renewable resources of any significance, so no non-renewable
resources will be used in a wasteful or inefficient manner.
c) The subject property does not contain any known mineral resources (natural gas, oil, coal or gravel) that would be of
future value to the region and the residents of the State.
IX. HAZARDS
a,b,c) A single family residential project is not a use typically associated with risks such as accidental explosion or release
of hazardous substances, thereby creating a potential health hazard. Although agricultural operations will continue
on parcels in the vicinity of the de Jong subdivision, compliance with the Zone 20 PEIR measures and Zone 20
Specific Plan development regulations to buffer residential development from agricultural operations will avoid
health hazards resulting from pesticide residue. This 29 unit residential project will not create any health hazard.
The project will, also not interfere with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
d) The project site has been previously used for agricultural purposes so the potential exists for soil contamination. The
soil may be tested for pesticide residue. If significant levels of pesticide residue are present in the soil, appropriate
mitigation measures shall be followed.
e) This project has native vegetation located onsite and on adjacent properties offsite, which could be subject to fire
hazard. Pursuant to the City's Landscape Manual, a Fire Suppression Plan is proposed to mitigate future potential
fire hazards.
X. NOISE
a) Implementation of the proposed 29 unit project will incrementally increase existing noise levels in the project
vicinity. However, the increased noise associated with 29 residential single-family units (and 290 additional average
daily auto trips) would not result in a significant increase in noise levels within the project vicinity.
b) There will not be significant impacts to the project created by traffic noise from future Poinsettia Lane provided that
the required acoustical report's recommended mitigation measures are adhered to. A sound wall is not required
adjacent to Poinsettia Lane because exterior traffic noise on the adjacent lots falls below 60 dB(A) CNEL. This is
due to a combination of items: 1) the projected ADT's on Poinsettia Lane are not as high as other arterial roadways
(i.e. Aviara Parkway); 2) the proposed building pads are located below the grade of the road; and 3) a 50'
landscaped setback is proposed adjacent to Poinsettia Lane. However, a concrete block wall is proposed to provide
rear yard screening and consistency with adjacent developments. Prior to the issuance of building permits for this
project, the project applicant shall be conditioned to submit an acoustical analysis to the City which analyzes and
recommends mitigation measures to limit interior noise levels to less than 45 dBA CNEL.
Based on exhibits in the McClellan-Palomar Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the project site is located south of the
CNEL noise contours for the McClellan-Palomar Airport and thus, should not be negatively impacted by overflight
or noise generated by the airport.
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES
a-e) In accordance with the City's MEIR, the project must be consistent with and will be conditioned to comply with the
City's adopted Growth Management performance standards for public facilities and services to ensure that adequate
public facilities are provided prior to or concurrent with development. The project is within and subject to the Zone
20 Specific Plan requiring it to be in accordance with the approved Zone 20 LFMP thereby ensuring that
performance standards for public facilities will be met through build-out of the zone.
Consistent with the City's Growth Management Plan and applicable state law, the project applicant shall be required
to submit evidence to the City that project impacts to school facilities have been adequately mitigated prior to the
issuance of a grading or building permit. The project mitigation will involve a financial contribution to the Carlsbad
Unified School District, Community Facilities District (CFD) fund.
7 JACK HENTHORN & ASSOCIATES
DE JONG PROPERTY
February 12, 1998
JHA/mka/EIA
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS
a-g) See XI above.
XIII. AESTHETICS
a,b) Potential project visual impacts to the Poinsettia Lane scenic corridor will be adequately mitigated by heavy
perimeter project landscaping, the 50-foot landscaped setback buffer along Poinsettia Lane, building heights being
restricted to a maximum of 35 feet and the project's horizontal separation from Poinsettia Lane (finished pad
elevations to be roughly 10 to 25 feet lower). The proposed perimeter landscaping and existing City building height
restrictions will mitigate potential negative aesthetic impacts of the project.
Development of the project requires 95,000 cubic yards of grading. This results in acceptable grading quantities of
7,480 cubic yards per graded acre (excluding the grading of Poinsettia Lane onsite pursuant to Municipal Code
Section 21.95.060(j)(3)). The proposed grading conforms to the City's revised Hillside Development Ordinance.
Manufactured slopes will be screened with landscaping. Cut slopes well not exceed 15 feet and fill slopes will not
exceed 30 feet in height. The proposed development generally follows the natural countours of the existing
topography thereby preserving the topographic integrity of the relatively flat mesa and preserving the more extreme
variations in topography in the canyons in the central and northeast portions of the site in proposed permanent open
space easements. Therefore, the alteration of the topography would not create a significant aesthetic impact. The
provision of a screen wall, a minimum 50-foot landscaped setback buffer and a 10 to 25 foot grade differential
between the pads and Poinsettia Lane will all serve to screen the project's structures from the scenic corridor.
The Zone 20 PEIR includes a visual impact analysis and provides architectural design guidelines that new
development should comply with. The viewshed analysis determined that any potential impacts to the Palomar
Airport Road viewshed (Section 3.13.2.2.4) would not be significant as the views from this location are not
"visually sensitive". The El Camino Real viewshed (Section 3.13.2.2.5) was also determined not to be significant
due to the distance from the site and the high speeds at which the motorist is traveling at, results in viewing only a
small percentage of the Specific Plan Area. The architectural guidelines suggest that building products be varied
with one and two story-elements. This site should not be constrained to single story units over a portion of the
subdivision as it is not a ridgeline development.
c) The project would not create significant light and glare impacts on surrounding properties. The site would be
buffered from surrounding properties by the major collector roadway (Poinsettia Lane), building setbacks,
topography, slope landscaping, and open space areas with natural vegetation. In addition, the project shall be
conditioned so that all project lighting be designed to reflect downward to avoid impacts to surrounding properties.
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES
a-e) Paleontological and historical resources were analyzed in the Zone 20, Specific Plan PEIR by RMW Paleo
Associates and Brian Mooney Associates, respectively. The paleontology report suggested that "capping the study
area are Quaternary age marine terrace deposits. ... No fossils are known from these deposits in the study area. ...
The Quaternary age marine terrace deposits have a low potential for the discovery of fossils."
XV. RECREATION
a, b) On-site recreational amenities will be provided individually for each 7,500 square-foot, single family lot. In
addition, Aviara Park is proposed on the lot adjacent to the east and Poinsettia Community Park (42 acres) is located
less than 1/2 mile to the west. Accordingly, project impacts to recreational amenities are not regarded as significant.
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) As discussed in the attached Biological Resources report, the project will result in the loss of .7 acres of southern
maritime chaparral habitat. However, project design mitigates direct impacts to southern maritime chaparral by
proposing an open space easement over 93% of the habitat area onsite. This results in a ratio of preservation greater
than the 2:1 ratio typically required.
JACK HENTHORN & ASSOCIATES
DE JONG PROPERTY
February 12, 1998
JHA/mka/EIA
b) All project related impacts must be considered to be cumulatively considerable when viewed in connection with the
effects of continued growth and development within the City, Northern San Diego County and San Diego County in
general. However, with the exception of significant and unmitigable regional air quality impacts identified within
the Master EIR for the City's Updated 1994 General Plan, (for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations has
been adopted by the Carlsbad City Council), this project will implement project specific mitigation measures to
reduce project specific impacts to a level of insignificance. The implementation of these project mitigation measures
will incrementally reduce cumulative considerable impacts to a level of insignificance.
c) As previously discussed within this document, this 29 unit residential, detached single family project will not create
environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly.
Alternatives:
Project alternatives are required when there is evidence that the proect will have a significant adverse impact on the
environment and an alternative would lessen or mitigate those adverse impacts. Public Resources Code Section 21002
forbids the approval of projects with significant adverse impacts when feasible alternatives or mitigation measures can
substantially lessen such impacts. A "significant effect" is defined as one which has a substantial adverse impact. Given
related project mitigation conditions, this project has "NO" significant physical environmental impacts, therefore, there is
no substantial adverse impact and no justification for requiring a discussion of alternatives (an alternative would not lessen
an impact if there is no substantial adverse impact).
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES
a,b) See previous documentation for basis of Earlier Analyses and Impacts Adequately Addressed discussion.
c) Mitigating Measures and Mitigation Monitoring Program:
Not applicable with initial submittal.
SOURCE DOCUMENTS - Source documents should be on file in the Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas
Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009, Phone (760) 438-1161.
1. City of Carlsbad General Plan, updated 1994, and the Final Master Environmental Impact Report, 93-01, City
Council Resolution No. 94-246, prepared by the Planning Department, certified September 6, 1994.
2. "Final Program Environmental Impact Report for Zone 20 Specific Plan" and Planning Commission Resolution
3525 for EIR 203 dated June 16, 1993.
3. "Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, De Jong Property" dated January 12, 1998, prepared by
Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. (Job No. 97-7157).
4. "Preliminary Hydrology Study for De Jong Property, City of Carlsbad" dated February , 1998 prepared by
Hunsaker & Associates, Inc.
5. "Biological Resources Report and Impact Analysis for the De Jong Property" dated October 7, 1998, prepared by
Dudek & Associates, Inc., Anita M. Hayworth, Ph.D., Biological Consultant.
6. "Acoustical Evaluation Study - De Jong Property" dated February 6, 1998, prepared by OGDEN Environmental and
Energy Services, Rick Tavares, BIT, REA, INCE, Civil Engineer, Acoustics and Vibration Group (Job No. 98-066-
3151)
9 JACK HENTHORN & ASSOCIATES
DE JONG PROPERTY
February 12, 1998
JHA/mka/EIA