HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-08-18; Planning Commission; Resolution 56731
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. 5673
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR A
LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF PARK DRrVE SOUTH OF
ADAMS STREET IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 1.
CASE NAME:
CASE NO.: CDP 03-12
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
ADAMS ST. SFR NORTH
WHEREAS, Sean B. E. Kelly, “OwnerDeveloper,” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as:
Parcel 1 in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California, as shown at Page 12773 of Parcel Maps, filed in the
Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, June 20,
1983
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with
said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 18th day of August, 2004, hold
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
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) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby ADOPTS the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Exhibits “ND” dated August
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
4, 2004, according to Exhibits "NOI" dated June 28, 2004, and "PII" dated June
18,2004, 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:
It has reviewed, analyzed and considered Mitigated Negative Declaration CDP
03-12, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any
comments thereon prior to APPROVING the project; and
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
It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PC RES0 NO. 5673 -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 18th day of August, 2004, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Heineman,
Montgomery, and Segall
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Dominguez
ABSTAIN:
&-
/FRANK H. WHITTON, Chairperson
CARISBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5673 -3-
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME:
PROJECT LOCATION:
ADAMS STREET SFR NORTH
West side of Park Drive, north of Adams Street (APN 206-192-341
CASE NO: CDP 03-12
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for approval of Coastal Development Permit to allow a single-
family residence on a 0.78 acre lot.
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
(EIA 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.
0 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).
0 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: Aurrust 18,2004. pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 5673
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLZMLEIP
Planning Director
a9 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME:
PROJECT LOCATION:
ADAMS STREET SFR NORTH
West side of Park Drive, north of Adams Street (APN 206-192-34)
CASE NO: CDP 03-12
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for approval of a Coastal Development Permit for the
construction of a single-family residence.
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 (EIA Part 2) identified potentially
significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made
by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are
released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly
no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in
light of the whole record before the City that the project “as revised” may have a significant
effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be recommended
for adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Director.
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
approvaUadoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission. Additional public notices will
be issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call
Barbara Kennedy in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4626.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD June 28,2004 to July 28,2004
PUBLISH DATE June 28,2004
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 ww.j&&@&yj&a.us @
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CDP 03-12
DATE: June 18,2004
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
CASE NAME: Adams Street SFR North
LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS:
Faradav Ave.. Carlsbad, CA 92008
Citv of Carlsbad, Planning. Demrtment: 1635
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Barbara Kennedv. 760-602-4626
PROJECT LOCATION West side of Park Drive. north of Adams Street (APN 206-192-34)
PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: Sean Kellv 7029 Murillo Lane Carlsbad, CA
92009
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RLM (Residential Low-Medium - 0-4 ddac)
ZONING: R-1-15.000 (Single-familv Residential-15,000 sf min lot size)
OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED @e., permits, financing
approval or participation agreements): State Department of Fish and Game, U. S. Fish and
Wildlife
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
The project consists of grading for and construction of a single-family residence on a 0.78 acre
site located on the west side of Park Drive, north of Adams Street. The site is located in the
Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program, outside of the appeal area. The proposal requires
approval of a Coastal Development Permit from the City of Carlsbad.
The site is a panhandle lot bordered by existing single family residences to the north, east and
west. An approved single-family residence, not yet constructed, borders the site to the south.
From Park Drive, a new driveway will be constructed within the panhandle portion of the lot and
within the access easement located at the rear of the lot directly east (fronting Park Drive).
Access across the rear of the frontage lot is needed because the site slopes up very steeply behind
the frontage lot to a more level, previously graded area. The site continues to slope steeply
upward, west of the portion of the site planned for development. A large portion of the site is
covered with coastal sage scrub (CSS) vegetation, the majority of which will be preserved.
Ruderal lands and developed areas are located in the areas of the site to be developed. Some
impacts will occur to CSS vegetation due to construction of the driveway, residence and 50 foot
fuel management zone.
The General Wildlife Survey and focused surveys for CAGN conducted for this site indicates that
14 avian species and six mammalian species were observed or detected on site. CAGN was the
1 Rev. 07/03/02
only listed avian species detected during a 2003 survey. However, no CAGN were observed
during the 2004 focused survey. None of the mammalian species were listed as threatened or
endangered. Few amphibians and reptiles were observed on-site and none of the five species
observed or expected are listed as threatened or endangered.
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 Aesthetics 0 Geology/Soils 0 Noise
Agricultural Resources 0 Hazards/Hazardous Materials 0 and Housing
0 Air Quality 0 HydrologyNater Quality 0 Public Services
Biological Resources 0 Land Use and Planning 0 Recreation
0 Mineral Resources 0 TransportatiodCirculation 0 Cultural Resources
0 Utilities & Service systems Mandatory Findings of
Significance
2 Rev. 07/03/02
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
V b
0
IXI
0
0
0
2% 04-
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.
b 22 04 - Planning Director’s&&gna&e Date I I
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 “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse
effect on the environment, but gJ 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
ER if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the
appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated’’ may be checked and
a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
4 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.
5 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a State scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
II. AGRICULTRAL RESOURCES - (In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model-1 997 prepared by the California
Department of Conservation as an optional model to use
in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would
the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or
a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment,
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
111. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied
upon to make the following determinations.) Would the
project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
Potentially Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
IXI
IXI
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OB
OB
ON
ON
6 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
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?
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?
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?
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?
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
Impact tributary areas that are environmentally
sensitive?
Potentially
Significant Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
0
0
0
Less Than Significant No Impact ' Impact
mu
om
ow
no
0
0
om
ow
0 Ixlo
0
ow
0 ow
7 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
0 0
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi- cance of an archeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
0 0 0 IXI
0 0 c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi- cal resource or site or unique geologic feature? 0
0
IXI
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 0 0 IXI
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving:
0 0 IXI 0 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.
0
0 0
1xI
IXI
0
0
ii. Strong seismic ground shakmg?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
0 0
0 0
0
IXI
IXI iv. Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction,
or collapse?
0 0 IXI 0
0 d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - l-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
8 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
0 0 OIXI 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?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERlALS -
Would the project:
0
cl
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?
0 OIXI
0 0 OIXI Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
0 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?
0
0 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?
17
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?
0 ow
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 fues,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
0 om
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
9 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
0
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
0 0 IXI b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with ground water recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local ground water table
level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ixl
IXI
c) Impacts to groundwater quality?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site?
0 0 0 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?
IXI
0 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
0 0
0
IXI
[XI
g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
0 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
0
0
0
0
IXI
IXI
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
IXI
IXI
IXI
k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface
waters.
0 0 o 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)?
10 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
0
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fi-esh or wetland waters) during or following construction? 0 0 Ixl
0 0 0 0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired
water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section
303(d) list?
Ixl
p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of
beneficial uses?
0 Ixl
M. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? 0
cl
0
17
0
0
Ixl
IXI b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan? 0 0 IXI
X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of fhre value to the region
and the residents of the State?
0
0
IXI
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?
IXI
XI. NOISE - Would the project result in:
0 0 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?
0 IXI
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise
levels?
0 0
0
IXI
IXI
0
0 0 c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
0 IXI d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
11 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
0
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant No Impact Impact
OB 0 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 ow 0 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?
XI. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
0 0 OB 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)?
0 0 ow b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
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
0
0
0
ow ow
OM om om
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
XN. RECREATION
0 0 OB 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?
12 .Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Does the project include
require the construction or
recreational facilities or
expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFF'IC - 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)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the
project:
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
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?
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?
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
Potentially Significant Impact
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
Less Than Significant Impact
0
(XI
Ix1
0
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No
Impact
Ix1
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
13 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Potentially Significant Impact
0 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?
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs?
0 f)
0 g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
0 a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumula-
tively considerable” means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects?)
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
0
0
Potentially
Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact
0
0
0
Ixl
0
0
0
0
0
Ixl
El
No Impact
IXI
El
IXI
0
0
cl
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)
b)
Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for
review.
Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis.
Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from
the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the
project.
c)
14 Rev. 07/03/02
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
AESTHETICS
No Impact. The project will have not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista since the site is
located in an existing residential area and will be constructed in compliance with the maximum 30’ height
limitation allowed in the R-1-15,000 zone. Development of the site with a single family residence would
be consistent with the surrounding development pattern.
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
No Impact. There will be no impact on agricultural resources due to the proposed project as the site is
not designated as or used as farmland. The subject site is zoned for single-family residential projects (R-
1-15,000) and is not subject to a Williamson Act Contract. The project would not result in other changes
to the environment that would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. The project
would be characterized as infill development and has been surrounded by residential development for
many years.
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 (SANDAG).
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 fiom 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?
15 Rev. 07/03/02
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.
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.
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. Construction of future residential development could generate bes 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: According to the biology report, the 0.78 acre
site contains 0.63 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS), 0.10 acres of ruderal land, and 0.05 acres of
developed land. Additionally, the 0.39 acre area proposed for the access road through the adjacent
property contains 0.09 acres of CSS and 0.30 acres of disturbed area. California adolphia and summer
holly are found in significant numbers throughout the coastal sage scrub habitat on this residential site and
on the 0.64 acre site to the south (previously approved for development). Approximately 25 individuals
16 Rev. 07/03/02
of each species would be impacted directly within the 50 foot brush management zone on this site.
According to the Biologist, approximately 200+ individuals of Summer Holly occur on the subject parcel,
therefore, over 87% of the Summer Holly will be preserved. According to the report, these impacts are
considered less than significant due to the regional presence of these species within other conserved
portions of the City’s draft Habitat Management Plan.
The project would not encroach into sensitive vegetation andor habitats except for disturbance to a total
of 0.22 acre of CSS to be removed by grading. The proposed mitigation for the removal/distwbance of
CSS consists of the preservation onsite of 69% of the CSS, consistent with the City’s Draft HMP (0.44
acres of on-site preservation of CSS and off-site preservation within the access easement of 0.06 acres of
CSS). The undisturbed CSS will be preserved within a dedicated conservation easement. In addition, due
to it’s location within the City’s Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program, the project will be
required to 1) create or enhance CSS habitat at a 1 : 1 ratio in the coastal zone and 2) provide additional
mitigation off-site for impacts to CSS at a 1 : 1 ratio through the purchase of mitigation credits either inside
or outside of the coastal zone.
A focused survey for California Gnatcatcher (CAGN) was completed in April 2004 and the results of the
survey were negative. However, in order to mitigate potential disturbances to nesting migratory birds
from construction activities, a mitigation measure has been included to prohibit clearing and grubbing
during the bird breeding season (February 15 to August 3 1).
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?
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?
No Impact (b & c) - The project site contains no riparian or wetland habitat or wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the
use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less than Significant Impact - The biology report states that because of the geographic position of the
site in the context of surrounding urban development and the dominance of steep slopes, it is unlikely
that the property receives significant use from larger mammals such as mule deer, coyote, and bobcat.
The General Wildlife Survey and focused surveys for CAGN conducted for this site indicates that 14
avian species and six mammalian species were observed or detected on site. CAGN was the only listed
avian species detected during a 2003 survey. However, no CAGN were observed during the 2004
focused survey. Few
amphibians and reptiles were observed on-site. The CSS habitat in this location most likely does not
function as a habitat corridor due to it’s lack of connectivity at it’s northern and southern temini. This
habitat may act as a linkage, owing to its geographical proximity to Agua Hedionda Lagoon, providing a
stepping stone for species dispersal.
None of the mammalian species were listed as threatened or endangered.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact - The project is consistent with the preservation and mitigation requirements of the City’s
Draft Habitat Management Plan which is used as a standard of review for biological impacts.
17 Rev. 07/03/02
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
f)
Less than Significant. The subject site is a previously graded infill site which is surrounded by
residential development and is designated as an “UrbaniDeveloped” area on the City’s Draft Habitat
Management Plan. The proposed development would occur primarily within the previously graded or
ruderal lands. The project is consistent with the HMP standards in that it preserves 69% of the CSS
habitat existing on the site. In addition, the project will 1) be required to create or enhance CSS habitat at
a 1:l ratio in the coastal zone and 2) provide additional mitigation off-site for impacts to CSS at a 1:l
ratio through the purchase of mitigation credits either inside or outside of the coastal zone.
In order to reduce the potential for indirect lighting impacts, a mitigation measure will be included to
require that all outdoor lighting shall be shielded and directed away from the open space.
Because the residential development is immediately adjacent to native habitat, in order to reduce the risk
of introduction of exotic or invasive species into the open space, a mitigation measure has been included
to recommend the use of native plants in the landscape adjacent to the open space, to the greatest extent
possible.
g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive?
No Impact - The site does not contain any environmentally sensitive tributary area.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
No Impact. The subject site is a previously graded infill site which is surrounded by residential
development and there will be no impacts on cultural resources. There are no known historical,
archeological, paleontological, or human remains on the project site.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Less than Significant Impact (a.i. to a.iii.). 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 project site is located in an area of stable soil conditions and the risk of
seismic-related ground failure or liquefaction is very minimal (according to City of Carlsbad
Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992). In addition, a project specific
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation was prepared by Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc., dated
February 11, 2002. The report states that faults or sheer zones are not indicated on or near proximity to
the project site.
iv. Landslides?
18 Rev. 07/03/02
No Impact. The report prepared by Vinje & Middleton Engineering, hc., stated that landslides or other
forms of slope instability were not indicated in surface exposures nor were they suggested in project
exploratory test excavations. Inclined structure along which bedding failures could develop is not in
evidence at the property.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less than significant impact. According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and
Mapping Study, November 1992, the project site is in an area of low to moderate erosion potential. The
applicant is required to prepare a grading and erosion control plans prior to any construction and it is
anticipated that the latest technologies will be used to eliminate the potential of soil erosion and
sedimentation fiom the site, both during and post construction.
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?
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?
No Impact. The report prepared by Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc. showed no evidence of
landslides or other forms of slope instability on the subject site. The report also included laboratory test
results of soil samples taken from the site. These results showed the onsite soils are generally non-
expansive to very low expansive sandy deposits. Underlying bedrock and terrace deposit are
predominantly dense and stable units which will provide good support for planned improvements and
engineered fill sections. However, some of the underlying terrace deposits locally occur in a weathered
soft condition near the surface and will be removed and recompacted as part of the project remedial
grading operations as recommended. No substantial risk to life or property is anticipated due to hazards
typically found in expansive soils.
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. Sewers are available to the subject site and the project will be served by a public wastewater
system.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
No Impact. Based on the nature of a residential land use, there is no routine transport, use or disposal of
hazardous materials associated with residential uses. Therefore, there is no potential of a significant
hazard associated with the project from accidents involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment, or from the emission of hazardous substances within the proximity of a school.
The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted.
However, the project site is located approximately 2.3 miles from the McClellan-Palomar Airport (public
general aviation airport). The project site is not located within any flight, crash, or safety hazard zones
associated with the airport. Therefore, the project will not result in a safety hazard for people residing on
the project site.
The project will not impair the implementation or physically interfere with any adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation since the project site is an infill site surrounded by urban
development which is adequately served by emergency services. There are no wildlands adjacent to the
site that could expose people to significant risk from wildland fires.
19 Rev. 07/03/02
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
No Impact. An erosion control plan and storm water management plan will be prepared prior to
construction of the project. These plans will ensure acceptable water quality standards will be maintained
both during the construction phase as well as post-development.
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 (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)?
c) Impacts to groundwater quality?
No Impact. This project does not propose to directly draw any groundwater. The project will be served
via existing public water distribution lines adjacent to the site. Groundwater was not encountered in any
of the exploratory borings made during the soils investigation.
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?
No impact. The project does not propose to alter existing drainage patterns or the course of a stream or
river that would result in erosion or siltation on or off site.
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or
amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
Less than significant impact. On-site drainage will generally flow in the same direction as it flowed and
will be directed down the new driveway to Park Drive. No flooding is anticipated due to an increase in
runoff as the percent grade proposed is more than adequate for proper flow of water. In addition, the
street and storm drain system on Adams Street and Park Drive is designed to accommodate the quantity
of water anticipated at buildout.
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?
Less than significant impact. The existing storm drain system as identified in the City’s Master
Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan will adequately convey runoff from the subject site.
According to the Master Plan, no additional upgrades to the storm drain system are necessary as the
existing system can accommodate runoff from a drainage basin developed to its full potential.
g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
No Impact. The proposed project will not substantially degrade water quality of adjacent receiving
waters.
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?
20 Rev. 07/03/02
i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood
flows?
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 project 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 (j & 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.
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) 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?
No Impact 0, m, n, o & p) - The project site is not located immediately 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 discharged from
development of the site will be reduced to the maximum extent possible. 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. Therefore, the project will not adversely impact water
quality.
LAND USE AND PLANNING
No Impact. The subject site is a previously graded infill site which is surrounded by single-family
residential development on the north, east, and west and by a proposed residence on the south. Future
residential development of the site will be compatible with and will integrate into the existing community.
The project does not conflict with the property's General Plan designation (RLM). The density permitted
on the site (3.2 du./ac.) would allow development of the proposed residence and accessory dwelling unit.
The City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires that 15% of the units be reserved as affordable
housing units for low income households (80% of the AMI) or allows the developers of projects with less
than seven units to pay an Impact Fee to satisfy the Inclusionary Housing requirement.
21 Rev. 07/03/02
The subject site does not conflict with any habitat conservation plans or natural communities plans in that
the property is designated as “Development” area in the City’s Draft Habitat Management Plan.
The project as proposed and conditioned is consistent with the applicable policies and implementation
standards for land use consistency, preservation of steep slopes and vegetation, drainage, stormwater
runoff and erosion control of the Mello I1 segment of Carlsbad’s Local Coastal Program (LCP). A winter
grading restriction will be added as a project condition of approval. The project is consistent with the
dual criterion provisions allowing a maximum of 10% removal of CSS from steep slopes in that the
project proposes a 9.9 % encroachment into dual criteria slopes to allow access and reasonable use of the
property.
MINERAL RESOURCES
No Impact. 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 proposed project
will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or mineral resource recovery site.
NOISE
No Impact (a & b). Based upon the nature of the proposed residential use, the project will not result in
any activity that would generate excessive noise levels, groundbourne vibration, or groundbourne noise
levels. In addition, the project site is not located adjacent to any use that generates excessive noise or
vibration levels.
Less Than Significant (c & d). Other than traffic generated noise, typical residential land uses do not
generate a substantial amount of noise. With regard to temporary or periodic increases in noise levels, the
only potential increase in noise would be from construction activity associated with development of the
project. The City incorporates standard regulations on all project construction activity to ensure that noise
and other potential impacts to surrounding properties are not significant. Therefore, the proposed project
will not result in a substantial permanent or temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project.
No Impact (e & f) - The project site is located approximately 2.3 from the McClellan-Palomar Airport.
However, the site is not located within an area impacted by excessive noise levels generated by the
airport. The site is not located near any other public or private airport. Therefore, the proposed project
will not expose people to excessive noise levels generated from an airport.
POPULATION AND HOUSING
No Impact. The project would result in the development of one single family residence on an infill site
that is served by existing roads and utilities and therefore, the project would not induce substantial growth
either directly or indirectly. The project is proposed on a vacant lot and would not displace any existing
housing or individuals.
PUBLIC SERVICES
No Impact. The project will result in the construction of one residence which is consistent with the
Growth Management Control Point of 2.3 ddac which would allow the proposed development. The
provisions of public facilities within the Zone 1 LFMP including fire & police protection, parks, libraries
and other public facilities, have been planned to accommodate the projected growth in that area. Because
the project will not exceed the total growth projections anticipated within the Zone 1 LFMP, all public
facilities will be adequate to serve the proposed 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.
22 Rev. OJlO3fO2
RECREATION
No Impacts . As part of the City’s Growth Management Program, 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 #I in the Northwest (NW) Quadrant. The necessary park acreage to achieve the GMP
standard (3 acres/1,000 population) for Park District #1 was based upon the GMP dwelling unit limitation
for the Northwest Quadrant. The project is consistent with the density permitted by the GMP and parks
demand in the NW quadrant currently does not exceed that supply. Therefore, parks facilities are
sufficient to accommodate the project.
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Less Than Significant Impact (a). The project will generate 10 Average Daily Trips (ADT) and one
peak hour trip. This traffic will utilize Park Drive. Existing traffic on this street based on an February
2002 count is 3,528 ADT. Since Park Drive is a collector street and collector streets are designed to
accommodate up to 10,000 ADT, the existing street can accommodate the insignificant amount of traffic
generated by the project 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.
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:
Existing ADT* Buildout 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
*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.
No Impact (c, d, e, f). The proposed project does not include any aviation components. The project is
consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the McClellan-Palomar Airport and would not,
therefore, result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks.
23 Rev. 07/03/02
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 and would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use.
The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and Police
Departments. The project complies with the City’s parking requirements to ensure an adequate parhng
supply. The project is located in an area which is not planned to be served by public transportation.
UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS
No Impact - The proposed residential development will be required to comply with all Regional Water
Quality Control Board Requirements. In addition, the Zone 1 LFMP anticipated that the project site
would be developed with a residential use and wastewater treatment facilities were planned and designed
to accommodate future residential uses on the site. All public facilities, including water facilities,
wastewater treatment facilities and drainage facilities, have been planned and designed to accommodate
the growth projections for the City at build-out. The proposed development on the site will increase the
demand for these facilities. However, the proposed density would not result in an overall increase in the
City’s growth projection in the NW quadrant. Therefore, the project will not result in development that
will result in a significant need to expand or construct new water facilities/supplies, wastewater treatment
or storm water drainage facilities.
The project has been reviewed by the local solid waste disposal provider (Coast Waste). Existing waste
disposal services are adequate to serve the proposed residential use on the site without exceeding landfill
capacities. In addition, the proposed residential development will be required to comply with all federal,
state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
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 proposed residential project will not degrade the
quality of the environment. The General Wildlife Survey and focused surveys for CAGN conducted for
this site indicates that 14 avian species and six mammalian species were observed or detected on site.
CAGN was the only listed avian species detected during a 2003 survey. However, no CAGN were
observed during the 2004 focused survey. None of the mammalian species were listed as threatened or
endangered. Few amphibians and reptiles were observed on-site.
The project site is a vacant site of which a portion has been previously graded. The site is surrounded by
single-family development. The site will conserve 69% of the coastal sage scrub, consistent with the
City’s draft Habitat Management Plan, and this area will be preserved under a dedicated conservation
easement. In addition, due to it’s location within the City’s Mello 11 Segment of the Local Coastal
Program, the project will be required to 1) create or enhance CSS habitat at a 1: 1 ratio in the coastal zone
and 2) provide additional mitigation off-site for impacts to CSS at a 1:l ratio through the purchase of
mitigation credits either inside or outside of the coastal zone. Approximately 200+ individual plants of
summer holly occur on the site and approximately 25 of the individuals within the brush management
zone would be impacted. Therefore, the project would conserve over 87% of the summer holly on the
subject site.
The most recent focused survey for GAGN was negative. However, in order to mitigate potential
disturbances to nesting migratory birds from construction activities, a mitigation measure has been
24 Rev. 07/03/02
included to prohibit clearing and grubbing during the bird breeding season (February 15 to August 3 1).
Therefore, the project will not 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, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal.
There are no historic structures on the site and there are no known cultural resources on the site. The
project will not result in the elimination of any important examples of California History or prehistory.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?)
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. Those issues are air quality and regonal circulation. As discussed
above, the project would contribute to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions
throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with the residential
development would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the residential
development of the site, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the residential
development is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15 130 (a)(4), the project’s
contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than
significant.
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 fiom 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 of the site will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable
impact.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant Impact - Based upon residential nature of the project and the fact that future
development of the site will comply with City standards, the project will not result in any direct or
indirect substantial adverse environmental effects on human beings.
25 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 (MER
93-01), City of Carlsbad Planning Department, March 1994.
2. Citv of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapuing; Study, November 1992.
3. Preliminarv Geotechnical Investigation, Undeveloped Hillside Lots 4588 Adams Street, Vinje &
Middleton Engineering, February 1 1 , 2002.
4. Hydrolorn and Hydraulic Report ureuared for Park Drive SFR, Pasco Engineering, Inc, October
8,2003.
5. Uudated Biological Resources Impact Assessment for the Adams Street Residential Parcels, Jeff
Thomas, October 24,2002.
6. Addendum to Updated Biological Resources Impact Assessment for the Adams Street Residential
Parcels, Jeff Thomas, January 14,2003.
7. Results of a General Wildlife Survey and Protocol Survervrs for the California Gnatcatcher,
Planning Systems, September 8,2003.
8. Results of a General Wildlife Survey and Protocol Surveys for the California Gnatcatcher,
Planning Systems, updated April 27,2004.
26 Rev. 07/03/02
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Impacts to 0.21 acres of unoccupied Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) habitat will be mitigated through the
preservation of 69% (0.44 acres of on-site preservation of CSS and off-site preservation within the
access easement of 0.06 acres of CSS) of the CSS as shown on the development proposal. Prior to the
issuance of a grading permit, all necessary agency permits shall be issued by the USWFS, CDGF, and
City of Carlsbad.
Impacts to 0.21 acres of unoccupied Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) habitat in the Mello 11 Coastal Zone
shall be mitigated at the following ratios 1) create or enhance CSS habitat at a 1 : 1 ratio in the coastal
zone and 2) provide additional mitigation off-site for impacts to CSS at a 1:l ratio through the
purchase of mitigation credits either inside or outside of the coastal zone.
The undisturbed CSS not impacted by the project shall be preserved within a dedicated conservation
easement.
In order to mitigate potential disturbances to nesting migratory birds from construction activities, all
clearing and grubbing in existing vegetation shall avoid the bird breeding season (February 15 to
August 3 1) in order to avoid take of migratory birds. Nesting birds include those that have nests with
eggs, juvenile (nestlings), and dependent juveniles of limited mobility (fledglings).
All outdoor lighting shall be shielded and directed away from the open space in order to reduce the
potential for indirect lighting effects from the proposed project.
Use native plants to the greatest extent feasible in the landscape areas adjacent to the open space areas.
The applicant should not plant, seed, or otherwise introduce invasive exotic plant species to the
landscaped areas adjacent to and/or near open space areas. Exotic plant species not to be used include
those species listed on List A & B of the California Exotic Pest Council’s list of “Exotic Plants of
Greatest Ecological Concern in California as of October 1999”.
27 Rev. Q7lQ3lQ2
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.
28 Rev. 07/03/02
1
PROJECT NAME: ADAMS STREET SFR NORTH FILE NUMBERS: CDP 03-12
APPROVAL DATE:
Monitoring
Type
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).
Monitoring Department Mitigation Measure
I. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, impacts to 0.21
acres of unoccupied Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) habitat
will be mitigated through the preservation of 69% (0.44
acres of on-site preservation of CSS and off-site
preservation within the access easement of 0.06 acres of
CSS) of the CSS as shown on the development
proposal. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, all
necessary agency permits shall be issued by the
USWFS, CDGF, and City of Carlsbad.
2. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, impacts to 0.21
acres of unoccupied Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) habitat
in the Mello II Coastal Zone shall be mitigated at the
following ratios 1) create or enhance CSS habitat at a
1:l ratio in the coastal zone and 2) provide additional
mitigation off-site for impacts to CSS at a 1:l ratio
through the purchase of mitigation credits either inside or
outside of the coastal zone.
3. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the undisturbed
CSS not impacted by the project shall be preserved
within a dedicated conservation easement.
Project Planning/
Engineering
Explanation of Headings:
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
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.
n
Monitoring
Type Mitigation Measure ll Monitoring
Department
4. In order to mitigate potential disturbances to nesting
migratory birds from construction activities, all clearing
and grubbing in existing vegetation shall avoid the bird
breeding season (February 15 to August 31) in order to
avoid take of migratory birds. Nesting birds include
those that have nests with eggs, juvenile (nestlings), and
dependent juveniles of limited mobility (fledglings).
5. All outdoor lighting shall be shielded and directed away
from the open space in order to reduce the potential for
indirect lighting effects from the proposed project.
6. Use native plants to the greatest extent feasible in the
landscape areas adjacent to the open space areas. The
applicant should not plant, seed, or otherwise introduce
invasive exotic plant species to the landscaped areas
adjacent to and/or near open space areas. Exotic plant
species not to be used include those species listed on
List A & B of the California Exotic Pest Council’s list of
“Exotic Plants of Greatest Ecological Concern in
California as of October 1999”.
Project
Project
Exolanation of Headings: 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.
Planning
Planning
~ Shown on
Plans
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.
rn z 5 A 0 z = rn z
r 5!
3
3 =i E
i5 z
3 0 z
0 e z G)
0 I
0
cn +
rn
E
..
9
s
rn (D
h)
N