Loading...
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