HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-04-21; Planning Commission; Resolution 56111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5611
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADDENDUM
AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM TO ALLOW GRADING TO ACCOMMODATE A
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE LOCATED AT THE NORTHERN TERMINUS
OF HIGHLAND DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: DUNN RESIDENCE
CASE NO.: HDP 02-10/CDP 02-42
WHEREAS, James Dunn, “Developer/Owner,” has filed a verified application
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as:
That portion of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter
of Section 31, Township 11 south, Range 4 west, San Diego
meridian, in the County of San Diego, State of California,
according to the United States Government Survey, approved
April 5, 1881, together with a portion of Lots 4 and 5 of Cedar
Hill addition to the town of Carlsbad, according to Map
thereof No. 532, filed in the office of the County Recorder of
San Diego County, April 25, 1888, all being in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California and
described as per Grant Deed recorded September 25, 1962 as
File No. 164830 of official records filed in the office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, State of California,
described herein as Deed 1, along with that portion described
per Corporation Grant Deed recorded April 9,1963 as File No.
60557 of official records, filed in the office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, State of California, described
herein as Deed 2, and as shown on Record of Survey 13744,
recorded May 7,1992 as File No. 92-27634 filed in the office of
the County Recorder of San Diego County, State of California
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with
said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 21st day of April 2004, hold a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A)
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby ADOPTS the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Exhibit
“ND,” dated April 21, 2004 according to Exhibits “NOI” dated November 7,
2003, and “PII” dated October 14, 2004, attached hereto and made a part hereof,
based on the following findings:
FindinPs :
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments
thereon prior to APPROVING the project; and
b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines
and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
d. based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Conditions:
1. Developer shall implement or cause the implementation of the Dunn Residence
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
PC RES0 NO. 561 1 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21st day of April 2004, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson White, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman,
Montgomery, Segall, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MELISSA WHITE, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HO&IL~!R
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 561 1 -3-
- City of Carlsbad
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME:
CASE NO: CDP 03-41
PROJECT LOCATION:
Dum Prouertv Storm Drain Reulacement
Northern terminus of Highland Drive/APN 156-05 1-24
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of replacement of a deteriorated and failed storm drain
pipeline on private property. The original pipeline was part of storm drain improvements constructed in
approximately 1965. The system was designed to collect storm drain runoff from the northern end of
Highland Drive and direct it via a 24 inch underground pipeline down a steep slope to undeveloped portions
of the Hosp Grove property. The upper portion of the slope has been affected by undocumented fill and
subsequent erosion. Over time erosion has exposed portions of the galvanized steel pipeline. The exposed
portions rusted, and pieces have broken off, resulting in accelerated erosion of the lower part of the slope.
DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described
project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the
Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study
(EL4 Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as
follows:
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.
The proposed project MAY have “potentially significant impact(s)” on the environment, but at least
one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. (Mitigated Negative Declaration applies only to the effects
that remained to be addressed).
Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT
be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is
required.
A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on file
in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008.
ADOPTED: April 21, 2004. pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 5613
ATTEST :
I.\
MICHAEL J. HOLZMXLEW
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
ADDENDUM TO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION HDP 02-1 O/CDP 02-42
1. If the purchase of .08 acre of CSS habitat is the mitigation option selected, the habitat
mitigation bank shall be located in the Coastal Zone and acceptable to the City and
wildlife agencies.
2. Schedule construction to occur outside the bird breeding season (February 15 - August
31) or assure that construction activity will not result in noise levels above 60 dBA leq at
the nest site. If construction is planned during the bird breeding season, vegetation
should be cleared prior to the breeding season. Additionally, if construction occurs
during raptor breeding season (approximately February 1 to August 30) a qualified
biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey of the project site and surrounding
habitat to determine whether there are active raptor nests within the area. If an active
raptor nest is observed, a buffer shall be established between the construction activities
and the nest so that nesting activities are not interrupted. The buffer should be a
minimum of 500 feet and should be in effect as long as construction is occurring and/or
until the nest is no longer active.
- City of Carlsbad
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME: DUNN RESIDENCE ,-
CASE NO: HDP 02-1O/CDP 02-42
PROJECT LOCATION: Northern terminus of Highland Drive between Marron Road and
Yourell Avenue
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Remedial grading to stabilize and create a developable building
pad and development of an approximately 3,500 square foot single family residence, 1,800
square foot accessory garage and a 640 square foot second dwelling unit above the garage on an
existing lot.
PROPOSED DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental
review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of
Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EL4 Part 2) identified potentially
significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made
by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are
released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly
no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in
light of the whole record before the City that the project "as revised" may have a significant
effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be recommended
for adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission.
A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration are on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad,
California 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to
the Planning Department within 30 days of the date of this notice.
The proposed project and Mitigated Negative Declaration are subject to review and
approvaVadoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council. Additional
public notices will be issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any
questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4622.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD November 7,2003 to December 7,2003
PUBLISH DATE November 7,2003
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www. Y.+tl"ClV ' carlq%p.us @
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: HDP 02-1O/CDP 02-42
DATE: October 14,2003
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
CASE NAME: Dunn Residence
LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER:
PROJECT LOCATION: Northern terminus of Highland Drive between Marron Road and Yourell
PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: James Dunn, 4316 Cassanna Way, #305.
Oceanside. CA 92057
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RLM
ZONING: R-1
OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing
approval or participation agreements): USFWS
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
The project consists of remedial mading to stabilize and create a developable pad on a parcel that
has been impacted bv undocumented fill and subsequent erosion, and development of an
approximately 3,500 square foot sinde family residence, 1.800 square foot accessory
garage/workshop. and a 640 square foot second dwelling unit above the garage. The parcel is
located on north trending, mostlv steep sandstone bluffs and cliff faces which have been subiect
to severe disturbance over the years. The portion of the property proposed for development is
covered bv ruderal or weedv habitat with remnants of disturbed native vegetation. Existing
single-family residences abut the property along the southern and eastern property lines.
Although remedial mading necessary to stabilize a developable pad consists of some m-ading on
steep to moderate sloping bluffs to the north of the proposed development, the resulting 2:l
slopes will be revegetated with native vegetation and will remain open space as designated by the
City’s General Plan
1 Rev. 07/03/02
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.
u Aesthetics Geology/Soils 0 Noise
0 Agricultural Resources
0 Air Quality 0 HydrologyNater Quality 0 Public Services
Biological Resources 0 Land Use and Planning Recreation
0 HazarddHazardous Materials 0 Popu1ation and Housing
u Cultural Resources Mineral Resources 0 TransportatiodCirculation
0 Utilities & Service Systems Mandatory Findings of
Significance
2 Rev. 07/03/02
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
I\
0
IXI
0
0
4-03
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have “potentially significant impact(s)” on the
environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an
earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have
been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required.
//e3 -0 3
Date
3 Rev. 07/03/02
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 significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards
and policies.
“Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than
Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the
mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant
level.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significantly adverse.
Based on an “EM-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse
effect on the environment, but &l potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards
and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative
Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed
project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present
and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been
incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required.
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to
prepare an EIR if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding
Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the
project or any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment.
If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant,
4 Rev. 07/03/02
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.
5 Rev. 07/03/02
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 adverse effect has not been
discussed or mitigated in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does
not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a
“Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant adverse impact has not been made
pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to
less than significant; or (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the
level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a
mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form
under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to
discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant.
6 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant Impact
Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant
Impact
No Impact
I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0
0
0
0
0
0
1x1
IXI b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a State scenic highway?
o c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings? 0
0
IXI
0 0 IXI d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - (In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model-1997 prepared by the California
Department of Conservation as an optional model to use
in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would
the project:
0 0 0 IXI a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
17 0
0
0 1x1 b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
0 0 IXI c) Involve other changes in the existing environment,
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
III. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied
upon to make the following determinations.) Would the
project:
cl 0
o
0 Ix1
0
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
IXI b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
7 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact
Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact
Mitigation Unless Impact
Incorporated 0 IXIO c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
0
0 om d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
0 OH e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the
project:
0 a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
ON 0 0 b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian,
aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations or by California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
0 0 OH c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filing, hydrological interruption, or other means?
ON 0 0 d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
0 0 om e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
0 0 OIXI f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
0 0 g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally
sensitive?
8 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a historical resource as defined in 5 15064.5?
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
IV. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving:
1.
11.
... 111.
iv.
Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
Strong seismic ground shaking?
Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
Landslides?
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction,
or collapse?
Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
Potentially Significant Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IXI
0
IXI
0
Less Than Significant Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IXI
No Impact
IXI
IXI
IXI
Ixl
Ixl
IXI
Ixl
0
IXI
0
0
9 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
d) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
IV. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -
Would the project:
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
Create a significant hazard to the public or
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create.a significant hazard to the public or
environment?
For a project within an airport land use plan, or
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
Potentially
Significant Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact
Mitigation Incorporated
Unless Impact
0 OB
0 OH
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OH
ON
ON
Rev. 07/03/02 10
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Impact Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
LessThan No Significant Impact
Impact
0 0 b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with ground water recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local ground water table
level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level whch would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
c) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site?
o
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in
a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
0 0
f) Create or contribute runoff water, which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff!
0 0 OIXI
0 0 OIXI g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation
map?
0 0 OIXI
0 0 i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures,
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
0 0
0
0
0
0
k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface
waters.
11 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Ix.
X.
X.
m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals,
pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics,
nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash)
into receiving surface waters or other alteration of
receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or
wetland waters) during or following construction?
0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d)
list?
p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of
beneficial uses?
Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Impact Unless
Mitigation
LessThan No Significant Impact Impact
Incorporated 0 El OH
cl 0
0 0
0 0
OH
OH
LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
0 om
0 0 IXIU
Physically divide an established community?
Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
0 0 om Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
0 OH a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region
and the residents of the State? o 0 OIXI b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels 0 0 OH in excess of standards established in the local general - plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of
other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive 0 0 OH groundbourne vibration or groundboume noise
levels?
12 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Significant Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation Incorporated 0 0
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
IXI
1xI
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
0 0 0 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
0 0 0 IXI e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
0 0 0 IXI f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
X. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
0 0 0 IXI a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infiastructure)?
0 0 0 IXI
IXI
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
0 0 0 c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered government facilities, a need for
new or physically altered government facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
0
0
0
0
0
0 OIXI
0 OIXI
i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
0 OIXI
0 OIXI
0 OB
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities?
13 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
XIV. RECREATION
Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact Mitigation
Incorporated
0 0 a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
o 0 b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, whch might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFC - Would the project:
Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Result in inadequate emergency access?
Result in insufficient parking capacity?
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn-
outs, bicycle racks)?
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the
project:
a) 0 0
o 0
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which would
cause significant environmental effects?
om
UIXI
om
om
14 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 OH c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of whch could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project fiom existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
0 0 om
0 0 OIXI e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider, whch serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
o 0
0 0
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
0 la 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 0 b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumula-
tively considerable” means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable fiture projects?)
17 IXI c) Does the project have environmental effects, which
will cause the substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
om
on
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on
attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. IdentifL earlier analyses and state where they are available for
review.
15 Rev. 07/03/02
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.
16 Rev. 07/03/02
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
No Impact: The project is located at the top of a coastal bluff above Jefferson Street and Buena Vista
Lagoon. Although Jefferson Street is identified as a Natural Open Space Corridor by the City’s Scenic
Corridor Guidelines, the site is not visible from Jefferson Street and the project would not obstruct
lagoon views along the roadway. The site is separated from the lagoon and Jefferson Street by an
intervening eucalyptus grove and steep slopes which entirely screen the site from view.
AIR QUALITY-Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a federal and state non-
attainment area for ozone (03), and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to
10 microns in diameter (PMlo). The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards
(AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothill areas, requires that
a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In
San Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies
(RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San Diego Association
of Governments (SNAG).
A plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the
1991 state-mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other California non-
attainment areas having serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation
Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November
9th through 10th in 1994, and was forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for
approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly regarding airsheds with the worst smog
problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996.
The proposed project relates to the SIP and/or RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that
are incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each
city’s and the County’s general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan,
then the project presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such
consistency would ensure that the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact.
Section 15 125(B) of the State of California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains
specific reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the
applicable air quality management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS.
The RAQS and TCM plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal
ambient air quality standards. The California Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining
whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the following:
0
0
Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area?
Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan?
The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS
is being implemented. The project is consistent with the growth assumptions of the City’s General Plan
and the RAQS. Therefore, the project is consistent with the regional air quality plan and will in no way
conflict or obstruct implementation of the regional plan.
17 Rev. Q7lQ3fQ2
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected
air quality violation?
Less Than Significant Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is in the
City of Oceanside. Data available for this monitoring site through April, 2002 indicate that the most
recent air quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (one day in both
2000 and 2001) and one day in 2001 for the federal 8-hour average for ozone and one day for the 24-hour
state standard for suspended particulates in 1996. No violations of any other air quality standards have
been recorded recently. The project would involve minimal short-term emissions associated with grading
and construction. Such emissions would be minimized through standard construction measures such as
the use of properly tuned equipment and watering the site for dust control. Long-term emissions
associated with travel to and from the project will be minimal. Although air pollutant emissions would
be associated with the project, they would neither result in the violation of any air quality standard
(comprising only an incremental contribution to overall air basin quality readings), nor contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Any impact is assessed as less than
significant.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Air Basin is currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone and
suspended fine particulates. The proposed project would represent a contribution to a cumulatively
considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however,
emissions associated with the proposed project would be minimal. Given the limited emissions
potentially associated with the proposed project, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not
the proposed project is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 (a)(4), the
proposed project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is
assessed as less than significant.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
No Impact. As noted above, the proposed project would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or
concentrations. In addition, there are no sensitive receptors (e.g., schools or hospitals) located in the
vicinity of the project. No impact is assessed.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
No Impact. The construction of the proposed project could generate fumes from the operation of
construction equipment, which may be considered objectionable by some people. Such exposure would
be short-term or transient. In addition, the number of people exposed to such transient impacts is not
considered substantial.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Potentially Significant unless mitigation incorporated: The biological assessment of the project site
indicates that the proposed development will disturb vegetation described as ruderal and weedy habitat
while avoiding very disturbed coastal sage scrub and chaparral habitats located on slopes to the north and
east that are determined to be incapable of supporting the California gnatcatcher. However, brush
18 Rev. 07/03/02
management within a required fire suppression zone that extends 60’ north of the proposed structures
will disturb approximately 1,580 square feet or .04 acre of disturbed coastal sage scrubhhapan-a1 habitat.
Mitigation necessary for this disturbance shall consist of one of two options: 1) the purchase of .08 acre
of CSS habitat in a habitat mitigation bank acceptable to the City; or 2) the onsite restoration of .08 acre
of CSS/chaparral habitat through hydroseeding a native CSS plant mix within the area identified as very
disturbed coastal sage scrub/chaparral mix to the north of the fire suppression zone boundary (see
biological survey map - Figure 1). The CSS hydroseeding option described above must occur within the
rainy season (October 15 - April 15). Hydroseeded areas shall be monitored by the project biologist for
one year to ensure success. A Federal de minimus “take” permit issued by the USFWS is required for
this very minor area prior to grading.
Additionally, the proposed 2: 1 slopes that are within the fire suppression zone and adjacent to disturbed
CSS/chaparral habitats shall be revegetated with a non-invasive native plant mix that does not contain
high and moderate fuel species as specified by the City’s Landscape Manual. The revegetated slopes
shall receive temporary irrigation until established.
GEOLOGY/SOILS
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
Potentially Significant unless mitigation incorporated: (a.i. to ah.)
There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zones within the City of Carlsbad and there is no other
evidence of active or potentially active faults within the City. However, there are several active faults
throughout Southern California, and these potential earthquakes could affect Carlsbad. The risk from
ground shaking is not significant when structures are built pursuant to the Uniform Building Code
(earthquake standards). According to the Geotechnical Update Report prepared for the project by Vinje
& Middleton Engineering, the existing northern slope is considered marginally stable (low safety factor)
and subject to failure upon saturation, surcharging or a significant seismic event. Provided that the
recommendations specified for remedial grading and foundations by the Geotechnical Update Report are
implemented during the construction phase of the project, liquefaction and seismically induced
settlements will not be a factor in the development of the project site. Therefore, mitigation to avoid
significant impacts resulting from unstable soils shall consist of the implementation of the Geotechnical
Update Report recommendations for remedial grading and foundations as stated in the Vinje &
Middleton Engineering Report dated October 1,2003.
According to the a Geotechnical Investigation performed for the project by Ron Gutier and Erik Nelson
in 1989, one relatively large landslide and an area of bedrock downslope creep were observed on the
property. In both the 1989 Geotechnical Investigation and the Geotechnical Update Report dated
October 1, 2003, the site is determined to be favorable for the proposed development provided the
recommendations for remedial grading summarized in the preliminary geotechnical report are followed.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
19 Rev. 07/03/02
No Impact: The project’s compliance with standards in the City’s Excavation and Grading Ordinance
that prevent erosion through slope planting and installation of temporary erosion control means will
avoid substantial soil erosion impacts.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
No Impact - The geotechnical analysis performed for the site by Vinje & Middleton finds that although
the site is underlain by loose undocumented fills within the pad and northern slope areas over
Formational sandstone units which are exposed in an overly steepened slope condition within the lower
terrain below, the proposed development is feasible; i.e., unstable soil conditions will not occur provided
the recommendations summarized in the preliminary geotechnical report are followed.
d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
Less than Significant Impact - The site is favorable for the proposed development provided the
remedial grading and foundation recommendations summarized in the preliminary geotechnical report
are followed.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
No Impact - The project site is an undeveloped infill site surrounded by urban development. Existing
sewer facilities are located near the site and are available and adequate to support a future residential
land use on the site.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project:
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground
water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local ground water table level (Le., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells
would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
Impacts to groundwater quality?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate
or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on-
or off-site?
Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
20 Rev. 07/03/02
g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
No Impact (a, b, c, d, e, f & g) - The infill project will rely on an existing public storm drain system and
is subject to City standards regarding water quality, drainage and erosion control, including storm water
permit ("DES) requirements and best management practices. The project is conditioned to require a
Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) that will ensure that it is designed and constructed in
compliance with the City's NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with
Construction Activity issued by the State Water Resources Control Board and the San Diego NPDES
Municipal Storm Water Permit issued to San Diego County and Cities by the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board.
In addition, according to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study,
November 1992, the project site is located in an area where development will not have a significant
impact to groundwater. Therefore, the project will not violate any water quality standards, deplete
groundwater supplies or quality, substantially alter existing drainage patterns, cause substantial erosion
or flooding, or significantly impact the capacity of stormwater drainage systems.
h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map?
i) flood flows?
Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect
No Impact (h & i) - The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according to the
Flood Insurance Rate Map. Therefore, the proposed development will not result in housing or structures
within a 100-year flood hazard area.
j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No Impact & k) - According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping
Study, November 1992, the project site is not located within any dam failure inundation area, or area
subject to inundation by seiche or tsunami. Therefore, the project will not result in exposing people or
structures to significant risk fi-om flooding as a result of a dam failure, or from inundation by seiche,
tsunami, or mudflow.
1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters.
m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives,
synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving
surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or
following construction?
0)
p)
Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean
Water Act Section 303(d) list?
The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives
or degradation of beneficial uses?
21 Rev. 07/03/02
No Impact (l, m, n, o & p) - The project site is not located adjacent to any body of water. Drainage
from the site is subject to the City’s drainage and storm water pollution control standards (”DES and
best management practices), which ensure that sediment and pollutants from any development of the site
will not discharge into any downstream receiving surface waters. Also, the City’s drainage and storm
water pollution control standards ensure that development does not reduce water quality of any marine,
fresh or wetland waters or groundwater. The project is designed to drain into an existing storm drain,
and the project will be conditioned to prepare a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) to ensure that
City standards are met.
HAZARDS - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Less Than Significant Impact: The project site contains disturbed coastal sage scrub and chaparral
habitat and requires native plant revegetation of manufactured slopes located in proximity to the
proposed single family structure as biological mitigation. The project avoids a significant risk of fire
through compliance with the City’s requirement for a 60’ fire suppression buffer from all structures.
Provision of the fire suppression buffer ensures that no high or moderate fuel species will be allowed to
remain within the buffer and revegetated slopes will not include any species considered to be a high or
moderate fuel species.
LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental effect?
Less Than Significant Impact: The project is subject to the City’s Hillside Development Regulations
and the Mello II segment of the Local Coastal Program. Both require projects to avoid development on
steep slopes exceeding 25% and possessing native vegetation. However, exceptions to the grading
provisions for steep slopes not possessing native vegetation are allowed if a soils investigation indicates
that unstable slopes can be stabilized to accommodate development for a period of 75 years or the life of
the structure. The portion of the site proposed for development does not possess native vegetation, and
as indicated by the Geology and Soils section of this document, existing soils are unstable due to illegal
fill material placed there more than 30 years ago. The site subsequently eroded due partly to a broken
storm drain. Therefore, it is necessary to remove unstable soils and recompact the slope and stabilize the
buildable pad so that it will accommodate the proposed single family residence and accessory structures.
The site is not developable without the proposed remedial grading and disturbance will not directly result
in damage to wildlife habitat or native vegetation areas. Although the existing north facing slopes
requiring remedial grading contain ruderal vegetation, the manufactured slopes that will result from the
necessary remedial grading will be revegetated with native species to avoid the introduction of invasive
plant species into disturbed coastal sage scrub and chaparral habitats that occupy slopes to the north of
the proposed development. The revegetation of manufactured slopes with native plant mix is proposed as
part of the biological mitigation for this project.
MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
22 Rev. 07/03/02
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future
value to the region and the residents of the State?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
No Impact (a & b) - According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping
Study, November 1992, the project site does not contain any mineral resources; therefore, the project will
not result in the loss of availability of a know mineral resource or mineral resource recovery site.
NOISE -Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in
the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies?
No Impact - The Noise Element of the General Plan specifies that sixty (60) dB CNEL is the exterior
noise level to which all residential units should be mitigated, and that interior noise levels should be
mitigated to 45 dB CNEL. The project will comply with the City of Carlsbad’s noise standard without
the need for mitigation.
POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
No Impact - The project is located on an infill site that is surrounded by existing and/or approved
development and served by existing infrastructure.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
No Impact (b & c) - The project site is undeveloped. Therefore, the project will not displace any
existing housing or people.
PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or
physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
V. Other public facilities?
No Impact (ai to a.v.) -The project site is located within Local Facilities Management Zone (LFMZ) 1.
The provision of public facilities within LFMZ 1 , including fire protection,. parks, libraries and other
23 Rev. 07/03/02
public facilities, has been planned to accommodate the projected growth of that area. Because the
project will not exceed the total growth projections anticipated within LFMZ 1, all public facilities will
be adequate to serve residential development on the site. Therefore, the project will not result in
substantial adverse impacts to or result in the need for additional government facilities.
RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
No Impact (a & b) - As part of the City’s Growth Management Program (GMP), a performance
standard for parks was adopted. The park performance standard requires that 3 acres of Community Park
and Special Use Area per 1,000 population within a park district (quadrant) must be provided. The
project site is located within Park District #1 (Northwest Quadrant). The necessary park acreage to
achieve the GMP standard (3 acres/1,000 population) for Park District #1 has been achieved; therefore
recreational facilities are adequate to accommodate the project.
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC-Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and
capacity of the street system?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project will generate 10 Average Daily Trips (ADT) and 1 peak
hour trip. This traffic will utilize the following roadways Highland Avenue and Carlsbad Village Drive.
Existing traffic on this Carlsbad Village Drive is 19,300 ADT (2001). The design capacity of the arterial
road affected by the proposed project is 10,000 - 20,000 vehicles per day. The project traffic would
represent 0.0052% and 0.005% of the existing traffic volume and the design capacity respectively.
While the increase in traffic from the proposed project may be slightly noticeable, the street system has
been designed and sized to accommodate traffic fiom the project and cumulative development in the City
of Carlsbad. The proposed project would not, therefore, cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. The impacts from the proposed
project are, therefore, less than significant.
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by
the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
Less Than Significant Impact. SANDAG acting as the County Congestion Management Agency has
designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two
highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The Existing and Buildout
average daily traffic (ADT) and Existing LOS on these designated roads and highways in Carlsbad is:
LOS Buildout ADT* Existing ADT* - Rancho Santa Fe Road 15-32 ,‘A-C’’ 28-43
El Camino Real 21-50 “A-C” 32-65
Palomar Airport Road 10-52 “A-B” 29-77
1-5 183-198 “D” 2 19-249
SR 78 120 “F” 144
24 Rev. 07/03/02
*The numbers are in thousands of daily trips.
The Congestion Management Program’s (CMP) acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard is “E”, or
LOS “F” if that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (e.g., SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS “F” in 1990).
Accordingly, all designated roads and highways are currently operating at or better than the acceptable
standard LOS.
Note that the buildout ADT projections are based on the full implementation of the region’s general and
community plans. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan and, therefore, its traffic was
used in modeling the buildout projections. Achievement of the CMP acceptable Level of Service (LOS)
“E” standard assumes implementation of the adopted CMP strategies. Based on the design capacity(ies)
of the designated roads and highways and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at
acceptable level(s) of service in the short-term and at buildout.
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or
a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components. The project is consistent
with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the McClellan-Palomar Airport. It would not, therefore,
result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No impact assessed.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses?
No Impact. All project circulation improvements will be designed and constructed to City standards;
and, therefore, would not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the City’s
general plan and zoning. Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use. No
impact assessed.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire
and Police Departments. No impact assessed.
0 Result in inadequate parking capacity?
No Impact. The proposed project is not requesting a parking variance. Additionally, the project would
comply with the City’s parking requirements to ensure an adequate parking supply. No impact assessed.
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)?
No Impact. (Note whether the project is near public transportation. If not, then state that the project is
not served by or not located in an area conducive to public transportation.) (Note bike racks are not
necessary for a single-family residential project. Otherwise, condition the project to install bike racks
and note here that the project has been so conditioned.)
UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
25 Rev. 07IQ3lQ2
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant
environmental effects?
No Impact (a & b) - The project site is located within Local Facilities Management Zone (LFMZ) 1
which is served by the Encina wastewater treatment facility. Wastewater treatment capacity has been
planned to accommodate the projected growth of Zone 1. Because the project will not exceed the total
growth projections anticipated within LFMZ 1, wastewater treatment capacity will be adequate to serve
residential development on the site. Therefore, the project will not result in substantial adverse impacts
to or result in the need for additional wastewater treatment facilities.
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand
in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
No Impact (c, d & e) - All public facilities, including water facilities and drainage facilities, have been
planned and designed to accommodate the growth projections for the City at build-out. The proposed
residential project will not result in growth that exceeds the City’s growth projections. The City is
currently conducting environmental review for the replacement of an existing storm drain that bisects the
property. The storm drain replacement is necessitated by a pipe failure. The project results in a slightly
altered storm drain alignment through the area proposed for development by this project; however, no
significant environmental impacts will result from the storm drain realignment through the area proposed
for development.
0 Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s
solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact (f & g) - Existing waste disposal services contracted by the City of Carlsbad are adequate to
serve the proposed residence without exceeding landfill capacities.
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?
Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated - The project will not degrade the quality of the physical
environment in that although it will disturb .04 acre of sensitive disturbed CSS habitat which is listed as a
threatened species under the Federal Endangered Species Act, mitigation will be required. Mitigation
consists of revegetating .08 acre of CSS onsite within an area possessing disturbed CSS habitat or
purchasing .08 acre of CSS habitat in a habitat mitigation bank acceptable to the City and revegetating
26 Rev. 07/03/02
slopes adjacent to CSS habitat with non-invasive native habitat. A Federal de minimus “take” permit
issued by the USFWS is required for this very minor area prior to grading.
There are no historic structures on the site.
disturbed area of the site where there are no known cultural resources.
The proposed development will occur on previously
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?)
Less than Significant Impact - San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projects regional
growth for the greater San Diego area, and local general plan land use policies are incorporated into
SANDAG projections. Based upon those projections, region-wide standards, including storm water
quality control, air quality standards, habitat conservation, congestion management standards, etc, are
established to reduce the cumulative impacts of development in the region. All of the City’s
development standards and regulations are consistent with the region-wide standards. The City’s
standards and regulations, including grading standards, water quality and drainage standards, traffic
standards, habitat and cultural resource protection regulations, and public facility standards, ensure that
development within the City will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact.
There are two regional issues that development within the City of Carlsbad has the potential to have a
cumulatively considerable impact on. As
discussed above, the proposed development would represent a contribution to a cumulatively
considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however,
emissions associated with residential development would be minimal. Given the limited emissions
potentially associated with a residential development of the site, air quality would be essentially the same
whether or not the residential development is implemented. Therefore, the impact is assessed as less
than significant.
Those issues are air quaIity and regional circulation.
Also, as discussed above, the County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) has designated three
roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in
Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The CMA has determined, based on the City’s
growth projections in the General Plan, that these designated roadways will function at acceptable levels
of service in the short-term and at build-out. The project is consistent with the City’s growth projections,
and therefore, the cumulative impact from the project to the regional circulation system is less than
significant.
With regard to any other potential impact associated with the project, City standards and regulations will
ensure that residential development on the site will not result in a significant cumulative considerable
impact.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated - Development of the site will comply with
City development standards designed to avoid substantial adverse environmental effects to residents of
the single-family structure and second dwelling unit. The project site is located in an area where human
beings could be exposed to hazardous conditions due to unstable soils. The unstable soils can be
mitigated through strict adherence to the recommendations of the Plan Review Geotechnical Update
Report for remedial grading and foundations. Additionally, the residential development will be required
to comply with all applicable federal, state, regional and City regulations, which will ensure that
development of the site will not result in an adverse impact on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
27 Rev. 07/03/02
EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad
Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR
93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994.
2. “Dunn Residence Biological Review of Proposed Development Area”, prepared by Brock A.
Ortega, Wildlife Biologist, dated May 13, 2002 and “Dunn Residence CDP 02-42/HDP 02-10
Biological Comments” prepared by Brock Ortega, Wildlife Biologist, dated May 1,2003.
“Plan Review Geotechnical Update Report - Lot at the North Terminus of Highland Drive,
Carlsbad, California” dated October 1, 2003, prepared by Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc.;
“Geotechnical Investigation” prepared by Ron Gutier and Erik J. Nelson dated February 17,
1989.
3.
28 Rev. 07/03/02
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
1. Biological Mitigation
Biological mitigation necessary for the disturbance of approximately 1,580 square feet or .04 acre of
disturbed coastal sage scrub/chaparral habitat shall consist of one of two options: 1) the purchase of .08
acre of CSS habitat in a habitat mitigation bank acceptable to the City; or 2) the onsite restoration of .08
acre of CSS/chaparral habitat through hydroseeding a native CSS plant mix within the area identified as
very disturbed coastal sage scrub/chaparral mix to the north of the fire suppression zone boundary (see
biological survey map - Figure 1). The CSS hydroseeding option described above must occur within the
rainy season (October 15 - April 15), and the hydroseeded area shall be monitored by the project
biologist for one year to ensure success. Additionally, the proposed 2:l slopes that are within the fire
-suppression zone and adjacent to disturbed CSS/chaparral habitats shall be revegetated with a non-
invasive native plant mix that does not contain high and moderate fuel species specified by the City’s
Landscape Manual. The revegetated slopes shall receive temporary irrigation until established. A
federal de minimus take permit issued by the USFWS is required for this very minor area prior to
issuance of a grading permit. USFWS shall determine which mitigation option shall be implemented.
2. Geology/Soils
The Geotechnical Update Report recommendations for remedial grading and foundations as stated in the
Vinje & Middleton Engineering Report dated October 1, 2003 shall be implemented during the
construction phase of the project.
29 Rev. 07/03/02
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.
30 Rev. 07/03/02
I
PROJECT NAME: Dunn Residence FILE NUMBERS: HDP 02-1OlCDP 02-42
APPROVAL DATE: April 21.2004
The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate
identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that
this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City’s monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly
Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6).
Mitigation Measure
1. Biological Mitigation
Biological mitigation necessary for the disturbance of
approximately 1,580 square feet or .04 acre of disturbed
coastal sage scrubkhaparral habitat shall consist of one of
two options: 1) the purchase of .08 acre of CSS habitat in a
habitat mitigation bank located in the Coastal Zone and
acceptable to the City and wildlife agencies; or 2) the onsite
restoration of .08 acre of CSSkhaparral habitat through
hydroseeding a native CSS plant mix within the area identified
as very disturbed coastal sage scrubkhaparral mix to the
north of the fire suppression zone boundary (see biological
survey map - Figure 1). The CSS hydroseeding option
described above must occur within the rainy season (October
15 - April 15), and the hydroseeded area shall be monitored
by the project biologist for one year to ensure success.
Additionally, the proposed 21 slopes that are within the fire
suppression zone and adjacent to disturbed CSSkhaparral
habitats shall be revegetated with a non-invasive native plant
mix that does not contain high and moderate fuel species
specified by the City’s Landscape Manual. The revegetated
slopes shall receive temporary irrigation until established. A
federal de minimus take permit issued by the USFWS is
required for this very minor area prior to issuance of a grading
permit. USFWS shall determine which mitigation option shall
be implemented.
Exelanation of Headinas:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular
mitigation measure.
information. Shown on Plans =When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated.
Remarks
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented,
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other this column will be initialed and dated.
RD - Appendix P.
2 I1 Mitigation Measure
2. Schedule construction to occur outside the bird breeding
season (February 15 - August 31) or assure that construction
activity will not result in noise levels above 60 dBA leq at the
nest site. If construction is planned during the bird breeding
season, vegetation should be cleared prior to the breeding
season. Additionally, if construction occurs during raptor
breeding season (approximately February 1 to August 30) a
qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey of
the project site and surrounding habitat to determine whether
there are active raptor nests within the area. If an active
raptor nest is observed, a buffer shall be established between
the construction activities and the nest so that nesting
activities are not interrupted. The buffer should be a minimum
1 of 500 feet and should be in effect as long as construction is
occurring and/or until the nest is no longer active.
3. The Geotechnical Update Report recommendations for
remedial grading and foundations’as stated in the Vinje &
Middleton Engineering Report dated October 1, 2003 shall be
implemented during the construction phase of the project.
ExDlanation of Headinas:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular
mitigation measure.
information.
Shown on Plans =When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated.
Shown on
Plans Remarks Verified Implementation
fi
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented,
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other
this column will be initialed and dated.
RD - Appendix P.