HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-08-03; Planning Commission; Resolution 59421
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. 5942
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE
SUBDIVISION AND GRADING OF 1.9 ACRES INTO FOUR
LOTS ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF EL CAMINO
REAL AND CRESTVIEW DRIVE WITHIN THE CITY’S
COASTAL ZONE AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: EUCALYPTUS SUBDIVISION
CASE NO: SUP 04-09/CDP 04-34/HDP 04-08
WHEREAS, Family Real Estate Enterprises, LLC, “Developer/Owner,” has filed a
verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property, described as
That portion of Lot I of the Rancho Agua Hedionda, in the
County of San Diego, State of California, according to
partition map thereof No. 823, filed in the office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, November 16,1896. APN 208-
040-05-00
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program was prepared in conjunction with said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of August, 2005, 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 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
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
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, Exhibit “ND,” dated August
3, 2005 according to Exhibits “NOI” dated May 17, 2005, and “PII” dated May
11,2005, 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.
b.
C.
d.
it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Eucalyptus
Subdivision the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any
comments thereon prior to APPROVING the project; and
the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program 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 ETA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PC RES0 NO. 5942 -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 3rd day of August 2005, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez,
Heineman, Montgomery, and Whitton
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
1 JEFFRE N. SEGALL, hairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
A !$nX
DON NEU
Assistant Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5942 -3 -
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME: EUCALYPTUS SUBDIVISION
PROJECTLOCATION:
CASE NO: SUP 04-09KDP 04-34EIDP 04-08MS 04-18
On the northwesterly corner of Crestview Drive and El Camino Real,
Carlsbad, San Diego County. APN 208-040-05-00
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of subdividing and grading a 1.9-acre parcel
into four residential lots within the Mello II Segment of the Coastal Zone and in Local Facilities
Management Zone 1.
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:
IXI
0
0
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: August 3,2005, pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 5942
ATTEST:
DON NEU Assistant Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
FIL ""('"il"" c py City of Carlsbad
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME: Eucalvptus Subdivision
PROJECT LOCATION:
CASE NO: SUP 04-09KDP 04-34EDP 04-08NS 04-18
On the northwesterly comer of Crestview Drive and El Camino Real,
Carlsbad, San Dieno County, AF" 208-040-05-00
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of subdividing and grading a 1.9-acre parcel
into four residential lots and associated street improvements to El Carnino Real within the Mello
II Segment of the Coastal Zone and in Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
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 Commission.
A copy of the initial study (EL4 Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad,
California 92008. Comments fkom the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to
the Planning Department within 20 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 and City Council. Additional
public notices will be issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any
questions, please call Van Lynch in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4613.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD May 17,2005 through June 6,2005
PUBLISH DATE May 17.2005
@ 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
CASE NO: SUP 04-09/CDP 04-34IHDP 04-08/MS 04-1 8
DATE: May 11.2005
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
CASE NAME: EUCALYPTUS SUBDIVISION
LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Van Lynch (760) 602-461 3
PROJECT LOCATION: On the northwesterly corner of Crestview Drive and El Camino Real, Carlsbad, San Diego Countv, APN 208-040-05-00
PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: Family Real Estate Enterprises, LLC, Suite 1.560 N Coast Highway 101. Encinitas CA 92024
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Low-Medium (0-4 du/ac)
ZONING: Residential Agricultural (R-A-10,000)
OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (Le., permits, financing
approval or participation agreements): None
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
The project consists of subdividing and grading a 1.9-acre parcel into four residential lots. All
four lots will take access from Eucalyptus Lane. The project requires the dedication of land and
improvement for El Camino Real, a prime arterial and scenic corridor. The site is presently
occupied by a single-family residence, which will remain. The property has been previously
graded and has a roughly 11,000 square foot pad on the southerly portion. San Diego Gas and Electric high-tension power lines traverse the easterly third of the property. The slope along El
Camino Real will be regraded for slope stability purposes and noise attenuation walls are
proposed along the top of the slope. The previously developed site contains annual grassland,
ornamental, and disturbed plant associations. Surrounding land uses are residential single family to the west and south, Crestview Lane to the east and El Camino Real to the north. El Camino
Real, Crestview Drive and Eucalyptus Lane physically bound the project site.
1 Rev. 07/03/04
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 Noise
[7 Agricultural Resources
0 Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Public Services
ix] Biological Resources c] Land Use and Planning 0 Recreation
0 Cultural Resources 0 Mineral Resources 0 TransportatiodCirculation
0 Utilities & Service systems u Mandatory Findings of
Significance
2 Rev. 07/03/04
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
I find that the proposed project COULD 1 3T have a significant effect on the environment, an
NEGATrvE DECLARATION will be prepared.
.a
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a sigmficant 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 sigdicant 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 sigdicant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in hs 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.
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. lks 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.
‘Totentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is sigdkantly
adverse.
Based on an “EM-Part 11”, 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 Lmpact” 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, and those mitigation
measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially
SignLficant 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 Em, (3)
proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the
EM-Part 11 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 sigmficant.
5 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Potentially Significant Impact 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?
0 o
Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
0
0
0 0 c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
0 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 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?
0 b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
0 0 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:
0 0 a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? o 0 b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
Less Than Significant No Impact Impact
ow ow
UIXI
om
om
om
om
BO
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:
Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
IXIU
0 0 OE
17 IXI no 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?
0 0 om Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian,
aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural
c&munity identified in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations or by California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
UIX] 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 comdors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
0. 0 nm
0 0 nIxI
IXI no
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?
I3 OIXI Impact tributary areas that are environmentally
sensitive?
7 Rev. QllQ3102
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Potentially Significant 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
significance of an archeological resource pursuant to 0 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
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.
0 0
17 o ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
0 0 iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides? 0 0
0 0
0 €XI
Result in substantial soil erosion 01 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?
0 0 Be located on expansive soils, as defmed in Table 18 - 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
Less Than Significant No Impact Impact
OIXI
UIXI
OH
om
om
OH
OIXI
om
8 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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?
W. 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 sigmficant 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?
W. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
Potentially Significant Impact
0
0
CI
0
17
0
17
0
0
0
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than Significant Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No Impact
Ixl
Ix1
Ixl
Ixl
Kl
[XI
Ix1
la
9 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 om 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 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?
0 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
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
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 Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures,
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
0 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 Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
0 Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface
waters.
0 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)?
0
0
ow
OIXI
ow
ow
0 om
0
0
0
0
om
ow
ow
10 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated
0 0
0 0
Less Than Significant No Impact Impact ow n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fiesh or
wetland waters) during or following construction? ow 0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section
303(d) list?
0 0 ow p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of
beneficial uses?
IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established commu&ty? ow ow 0 0
0 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 ow
X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
cl 0 ow
ow
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?
0 17 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?
XI. NOISE - Would the project result in:
0 no 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 0 ow b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundboume vibration or groundboume noise
levels?
0 0 c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
nw
11 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
0 ow 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?
17 r> 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?
XII. 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)?
0
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
0 c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
XUI. 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?
XIV. RECREATION
0
0
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?
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
UEI
ow
OEI
ow
nix]
OB ow
nix]
nix]
12 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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?
XV. TRANSPORTATIONDXUFFIC - 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 comty
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 tum-
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
Less Than
Significant Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13 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 am 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?
0 0 om f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs?
0 0 OB g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
XW. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
0 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?
0 ow 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 ow
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 EJR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identrfy 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.
14 Rev. 07/03/02
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
AESTHETICS - The project is located along El Camino Real. El Camino Real is considered a Scenic Corridor in
the City of Carlsbad General Plan. The property is located upslope from El Camino Real and no distant views are
present. The proposed existing unvegetated slopes will be regraded and landscaped per the City of Carlsbad
landscape manual. A noise wall is proposed at the top of the slope. The wall will be designed to be aesthetically
pleasing and enhance the theme for the Comdor. The project will adhere to all requirements set forth in the El
Camino Real Comdor Study, dated February 8,1984.
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
(PM,,). 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 andor 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 15125(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:
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.
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 pdculates
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 fiom 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
15 Rev. 07/03/02
(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.
Ornamental
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?
I R.O.W/po&on offsite
1 .oo .96 1 Landscaping
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 descnied 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 - The project results in direct impacts to .37 acres of non-native annual grassland
and .09 acres of disturbed non-native grassland. The impact to the non-native annual grassland will be mitigated
through the payment of a habitat impact mitigation fee established by the City of Carlsbad which is consistent with
the City’s adopted Habitat Management Plan. Additionally, an open space easement will be placed over the
SDG&E easement area to preserve the remaining non-native annual grassland.
Plant community I TotalAcres I Impacted acres I Notes
Annual Grassland 1 .82 I .37 I Within slope and ECR
GEOLOGY AND SOILS - The project site has unstable slopes adjacent to El Camino Real and undocumented fill
on the southerly portion of the site. , The geotechnical report provides design and remediation to mitigate the
instability of the slopes and fill areas. The project shall implement the remediation measures identified in the Geo
Soils geotechnical report, dated May 26, 2004, for the undocumented fills and the letter dated March 4,2005 fiom
southern California Soils and Testing, Inc. for the slope stability.
NOISE - The project site is impacted by roadway noise from El Camino Real. Noise mitigation measures in the
form of a noise wall constructed along El Camino Real will reduce the impacts to a level of insignificance. The
project shall implement the mitigation measures as identified in the URS Noise Analysis for Eucalyptus
Subdivision, dated June 22, 2004 or equivalent. The project shall also record a Notice of Restriction with the
County Recorders Office identifjmg the noise impacts associated with El Camino Real, a circulation element
roadway.
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 30 Average Daily Trips (ADT). While the increase in
traffic &om the proposed project may be slightly noticeable, the street system has been designed and sued to
16 Rev. 07/03/02
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 Anport 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:
Rancho Santa Fe Road
El Camino Real
Palomar Airport Road
SR 78
1-5
Existing ADT* - LOS Buildout ADT*
17-35 “A-D” 35-56
27-49 6,A-c“ 33-62 10-57 “A-D” 30-73
124-142 ‘F” 156- 180
199-2 16 “D” 260-272
*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 fidl 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.
4 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. The project is near public transportation, which is provided along El Camino Real.
17 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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Final Master Environmental bact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MER 93-01).
City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994.
Preliminary Vegetation Assessment of APN 208-040-05-00. 4998 Eucalwtus Lane. Carlsbad CA 92008,
Dated March 29,2005, Planning Systems.
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation. AF” 208-040-05-00, 4998 Eucalwtus Lane. City of Carlsbad San
Dieao CounW. CA Dated May 26,2004, GeoSoils, Inc.
ProDosed 1.5:l Slope. Eucalwtus Subdivision. El Camino Real and Crestview Drive, Carlsbad CAY Dated
March 4,2005, Southern California Soils and Testing, Inc.
Noise Analvsis, Eucalwtus Subdivision, Dated June 22,2004, URS
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES
1. This project has been found to result in impacts to .37 acres of non-native grassland and .09 acres of
disturbed land (non-native grasslands), which provide some benefits to wildlife, as documented in the
City’s Habitat Management Plan and the environmental analysis for this project. Developer is aware that
the City bas adopted an Habitat Impact Mitigation Fee consistent with Section E.6 of the Habitat
Management Plan and City Council Resolution No. 2000-223 to fund mitigation for impacts to certain
categories of vegetation and anima1 species. The Developer is further aware that the City has determined
that all projects will be required to pay the fee in order to be found consistent with the Habitat Management
Plan and the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan. The City is currently updating the
fee study, which is expected to result in an increase in the amount of the fee, and the Developer or
Developer’s successor(s) in interest shall pay the adjusted amount of the fee. The fee shall be paid prior to
recordation of a final map, or issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first. If the
Fee for this project is not paid, this project will not be consistent with the Habitat Management Plan and the
General Plan and any and all approvals for this project shall become null and void.
2. Prior to recordation of the final map or prior to issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first, the
Developer shall record an Open Space Easement over the SDG&E easement area in favor of the City.
3. The project shall implement the remediation measures identified in the Geo Soils geotechnical report dated
May 26,2004 for the undocumented fills and the letter dated March 4,2005 from Southern California Soils
and Testing, Inc. for the slope stability.
4. The project shall implement the mitigation measures as identified in the Noise Analysis for Eucalyptus
Subdivision, prepared by URS dated June 22,2004 or equivalent.
5. Prior to the recordation of the first final parcel map or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs
first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property may be subject to noise impacts
from the proposed or existing Transportation Corridor (El Camino Real), in a form meeting the approval of
the Planning Director and City Attorney (see Noise Form #1 on file in the Planning Department).
18 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.
19 Rev. 07/03/02
PROJECT NAME: Eucalyptus Subdivision
APPROVAL DATE:
FILE NUMBERS: SUP 04-09KDP 04-34/HDP 04-08/MS 04-18
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 3 180 (Public Resources Code Section
2 1 08 1.6).
II Mitigation Measure
This project has been found to result in impacts to .37 acres of non-native
grassland and .09 acres of disturbed lands, which provide some benefits
to wildlife, as documented in the City’s Habitat Management Plan and
the environmental analysis for this project. Developer is aware that the
City has adopted an In-lieu Mitigation Fee consistent with Section E.6 of
the Habitat Management Plan and City Council Resolution No. 2000-223
to fund mitigation for impacts to certain categories of vegetation and
animal species. The Developer is further aware that the City has
determined that all projects will be required to pay the fee in order to be
found consistent with the Habitat Management Plan and the Open Space
and Conservation Element of the General Plan. The City is currently
updating the fee study, which is expected to result in an increase in the
amount of the fee, and the Developer or Developer’s successor(s) in
interest shall pay the adjusted amount of the fee. The fee shall be paid
prior to recordation of a final map, or issuance of a grading permit or
building permit, whichever occurs first. If the In-lieu Mitigation Fee for
this project is not paid, this project will not be consistent with the Habitat
Management Plan and the General Plan and any and all approvals for this
project shall become null and void.
Prior to recordation of the final map or prior to issuance of a grading
permit, whichever occurs first, the Developer shall record an Open Space
Easement over the SDG&E easement area in favor of the City.
The project shall implement the remediation measures identified in the
Geo Soils geotechnical report for the undocumented fills and the letter
dated March 4,2005 from Southern California Soils and Testing, Inc.
for the slope stability.
Monitoring Monitoring
Type Department
Grading Permit Planning
Permit
Grading Planning/
Engineering
I
Shown on
Plans
Yes
No
No
Verified
Implementation Remarks
20 Rev. 07/03/02
11 The project shall implement
Mitigation Measure
The project shall implement the mitigation measures as identified in
Remarks Monitoring Monitoring Shown on Verified
Type Department Plans Implementation
Building Permit Planning Yes
the Noise Analysis for Eucalyptus Subdivision, Dated June 22,2004,
URS or eauivalent.
Miti
Prior to the recordation of the first final parcel map or the issuance of
building permits, whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare
and record a Notice that this property may be subject to noise impacts
from the proposed or existing Transportation Corridor, in a form
meeting the approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney (see
Noise Form #I on file in the Planning Department).
I Monitoring I Monitoring I Shownon I Verified I -
21 Rev. 07/03/02