HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDP 97-05; Gold Coast Properties; Hillside Development Permit (HDP) (10)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: HDP 97-05
DATE: 06-30-97
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: HDP 97-05 - GOLD COAST PROPERTIES SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
2. APPLICANT: TOM JONES, GOLD COAST PROPERTIES
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: PO BOX 2740, CARLSBAD, CA.
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: MARCH 19,1997
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 2,070 CUBIC YARDS OF GRADING TO CREATE A BUILDING
PAD FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON AN EXISTING HILLSIDE INFILL LOT
LOCATED BETWEEN ADAMS STREET, COVE DRIVE, AND THE AGUA HEDIONDA
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.
0 Land Use and Planning 0 TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics
0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
r
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0
Kl
0
0
0
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have 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 EIR is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
7- 8-97
Date
Date /
2 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 fiom “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 11”, 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.
3 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.
0 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 I1 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.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (Source #1)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (Source #2)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(Source #1)
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (Source #1)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (Source #1)
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed offkial regional or local
population projections? (Source #1)
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 #1)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing?
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
Fault rupture? (Source #1)
Seismic ground shaking? (Source #1)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (Source
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (Source #1)
Landslides or mudflows? (Source #5)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (Source
Subsidence of the land? (Source #5)
Expansive soils? (Source #5)
Unique geologic or physical features? (Source #5)
#5)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
rate and amount of surface runoff?
such as flooding?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0
No
Impact
IXI IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI IXI IXI
IXI IXI IXI
IXI IXI IXI
IXI
IXI
5 Rev. 03/28/96
r
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e& temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)?
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body?
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements?
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? (Source #1)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(Source #1)
Impacts to groundwater quality? (Source #1)
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (Source
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Source #1)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (Source #1)
d) Create objectionable odors? (Source #1)
existing or projected air quality violation? (Source #1)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Source
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)?
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(Source #1)
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (Source #1)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0
0
Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant Unless Impact Mitigation
Incorporated
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0
0
No
Impact
IXI
IXI
€3
IXI
IXI
El IXI
0 IXI
0 IXI 0 IXI
IXI
0
IXI
0
c7
IXI
0
IXI IXI IXI IXI
IXI
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? (Source #3)
b) Locally . designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(Source #1) 0 0 0 IXI
0 IXI 0 0
6 Rev. 03/28/96
r
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source #1)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(Source #1)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (Source #1)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(Source #1)
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
ineffkient manner? (Source #1)
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)
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 #1)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (Source #1)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Source #1)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Source #1)
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? (Source #1)
b) Police protection? (Source #1)
c) Schools? (Source #1)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services? (Source #1)
(Source #1)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
cl
0
0
0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0
-
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
cl
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0
No
Impact
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
€3
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI IXI
IXI IXI €3 IXI
El
7 Rev. 03/28/96
r-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas? (Source #1)
Communications systems? (Source #1)
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (Source #1)
Sewer or septic tanks? (Source #1)
Storm water drainage? (Source #1)
Solid waste disposal? (Source #1)
Local or regional water supplies? (Source #1)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway?
Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect?
Create light or glare?
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (Source #1)
Disturb archaeological resources? (Source #4)
Affect historical resources? (Source #1)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (Source #4)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (Source #4)
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
IXI 0 0
IXI IXI 0 0
0
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (Source #1)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (Source #1)
0 0 0 IXI
0 0 0 [XI
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?
0 [XI 0 0
8 Rev. 03/28/96
r-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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?
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
0 0 0 IXI
0 0 0 ixI
MI. 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.
SOURCES:
1. “Final Master EIR for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update”, prepared by the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department, certified September 6, 1994.
2. “City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program - Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan”, adopted May,
1982.
3. “Report of a Biological Survey of the Gold Coast Properties” prepared by Pacific Southwest
Biological Services, Inc., dated May 8, 1996.
4. “Letter Report - Archaeological Survey and Test Results for 4529 Adams Street ” prepared
by Dennis Gallegos of Gallegos & Associates, dated May 20, 1997.
5. “Preliminary Soils Engineering Investigation” dated February 17, 1997.
9 Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. Agua Hedionda Local Coastal Program:
The project, which is located between Adams Street and the Agua Hedionda Lagoon, is
subject to the Agua Hedionda segment of Carlsbad’s Local Coastal Program. The Agua
Hedionda LCP requires a grading design which minimizes disturbance to steep slopes,
preserves visual access to the lagoon, provides lateral public access along the shoreline
within a 25’ wide access; and avoids development that will cast shadows on shorelines.
Although the site does not extend to the shoreline, the 1.62 acre site is constrained by
steep slopes surrounding the Hedionda Point land form and minimal road frontage on a
hairpin curve. These constraints have resulted in a grading design that is consistent with
the Agua Hedionda LCP in that: 1) existing steep slopes are preserved except where
grading is necessary to widen Adams Street and to create a building pad for a new, larger
single family structure (the existing single family structure will be demolished),
driveway, and yard. While the proposed design necessitates disturbance to 25%+ slopes,
this disturbance is minimal in that it represents less that 10% of the site.
The proposed design would also provide a turn-a-round for cars thereby alleviating
potential traffic safety issues surrounding an alternative design in which cars would back
out fiom a driveway onto the hairpin curve on Adams Street.
IIc. Housing:
The project consists of demolishing an existing single family residence and constructing a
new single family residence no existing housing will be displaced. The project is subject
to the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance and will be required to pay an affordable
housing per unit impact fee to ensure that adequate affordable housing is available within
the City’s boundaries.
IV. Water:
The project would result in a minor increase in runoff , however, the onsite drainage will
be discharged and dissipated consistent with City standards to avoid adverse impacts due
to surface runoff.
V. Air Oualitv:
The project is subsequent to and consistent with Carlsbad’s 1994 General Plan Update,
however, it will replace an existing single family structure. Therefore, the project would
not contribute significantly to cumulative increases in gas and electric power
consumption and vehicle miles traveled which impact the region’s air quality.
VI. TransDortation/Circulation:
The project will replace an existing single family residence; therefore, it will generate no
additional traffic.
VII. Biological Resources:
The project site was surveyed by Pacific Southwest Biological Services for sensitive
biological resources and three vegetation communities were identified: .55 acres of
disturbed coastal sage scrub; .77 acres of nonnative grassland; and .45 acres of ruderal.
One sensitive plant species, California adolphia, is sparsely scattered throughout the
coastal sage habitat and no sensitive animals were detected. Since the slopes identified
10 Rev. 03/28/96
by the biological analysis as containing the low quality coastal sage will remain
undisturbed and conserved through the dedication of an open space easement, the
proposed development will not have a direct, significant impact on coastal sage scrub.
VIII. Aesthetics:
The project is located between Adams Street, a scenic roadway from which visual access
to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon is provided, and the lagoon. The project is required to
comply with the City’s Agua Hedionda Local Coastal Program policies requiring that
development located adjacent to Adams Street (scenic roadway) will include frontage
landscaping in conformance with the City’s Scenic Corridor guidelines.
>
11 Rev. 03/28/96
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE')
The 25%+ slopes surrounding the graded building pad shall be preserved through the
dedication of an open space easement which shall ensure that the natural vegetation
present on the slopes shall remain except upon written order of the Carlsbad Fire
Department for fire prevention purposes, or upon written approval of the Planning
Director and California Coastal Commission, based upon a request from the Homeowner
accompanied by a report from a qualified arboristhotanist indicating the need to remove
specified trees andor plants because of disease or impending danger to adjacent habitable
dwelling units. For areas containing native vegetation the report required to accompany
the request shall be prepared by a qualified biologist.
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.
12 Rev. 03/28/96