HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-12-06; Planning Commission; Resolution 62071 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6207
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION
4 MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO
SUBDIVIDE A 1.1-ACRE PROPERTY INTO THREE SINGLE-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS GENERALLY LOCATED
6 BETWEEN EUCALYPTUS LANE AND EL CAMINO REAL IN
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
7 CASE NAME: CHEHADE MINOR SUBDIVISION
CASE NO.: SUP 05-12/CDP 05-49/HDP 05-10/PCD 05-038
9 WHEREAS, Khaled Chehade, Trustee, "Developer," has filed a verified
10 application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Khaled Chehade Family
11 Trust, "Owner," described as
12 A portion of Lot I of Rancho Agua Hedionda, in the City of
13 Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according
to Map thereof No. 823 filed in the Office of the County
14 Recorder of San Diego County, November 16,1896.
^ Also being Parcel B of City of Carlsbad Certificate of
,g Compliance for Adjustment Plat No. 03-17, recorded
January 21,2005, as Doc. No. 2005-0054768
17
("the Property"); and
18
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, which includes a Mitigation
2Q Monitoring and Reporting Program, was prepared in conjunction with said project; and
21 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 6th day of December, 2006,
22 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
23 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
24
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
25
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors26
27 relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
28 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
2 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
3 Commission hereby ADOPTS the Mitigated Negative Declaration, according to
Exhibits "NOI" dated October 5, 2006, and "ND" dated December 6, 2006,
attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findings;
6
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
7
a. It has reviewed, analyzed, and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration for
8 Chehade Minor Subdivision - SUP 05-12/CDP 05-49/HDP 05-10/PCD 05-03,
the environmental impacts therein identified for this project, and any comments
thereon prior to APPROVING the project.
10
b. The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines
and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad.
13 c. The Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad.
14
d. Based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PCRESONO. 6207 -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 6th day of December, 2006, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez,
Heineman, Segall, and Whitton
ABSENT: Commissioner Cardosa
ABSTAIN:
MARTELL B. MONTfOMERYMMairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
DONNEU
Assistant Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 6207 -3-
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME: Chehade Minor Subdivision
CASE NO: CDP 05-49/SUP 05-12/HDP 05-10/PCD 05-03/MS 05-10
PROJECT LOCATION: The project is located between Eucalyptus Lane and El Camino Real.
The Assessor's Parcel Number of the project location is 208-040-12.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A three-lot, detached single-family home subdivision proposed on
1.134 vacant acres. Two of the lots are panhandle lots. The project involves only the subdivision of
land; any future home construction is subject to separate approval.
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:
[X] 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.
I I 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).
I I 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: December 6, 2006, pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 6207
DONNEU
Assistant Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
FILE COPY
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
CASE NAME:
CASE NO:
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CHEHADE MINOR SUBDIVISION
CDP 05-49/SUP 05-12/HDP 05-10/PCD 05-03/MS 05-10
PROJECT LOCATION: The project is located on a vacant lot between Eucalyptus Lane and
El Camino Real. The project site is adjacent to single-family homes. The Assessor's Parcel
Number of the project location is 208-040-12.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project would subdivide 1.134 vacant acres into three single-
family home lots. Each lot would have an area of at least 10,000 square feet, and two lots would
be panhandle lots. The project includes a minor amount of off-site grading to facilitate
improvements along the project's El Camino Real frontage. The project would result only in the
subdivision of land; construction of homes on the lots approved as part of this project would be
subject to separate approval.
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 (EIA 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 from 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
approval/adoption 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 Scott
Donnell in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4618.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD October 5. 2006 through October 25. 2006
PUBLISH DATE October 5. 2006
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • wwv\dsriu39rte|3Hid3ca.us
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - INITIAL STUDY
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CDP 05-49/SUP 05-12/HDP 05-10/PCD 05-03/MS 05-10
DATE: September 27. 2006
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Chehade Minor Subdivision
2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad. 1635 Faraday Avenue. Carlsbad.
CA 92008
3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Scott Donnell. (760) 602-4618
4. PROJECT LOCATION: The project is located between Eucalyptus Lane and El Camino Real.
The Assessor's Parcel Number is 208-040-12.
5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: Khaled Chehade. Trustee. 1362 Sugarbush
Drive. Vista. CA 92084
6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RLM (Residential Low Medium Density. 0-4 du/ac
7. ZONING: R-A-10.000 (Residential Agriculture, minimum 10.000 square foot lot size)
8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing
approval or participation agreements): None
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
Description: A three-lot, detached single-family home subdivision is proposed on 1.134 vacant
acres. Each of three lots has an area of at least 10.000 square feet, and two of the lots are
panhandle lots. The project includes a minor amount of off-site grading to facilitate
improvements along the project's El Camino Real frontage.
The project would only subdivide the land and does not include an application for approval of any
homes: nevertheless, this assessment analyzes the environmental impacts associated with the
construction and occupancy of three homes.
Environmental setting: The vacant project site rises about 26 feet from its south end along
Eucalyptus Lane to its north end just above El Camino Real. From the high point, the property
drops steeply at a road cut along El Camino Real. The project site, containing mainly disturbed
vegetation dominated by non-native plant species, has no sensitive plants or animals.
Surrounding land uses: Vacant land exists to the north (separated from the project site by El
Camino Real), and single-family homes are to the south, east, and west. A mobile home park is
also located to the west. Based on its mostly urban surroundings, the project can be characterized
as infill development.
Rev. 02/22/06
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.
Aesthetics
Agricultural Resources
Air Quality
I I Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
[X] Geology/Soils lXl Noise
Hazards/Hazardous Materials d Population and Housing
Hydrology/Water Quality | 1 Public Services
| ] Recreation
I | Transportation/Circulation
| Land Use and Planning
Mineral Resources
Mandatory Findings of
Significance I I Utilities & Service Systems
Rev. 02/22/06
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
I | I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
|/\l 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 | I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I | 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 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.
Date
Planning Director's Signature Date
Rev. 02/22/06
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) 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-Initial Study", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on
the environment, but all potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an
earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a
supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental
document is required.
• When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR
if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable
standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made
pursuant to that earlier EIR.
• A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or
any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment.
• If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there
are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, 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.
Rev. 02/22/06
• 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-Initial Study 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 after each related set of questions.
Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined
significant.
Rev. 02/22/06
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless Less Than
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
n
D n
n
n
a) - d)
No impact. Project grading complies with the El Camino Real Corridor development standards. El Camino Real,
the prime arterial the project site abuts, is not a State scenic highway and the project site contains no scenic
resources. By removing the nearly vertical, eroding cut slope along El Camino Real and replacing it with a gentler,
landscaped slope, the project should actually improve the visual character of the area. The project would not
generate substantial light and glare as development on it would consist of three single family homes, which is
consistent with surrounding development. Home construction would occur consistent with city standards, including
the El Camino Real Corridor development standards.
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:
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
D D
Rev. 02/22/06
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, I I
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
a)-c)
No impact. Farming of the project site is not presently occurring nor does it appear to have occurred in the past
six years. The project is adjacent to residential development, except across El Camino Real, where active farming
does occur. The active farming occurs on an area the General Plan designates for future development. The project
site is classified as "urban and built-up land" according to a state Department of Conservation Important Farmland
map dated 2002. Both the general plan and zoning ordinance designate the site for residential, not agricultural,
purposes.
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:
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?
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
D
D D
D
D
Rev. 02/22/06
a)
No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a state non-attainment area for ozone
(O3) and for participate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM|0). 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 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 9* 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 15125(B) of the State of California Environmental 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, including future development of homes on the three lots, is consistent with the general
plan and in turn the regional air quality plan and will in no way conflict or obstruct implementation of the regional
plan.
b)
Less Than Significant Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is at Camp Pendleton.
Data available for this monitoring site from 2000 through December 2004 indicate that the most recent air quality
violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (a total of 10 days during the 5-year period). No
other violations of any air quality standards have been recorded during the 5-year time period. The project would
involve minimal short-term emissions associated with grading and construction of subdivision improvements and
future homes. Such emissions would be minimized through standard construction measures such as the use of
properly tuned equipment and watering the site for dust control. Long-term emissions associated with travel to and
from the project would be minimal. Although air pollutant emissions would be associated with the project, they
would neither result in the violation of any air quality standard (comprising only an incremental contribution to
overall air basin quality readings), nor contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Any
impact is assessed as less than significant.
Rev. 02/22/06
.
Less Than Significant Impact. The air basin is currently in a state 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
and the three homes that would be built on project lots, 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)
No impact. As noted above, the proposed 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)
No Impact. The construction of the proposed project and future homes 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.
IV. 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?
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?
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?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
Rev. 02/22/06
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat I I
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
a)-e)
No impact. A general biological survey was performed on-site and included the area for all on-site and off-site
grading. The biological resources on-site and off-site include one habitat type: ruderal, or disturbed, habitat. No
state or federally listed plant or animal species were observed on-site. No sensitive plant or animal species have
the potential to occur on-site due to the lack of habitat.
0
No impact. The project is consistent with the City's Habitat Management Plan (HMP) in that the document
identifies the project site as "development area" and not within any hardline or standards area. Further,
development of habitat classified as "disturbed" is subject to payment of an in-lieu mitigation fee per HMP Table
11. Impacts to disturbed land are not considered significant to local, state, and federal agencies. The project will
be conditioned to pay this fee.
Less Than
Significant No
Impact 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?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi-
cance of an archeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique pale-
ontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
a)-d)
No impact. The 1.13 acre site is disturbed and overlain with artificial fill. There are no structures on the property,
and it appears the site was farmed in the past. Based on its urban surroundings, the project can be characterized as
infill development. The site contains no unique paleontological or geological feature or resource.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
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:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
10 Rev. 02/22/06
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
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?
d) Be located oh expansive soils, as defined in Table 18
- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless Less Than
Mitigation Significant
Incorporated Impact
No
Imi
D
D D
D
D D
D D
D
11 Rev. 02/22/06
Less than significant impact. Based on the geotechnical evaluation prepared for the project by GeoTek,
Incorporated in 2005, the project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no active or
potentially active fault is known to exist at the site. The Rose Canyon Fault approximately 6.4 miles from the
project site is considered to present the highest risk to generate ground shaking.
a) ii
Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. The project geotechnical evaluation indicates the project
site could be subject to a maximum magnitude 6.9 earthquake. However, the evaluation notes that the project site
is suitable for the proposed subdivision and future anticipated home construction, subject to compliance with
evaluation recommendations.
A mitigation measure requires the project and any future home proposals to comply with the recommendations
contained in the geotechnical evaluation.
a) iii
Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. The liquefaction potential on the site is considered to be
low due to the relatively dense nature of the subsurface materials and lack of a shallow water table. However, the
project geotechnical evaluation notes that the fill materials which overlay the site and slopewash-like materials
below existing grades are considered potentially compressible and that onsite soils have a low to medium
expansion potential. The geotechnical evaluation notes that onsite soils are considered suitable for reuse as
compacted fill, subject to evaluation recommendations.
A mitigation measure requires the project and any future homes to comply with the recommendations contained in
the geotechnical evaluation.
a) iv.
No impact. The geotechnical evaluation reveals no propensity for landslides. Although the project geotechnical
report does not identify it as unstable, the existing cut slope on the project site's north boundary would be regraded
and contoured. The property features no hillside areas and is not in an area that the General Plan Environmental
Impact Report identifies as landslide-prone.
b)
Less than significant impact. The site is disturbed with non-native vegetation cover. Slight project-related
erosion could occur through the removal of stabilizing vegetation and exposure of credible materials onsite, as well
as construction of graded pads, driveways, and other improvements. The project would affect only 1.13 acres and
would employ Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction as required by the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and the City's Grading Ordinance. Operation of the project would
not involve activities that might cause soil erosion. Furthermore, replacement of the steep, eroded road cut with a
2:1 slope along the project's El Camino Real frontage will improve erosion control.
c)
Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. The project geotechnical evaluation notes that the fill
materials which overlay the site and slopewash-like materials below existing grades are considered potentially
compressible and that onsite soils have a low to medium expansion potential.
A mitigation measure requires the project to comply with the recommendations contained in the evaluation.
d)
Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. According to the project geotechnical evaluation, soils on
the project site have a low to medium expansion potential. However, the evaluation notes that the project site is
suitable for development if developed in accordance with the recommendations of the evaluation. A mitigation
measure requires the project to comply with the recommendations contained in the evaluation.
e)
No impact. The project is proposed to be connected to the available sewer system in Eucalyptus Lane.
12 Rev. 02/22/06
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) 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?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) 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?
e) 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?
f) 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?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h) 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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
D
D D
D
D
13 Rev. 02/22/06
a)-c)
No impact. The project would create lots for future construction of three single-family homes. Neither project
construction nor the future residential use would create or result in risks associated with hazardous materials,
substances, or wastes.
d)
No impact. The project site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites pursuant to the Government Code Section
cited.
e)-f)
No impact. The project is outside the Flight Activity Zone and Influence Area of McClellan-Palomar Airport.
The project proposes no features that would interfere with airport operations. The project is not in the vicinity of a
private airstrip.
g)
No impact. The project would not interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plans as it would not
interfere with street circulation.
h)
Less than significant impact. The project is not adjacent to any wildland areas. The project is within the vicinity
of a large farming area (which the General Plan designates for development) and open space area across El Camino
Real from the project site and about 500-feet north of the floodplain of Agua Hedionda Creek.
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
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)?
c) 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?
d) 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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
D D
D
D
14 Rev. 02/22/06
e) 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?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) 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?
h) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures,
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) 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?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
D
D D
D D
n
15 Rev. 02/22/06
a)
Less than significant impact. During construction, bare earthen surfaces may accumulate fuels or other pollutants
that may be transported with storm water run-off, thereby degrading downstream water quality. Temporary impacts
to water quality would result from activities such as clearing and grading, stockpiling of soils and materials,
concrete pouring, painting, and asphalt surfacing. Pollutants generated during construction include soils, debris,
other materials generated during clearing, fuels and other fluids associated with the equipment used for
construction, paints, other hazardous materials, concrete slurries, and asphalt materials. Water quality is impacted
when these pollutants are washed off-site by storm water or non-storm water. Construction of the proposed project
is subject to the requirements of erosion control in the City's Grading Ordinance and would comply with the Clean
Water Act. Conformance with the Clean Water Act is established through implementation of a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's (SWRCB)
NPDES General Permit No. CAS000002. In general, the SWPPP regulates water quantity and quality by requiring
the use of BMPs and a Monitoring Program Plan. Conformance with the SWPPP would reduce water quality
impacts during project construction activities to less than significant levels. Compliance with NPDES standards
will also require preparation of a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) to address long-term, post construction
pollutant control associated with the occupancy of homes on the project lots.
b)
No impact. The project does not propose any features that would deplete or interfere with ground water supplies
or recharge. Water service for future homes and landscaping would be provided from imported water supplies, not
groundwater. Further, no groundwater was encountered in exploratory excavations for the project geotechnical
report and none is known to be present.
c)-d)
Less than significant impact. Project grading and improvements would not substantially alter existing site
drainage patterns. Drainage patterns of the proposed project would essentially remain the same as currently exists.
Development of the project would increase the volume and rate of surface run-off by creating impermeable
surfaces on-site. This increase would not contribute enough volume to cause any flooding.
e)
Less than significant impact. Considering the small area that the project site comprises, it would not contribute
substantial sources of pollutant run-off, nor would it provide significant sources of pollutant run-off from
impervious surfaces to the existing water drainage system.
f)
No impact. The proposed project does not include any other features that would substantially degrade water
quality.
g)-0
No impact. The property is outside the 100-year flood hazard area, would not place any structures within this
area, and would not expose people or structures to flooding, including due to dam failure.
J>No impact. Inundation by seiche or tsunami is considered to be very low due to the project site's distance from
and elevation above an open body of water. Mudflows are unlikely to pose a threat due to a lack of steep slopes
and hillside areas in the project vicinity.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? I I I I h>/|
16 Rev. 02/22/06
nb) 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?
a)-c)
No impact. The project would be built on a vacant lot in developed area of the City. The project, and the future
construction of homes that would occur on the project's three lots, is consistent with all relevant land use
documents, including density and land use provisions of the General Plan and Local Coastal Program. Proposed
project lot size and dimensions and other design aspects are also consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and El
Camino Real Corridor Development standards. The project will be conditioned to pay appropriate fee requirements
consistent with the Habitat Management Plan.
X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region
and the residents of the State?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
n a
No impact. There are no mineral resources identified on the project site or vicinity.
XL NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels
in excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of
other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise
levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
n n
n
n
17 Rev. 02/22/06
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
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?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
n
n
18 Rev. 02/22/06
a)
Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. According to the General Plan, roadway noise is the
most extensive noise problem in Carlsbad. The General Plan Noise Element establishes 60 dBA and 45 dBA as
the maximum acceptable exterior and interior noise levels for residences, respectively, where outside the noise
influence of McClellan-Palomar Airport. According to the project noise study, acceptable noise levels would be
exceeded on the proposed parcel (Parcel 3) closest El Camino Real under different scenarios. Based on existing
traffic volumes, mitigation will be necessary to ensure interior noise levels of a two story house comply with city
standards. Upon widening of El Camion Real and increase of traffic to buildout flows, mitigation will be
necessary to ensure acceptable interior noise levels for a single or two story home on Parcel 3 and an acceptable
exterior noise level for Parcel 3. Mitigation to achieve a suitable exterior noise level would require adequate
outdoor recreation (back yard) area exists on the side of the home opposite El Camino Real. A mitigation measure
requires compliance with the provisions of the noise study recommendations under widening of El Camino
Real/buildout conditions.
b)
No impact. The project will not produce excessive groundbourne vibration or noise. It is not expected that
blasting would be needed to construct the project. Traffic on El Camino Real would not produce excessive
vibration sufficient to disturb project residents.
c)
No impact. Consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and surrounding existing development, the
project would create three lots for future single-family home construction.
d)
Less than significant impact. Residents in the project vicinity will experience temporary increases in noise due to
project construction and future home construction. However, construction hours are regulated by City Municipal
Code Chapter 8.48.
e)-f)
No impact. The project property is outside the Airport Influence Area of McClellan-Palomar Airport, which is
located approximately two miles south of the project site. As such, construction workers and future residents on
project lots will not be subject to excessive noise. The project is within the Noise Impact Notification Area of
McClellan-Palomar, meaning that residents may be subject to nuisance noise and aircraft overflight. There are no
private airstrips in the project vicinity.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly I I I I I I 1ST]
(for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
19 Rev. 02/22/06
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?n n
No impact. The project, which would create three single family home lots on a vacant property slightly more than
one acre, is consistent with the land use and density limitations of the General Plan and is located in a developed
area. Infrastructure already is in place to serve the project.
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:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
n
nn
n
n
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
D
n
No impact. The provisions of public facilities within the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP),
including fire & police protection, parks, libraries and other public facilities, have been planned to accommodate
projected growth, including growth that would be realized through construction of the project. Because the project
will not exceed the total growth projections anticipated within the Zone I LFMP, all public facilities will be
adequate to serve the future 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.
XIV. RECREATION
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
20 Rev. 02/22/06
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
D
a)-b)
No impact. Use of parks by residents of the three homes that could be built on the proposed project lots would be
minimal if any. The project includes no recreational facility construction or expansion that might impact the
physical environment.
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project:
a) 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)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level
of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads
or highways?
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?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in insufficient parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn-
outs, bicycle racks)?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
D
D
D
D D
D
D
21 Rev. 02/22/06
a)
Less Than Significant Impact. The project will generate 30 Average Daily Trips (ADT) upon completion of one
home on each of the three lots. To gain access, project traffic will utilize Eucalyptus Lane and Crestview Drive,
both local streets, and El Camino Real, the adjacent prime arterial street. Existing traffic on El Camino Real in the
project vicinity varies from 27,031 ADT (2005) to 36,694 ADT (2005) and the 2005 peak hour level of service at
the nearest arterial intersection (El Camino Real and Cannon Road) impacted by the project is LOS "D". The
design capacity of the arterial road affected by the proposed project is 40,000 or more vehicles per day. The
project traffic would represent very negligible increases of the existing traffic volume and the design capacity
respectively. The street system has been designed and sized to accommodate traffic from 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)
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* LOS Buildout ADT*
Rancho Santa Fe Road 17-35 "A-D" 35-56
El Camino Real 27-49 "A-C" 33-62
Palomar Airport Road 10-57 "A-D" 30-73
SR78 124-142 "F" 156-180
1-5 199-216 "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 full implementation of the region's general and
community plans. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan and, therefore, its traffic was used in
modeling the buildout projections. Achievement of the CMP acceptable Level of Service (LOS) "E" standard
assumes implementation of the adopted CMP strategies. Based on the design capacity(ies) of the designated roads
and highways and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at acceptable level(s) of service in the
short-term and at buildout.
c)
No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components. The project is consistent with the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the McClellan-Palomar Airport. It would not, therefore, result in a change of
air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No impact assessed.
d)
No Impact. All project circulation improvements will be designed and constructed to City standards; and,
therefore, would not result in design hazards. The two proposed panhandle lots are required by the Zoning
Ordinance to have driveways adequate to accommodate public service vehicles and space for future residents'
vehicles to exit onto Eucalyptus Lane in a forward direction. 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)
No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and Police
Departments. No impact assessed.
22 Rev. 02/22/06
0
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.
No Impact. The project is along El Camino Real, which is served by public transportation. The project does not
interfere with any existing or planned bus turnouts and bicycle racks would not be required of a small, residential
subdivision. Project grading and improvements allow for future installation of a sidewalk along the project's El
Camino Real frontage.
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the
project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which would
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
D
D
n
D
D
D
23 Rev. 02/22/06
a)
Less than significant impact. Future construction of three homes on the project's lots would be constructed and
operated in accordance with the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board wastewater treatment
requirements. As determined from City of Carlsbad Engineering Standards, the three homes that could be built on
the project's three lots would generate approximately 660 gallons per day (GPD) of waste, or 220 GPD per
residence. This addition of this waste would not significantly impact the existing sewer system in the region.
Impacts would be less than significant.
b)
No impact. The project would tie into an existing sewer line located in adjacent Eucalyptus Lane. The project
would not result in the need for new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities. According to the 2003 Sewer
Master Plan, the sewer interceptor serving the project is adequate to accommodate ultimate flows and adequate
capacity exists to accommodate sewage flows from Carlsbad at the Encina Wastewater Treatment Plant through at
least 2015. In September 2006, the City Planning Commission recommended approval of "Phase V Expansion"
plans that would ensure adequate wastewater capacity at the treatment plant through 2025.
c)
No impact. The amount of stormwater generated by the project would not be substantial, nor would the project
create a need for new or expanded facilities.
d)
No impact. The City's 2005 Urban Water Management Plan indicates sufficient water resources exist to supply
the Carlsbad Municipal Water District Service area (of which the project is a part) through the year 2020.
e)
No impact. The City's 2003 Sewer Master Plan Update indicates adequate capacity exists at the Encina
Wastewater Treatment Plant to accommodate Carlsbad sewage flows through at least 2015. See also b) above.
f)-g)
No impact. Waste generated by future residential construction on the project site is not expected to exceed landfill
capacity and would be handled according to the City's waste disposal requirements, which are in compliance with
all applicable laws.
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
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?
n
24 Rev. 02/22/06
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 substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
D
No
Impact
n
a)-c)
No impact. As evidenced by this assessment, the project, nor the future construction of three single-family homes
on project lots, do not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, impacts that are cumulatively
considerable, or environmental effects that will substantially affect human beings either directly or indirectly.
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or
more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document
and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
25 Rev. 02/22/06
EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning
Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01).
City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994.
2. El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards. City of Carlsbad Planning Department. Adopted by
City Council Resolution 7642 on August 7, 1984.
3. San Diego County Important Farmland 2002. California Department of Conservation, Division of Land
Resource Protection.
4. Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 1. City of Carlsbad Planning Department. Adopted by City
Council Resolution 9221 on September 1, 1987.
5. Geotechnical Evaluation for Proposed Residential Subdivision APN 208-040-03 Eucalyptus Avenue.
Carlsbad. California. GeoTek, Inc. April 4, 2005.
6. City of Carlsbad Interactive G1S Map. Flood Hazard Zone layer. Accessed September 13,2006.
7. Biological Technical Report for Chehade Property in the City of Carlsbad (APN 208-040-03). RC
Biological Consulting, Inc. Revised May 2006.
8. External Acoustical Study of the Three Parcels Adjacent El Camino Real in Carlsbad. California. Dr.
Penzes & Associates. October 10, 2005.
9. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. McClellan-Palomar Airport. Carlsbad. California. San Diego
County Regional Airport Authority. Originally adopted April 22, 1994. Amended October 4, 2004.
10. 2005 Urban Water Management Plan. City of Carlsbad. Adopted by Carlsbad Municipal Water District
Board of Director's Resolution 1266 on December 13, 2005.
11. Sewer Master Plan Update. City of Carlsbad. March 2003.
12. Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad. City of Carlsbad. Final
Approval November, 2004.
26 Rev. 02/22/06
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained in the External Acoustical Study of the
Three Parcels Adjacent El Camino Real in Carlsbad. California, prepared by Dr. Penzes & Associates,
dated October 10, 2005, and on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department. Specifically, the
applicant shall institute the recommendations for mitigation for a house on proposed Parcel 3 based on a
widened El Camino Real. Further, for the house on proposed Parcel 3 and in compliance with the
recommendations, sufficient yard area shall be provided on the south side of the house, opposite El Camino
Real, to provide an outdoor recreation area with a minimum depth of 20 feet. Compliance with the
recommendations shall be demonstrated on construction plans and documents, as determined necessary by
the City, prior to issuance of a building permit for the residence on proposed Parcel 3. A copy of the above
referenced noise study shall be submitted as part of the building plan check for the residence on proposed
Parcel3.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Evaluation for
Proposed Residential Subdivision APN 208-040-03 Eucalyptus Avenue. Carlsbad. California, prepared by
GeoTek, Inc., dated April 4, 2005, and on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department. The applicant
shall also comply with any subsequent amendments to the geotechnical evaluation. Compliance with the
recommendations shall be demonstrated on construction plans and documents, as determined necessary by
the City, prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, as appropriate and as determined by the City. A
copy of the above referenced geotechnical evaluation and any subsequent amendments shall be submitted
as part of the grading plan check for the project and as part of the building plan check for any house
proposed on the project.
27 Rev. 02/22/06
3. 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.
Date Signature
28 Rev. 02/22/06
PROJECT NAME: Chehade Minor Subdivsion
APPROVAL DATE: December 6. 2006
FILE NUMBERS: SUP 05-12/CDP 05-49/HDP 05-10/PCD 05-03
The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate
identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that
this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly
Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6).
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Type
Monitoring
Department
Shown on
Plans
Verified
Implementation Remarks
1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations
contained in the External Acoustical Study of the Three
Parcels Adjacent El Camino Real in Carlsbad. California.
prepared by Dr. Penzes & Associates, dated October 10,
2005, and on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
Specifically, the applicant shall institute the recommendations
for mitigation for a house on proposed Parcel 3 based on a
widened El Camino Real. Further, for the house on proposed
Parcel 3 and in compliance with the recommendations,
sufficient yard area shall be provided on the south side of the
house, opposite El Camino Real, to provide an outdoor
recreation area with a minimum depth of 20 feet. Compliance
with the recommendations shall be demonstrated on
construction plans and documents, as determined necessary
by the City, prior to issuance of a building permit for the
residence on proposed Parcel 3. A copy of the above
referenced noise study shall be submitted as part of the
building plan check for the residence on proposed Parcel 3.
Project
(Building
Permit)
Building
Department,
Planning
Department
Chehade Minor Subdivision
SUP 05-12/CDP 05-49/HDP 05-10/PCD 05-03
Page 2 of 2
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Type
Monitoring
Department
Shown on
Plans
Verified
Implementation Remarks
2. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations
contained in the Geotechnical Evaluation for Proposed
Residential Subdivision APN 208-040-03 Eucalyptus Avenue.
Carlsbad. California, prepared by GeoTek, Inc., dated April 4,
2005, and on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
The applicant shall also comply with any subsequent
amendments to the geotechnical evaluation. Compliance with
the recommendations shall be demonstrated on construction
plans and documents, as determined necessary by the City,
prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, as appropriate
and as determined by the City. A copy of the above
referenced geotechnical evaluation and any subsequent
amendments shall be submitted as part of the grading plan
check for the project and as part of the building plan check for
any house proposed on the project.
Project
(Building or
Grading
Permit)
Building
Department,
Engineering
Department,
Planning
Department
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.
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented,
this column will be initialed and dated.
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other
RD - Appendix P.