The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPRE 2019-0003; CHURCH RESIDENCE; Preliminary Review (PRE)·, CITY OF CARLSBAD APPLICATION FORM FOR PRELIMINARY REVIEW APPLICATION CITY USE ONLY Ple. ?.--<.> l t\ -oo o 3 OevZ.cH ~. -OD'3G::, Project Numb&r: Devetopment Nuntber: PROJECT NAME: Church Residence Assessor's Parcel Number(s): 206-2QQ-04-00 Description of proposal (add attachment if necessary): NEW CUSTOM TWO STORY1 SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNIT WITH A TT ACHED GARAGES (3} CAR GARAGE Would you like to orally present your proposal to your assigned staff planner/engineer? Yes □ No..../ □ Please list the staff members you have previously spoken to regarding this project. If none, please so state. Hector J Salgado OWNER NAME (Print): Barrv Church APPLICANT NAME (Print): McCULLOUGH DESIGN DEV. MAILING ADDRESS: §21 POLARIS DR MAILINGADDRESS:10531 4S COMMONS DR #700 CITY, STATE, ZIP: ENCINITAS1 CA 92024 CITY, STATE, ZIP: SAN DIEGO. CA 92127 TELEPHONE: TELEPHONE: 858 756 0700 EMAIL ADDRESS: EMAIL ADDRESS: ADDISON@YAHOO.COM *Owner's signature indicates permission to conduct a preliminary review for a development proposal. I CERTIFY THAT I AM THE LEGAL OWNER AND THAT ALL THE I CERTIFY THAT I AM THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OWNER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE J}.MY KNOWLED/!:R JJ,J-,,,,f/L 3-7-J q AN~ TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. qt;z;~ 1·7-(q G~ DATE SIGNATURE DATE APPLICANTS REPRESENTATIVE (Print): Addison Walker (McCULLOUGH DESIGN DEV.} MAILING ADDRESS: 10531 ~S COMMO~S OB #7QQ CITY, STATE, ZIP: SAN DIEGO. CA 92127 TELEPHONE: 858 756 0700 EMAIL ADDRESS: ADDISON@YAHOO.COM I CERTIFY THAT I AM THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPLICANT AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CORRE~HE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. ~-1·7·l'1 SIGNATURE DATE IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING THIS APPLICATION IT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR MEMBERS OF CITY STAFF TO INSPECT AN~NTER THE~ THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION. I/WE CONSENT TO ENTRY FOR THIS PURPOSE. ~PEITTY OWNE;R SfGNAtuRE f ~.f°''. . , ..... ,, "_) FEE REQUIRED/DATE FEE PAID: o: ? r;; f ,·.-~. "'"" ' ... RECEIVED BY: P-14 Page 3 of3 .. • > PRELIMINARY REVIEW CHECKLIST Staff would like to know what information you primarily want from this review. With this known, we can focus most of our attention on researching and answering your main questions(s). Please check the one or two boxes below which best describes the information you would like us to concentrate on, and/or check the box marked "other" and tell us in your own words what information you would like from us. ~ SITE DESIGN: Focus is on reviewing issues such as development standards (setbacks, building height, etc.), hillside compliance, landscaping, signage, open space requirements, and other physical aspects of zoning. Plans adequately illustrating these features are needed for review. 0 LANDUSE: Focus is on determining the compatibility of the proposed land use with the existing general plan and zoning designations, determining whether staff could support a general plan amendment or zone change, and determining compatibility of the proposed land use with surrounding land uses. 0 ARCHITECTURE: Focus is on establishing quality architecture and checking its compatibility with the surrounding area and against any applicable guidelines or plans. Building elevations or other architectural information are needed for review. 0 ZONING INTERPRETATIONS: Focus is on interpreting any aspects of the zoning ordinance. 0 LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING STANDARDS: Focus is on reviewing all engineering-related issues, such as grading, drainage, Best Management Practices for Storm Water Pollution Control, circulation and traffic, street vacations, easements, subdivisions, etc. ~ OTHER: P-14 In the space below, please list any other issues you would like us to review. 1. Compliance and Compatibility with Local Coastal Program and Agua Hedionda Land use Plan. 2. Street Improvements and confirmation of where they sit in the right of way. 3. Height Limits corresponding to the Carlsbad Zoning Code and Agua Hediona Land Use Plan 4. The side setbacks of 5' & 10' instead of both at 7.5'). The code says building official must approve. 5. Consideration of previous submittals processed PRE 97-05 and HDP 97-12. The HOP submittal included an environmental report and archeological report for the city. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION was filed with the State Clearinghouse #1997091075. This new application significantly follows the design of those previous applications. Are new discretionary permits required before going to California Coastal Commission for CDP? Can we apply for substantial conformance to the previous permits? Page 2 of 3 Revised 07/17 (city of Carlsbad PROJECT DESCRIPTION P-1(8) PROJECT NAME: Church Residence Development Services Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue {760) 602-4610 www.carlsbadca.gov APPLICANT NAME: McCullough Design Development Please describe fully the proposed project by application type. Include any details necessary to adequately explain the scope and/or operation of the proposed project. You may also include any background information and supporting statements regarding the reasons for, or appropriateness of, the application. Use an addendum sheet if necessary. Description/Explanation: The project proposes to build a new 4930 sq ft, two story single family residence with an attached 748 sq ft 3 car garage along Adams St, Carlsbad, CA. The site is currently vacant and has never been developed. Site is zoned R1-15000 and within the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Land Use Plan. Total site area approximately 21,250 square feet, some of which is under water. The proposed project takes into consideration a 100 foot buffer zone and the scenic roadway. No structures are proposed in the buffer and no portion of the structures exceed the elevation of Adams St. In 1997 this site had a Carlsbad approved discretionary permit (HOP 97-12 -Huber Residence) and California Coastal Commission approved permit (Application No. 6-98-14). However, that plan was not taken to the building permit stage or constructed. This new application significantly follows the design concepts and intent of those previous approvals. P-1(8) Page 1 of 1 ,,,..-, ,,.-·~ ~ . : , --;: -"'/ MAR O 7 2019 CITY Of ( PLAN'\\ I!\,\ -.:\.i __ S2,AO ·. i'.~!-~S~-- Revised 07/10 City of Carlsbad ■G6hi•hel·l•M·Llihei4,Ji November 26, 1997 Gene Huber 6407 El Pata Court Carlsbad, CA 92009 HOP 97-12 -HUBER RESIDENCE RErr=1vED MAR O 7 2019 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DIVISION The City has completed a review of the application for a Hillside Development Permit for grading on an existing single family residential lot. It is the Planning Director's determination that the project is in conformance with the City's Hillside Development Ordinance, Chapter 21.95 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and therefore APPROVES this request based on the following: Findings: 1 . Hillside conditions have been properly identified on the constraints map which show existing and proposed conditions and slope percentages. 2. Undevelopable areas of the project, i.e. slopes over 40%, have been properly identified on the constraints map. 3. The development proposal is consistent with the intent, purpose and requirements of the Hillside Ordinance, Chapter 21.95. 4. The proposed grading and development will not occur in the undevelopable portions of the site. 5. The grading design minimizes disturbance of hillside lands. 6; The project design s·ubstantially conforms to the intent of the concept illustrated in the Hillside Development Guidelines Manual. 7. The project site· is significantly constrained by the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program in that the building height may not exceed the elevation of Adams Street and all develc,pment must be setback 100 feet from the mean high tide line of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. 8. The project has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and no significant adverse impacts were identified and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was issued on September 6, 1997. Conditions: 1. Approval is granted for HOP 97-12, as shown on Exhibit(s) NA-I", dated November 21, 1997, incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning Department. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved exhibit(s). Any proposed grading and/or development substantially different from this approval as ~07!? La~ Palmas Dr._ ,cl.!lrls~ad, ,CA 92009-1 f?76 '-" (760) 438-1161 ~ FA?( (760) 438-!)894 . &, HOP 97-12 Huber Residence November 26, 1997 Page 2 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. determined by the Planning Director, shall require an amendment to this Hillside Development Permit. All exposed retaining walls shall be of a decorative material which is in harmony with the materials of the main structure. The applicant is required to obtain a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) from the California Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of a grading and/or building permit. A signed copy of the Coastal Development Permit must be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of the grading and/or building permit. If the CDP approval is substantially different, an amendment to this Hillside Development Permit shall be required. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site within this project, the developer shall submit to and receive approval from the City Engineer for the proposed haul route. The developer shall comply with all conditions and requirements the City Engineer may impose with regards to the hauling operation. The developer shall pay all current fees and deposits required. The owner of the subject property shall execute an agreement holding the City harmless regarding drainage across the adjacent property. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant is to prepare and record a Covenant of Easement for drainage purposes over the project parcel for the benefit of the adjacent parcel to the west. Provisions may be included to share maintenance and insurance responsibilities. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant is to prepare and record a Covenant of Easement for drainage purposes over the project parcel for the benefit of the adjacent parcel to the east. Provisions may be included to share maintenance and insurance responsibilities. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant is to prepare and record a temporary Covenant of Easement for slope and construction purposes over the two adjacent parcels for the benefit of the project parcel. · Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant is to obtain a City encroachment permit for the proposed wall and related above ground improvements that are to be located within the public right-of-way. ive feet shall e dedicated by the owner along the project frontage on Adams treet based on a center line to right-of-way: width of thi feet and in conformance with City of Carlsbad Standards. Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all public improvements shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In accordance with City Standards, the developer shall install, or agree to install and secure with appropriate security as provided by law, improvements shown on the site plan and the following improvements: a) Half-width street improvements along the project frontage on Adams Street, including sidewalk, curb, gutter, driveway apron, and paving. These improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the ultimate alignment of Adams Street and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. HOP 97-12 Huber Residence November 26, 1997 Page 3 Improvements listed above shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of the secured improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement. 13. The developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance with the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the City Engineer. 14. Prior to the issuance of a building permit , Developer shall submit to the City a Notice of Restriction to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction of the Planni~g Director, notifying all interested parties and successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued Hillside Development Permit on the real property owned by the Developer. Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property description, location of the file containing complete project details and all conditions of approval as well as any conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. The Planning Director has the authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice which modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer or successor in interest. 15. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the Hillside Development Plan and as a required mitigation measure as identified in the Mitigated ·Negative Declaration, a grading permit including appropriate erosion control measures for this project is required. (THE DEVELOPER MUST SUBMIT AND RECEIVE APPROVAL FOR GRADING PLANS IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY CODES AND STANDARDS PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE PROJECT.) CITY OF CARLSBAD Gf!/4+ Assistant Planning Director GW:CW:kq c: Adrienne Landers Bobbie Hoder Ken Quon File Copy Data Entry Planning Aide NOTICE OF COMPLETION Mail to: State Clearinghouse, 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121, Sacramento, CA 95814 -(916) 445-0613 Project Title: Huber Residence -HDP 97-12 Lead Agency: CITY OF CARLSBAD Contact Person: Christer Westman Street Address: 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE Phone: {760} 438-1161, ext.4448 City: CARLSBAD Zip: 92009 County: SAN DIEGO COUNTY See NOTE Below: SCH# ____ _ . PROJECT LOCATION~ -----------············ ..................................................... .. County: San Diego City/Nearest Community: __..C=ar..,_lsaa:b;.::aad..._ ___________________ _ Cross Streets: Adams Street / Highland Drive Total Acres: __,l.=53"------------------- Assessor's Parcel No. 206-200-04 Section:_ Twp._ Range:_ Base: _______________ _ Within 2 Miles: State Hwy#: Interstate 5 Waterways: Agua Hedionda Lagoon and Pacific Ocean Airports: McCLELLAN/PALOMAR Railways: NCTD Schools: __ K......,.el.._ly __ S_c._h~oo.._l ____________ _ ---------------------............ ·-······· .. ··--------DOCUMENT TYPE: CEQA: 0 NOP D EarlyCons 181 Neg Dec 0 DraftEIR □ Supplement/Subsequent □ EIR (Prior SCH No.) □ Other: NEPA: 0 NOi 0 EA 0 DraftEIS 0 FONS! OTHER: □ Joint Document O Final Document 0 Other: ___ _ LOCAL.ACTION TYPE: ___ ..................... ___________________ _ O General Plan Update O General Plan Amendment D General Plan Element D Community Plan ·»EVEWPMENT TYPE: 181 Residential: □ Office: □ Commercial: □ Industrial: □ Educational: 0 Recreational: Units_l Sq. Ft._ Sq. Ft._ Sq. Ft._ 0 Specific Plan 0 Master Plan O Planned Unit Development 0 Site Plan Acres.J.ll Acres Acres Acres Employees_ Employees_ Employees_ □ Rezone OPrezone O Use Permit O Land Division (Subdivision, Parcel Map, Tract Map, etc.) □ Water Facilities: D Transportation: D Mining: D Power: D Waste Treatment: D Hazardous Water: D Other: O Annexation O Redevelopment 181 Coastal Permit 181 Other: Hillside Development Permit Type_ MOD Type Mineral Type Watts Type Type PROJECT ISSUES.DiSClJSSED IN DOCUMENT: ........ _ ............. D AestheticN isual D Flood Plain/Flooding D Schools/Universities D Water Quality D Agricultural Land D Forest Land/Fire Hazard D Septic Systems D H20 Supply/Ground H20 181 Air Quality D Geological/Seismic □ Sewer Capacity 181 Wetland/Riparian 181 Archaeological/Historical D Minerals D Soil □ Wildlife Erosion/Compaction/Grading □ Coastal Zone □ Noise □ Solid Waste □ Growth Inducing D Drainage/ Absorption D Popu\ation/Hsg. Balance D Toxic/Hazardous D Land Use D Economic/Jobs D Public Services/Facilities 181 Traffic/Circulation D Cumulative Effect D Fiscal D Recreation/Parks 181 Vegetation D Other: Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Use ...................... -·············----- The property is currently vacant/ Zoning is R-1-15,000/ the General plan designation is Residential Low Medium ---···-·· ......................... ----·· .. •····· .. ···· ............ ___ _ Project Description: The project is the construction of a single family residence. NOTE: Clearinghouse will assign identification numbers for all new projects. If a SCH number already exists for a project (i.e., from a Notice of Preparation or previous draft document) please fill it in. Revised October 1989 City of Carlsbad ■ g.g,,.,1 i ,I· I •24 •Lilli ,tA•i I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Address/Location: South of Adams Street on the northwest shore of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Project Description: Development of a single family home on an existing lot zoned as single family R-1-15,000. 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, a Mitigated Negative Declaration ( declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Christer Westman in the Planning Department at (760) 438-1161, extension 4448. DATED: SEPTEMBER 26, 1997 CASE NO: HDP 97-12 CASE NAME: HUBER RESIDENCE PUBLISH DATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 1997 Planning Director 2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-"1576 • (760) 438-"1"16"1 • FAX (760) 438-0894 AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON HUBER RESIDENCE HOP 97-12 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM-PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) BACKGROUND CASE NO: HOP 97-12 HUBER RESIDENCE DATE: SEPTEMBER 16. 1997 1. CASE NAME: HUBER RESIDENCE 2. APPLICANT: _G=ENE=-==HUB==E=R,..__ _________________ _ 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 6407 El Pato Court Carlsbad. CA 92009 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: .... S=e_p_,t ... em---..ber ......... 9_, 1 ..... 9 .... 97 ___________ _ 5. PROJECT DESCRJPTION: Development of a single family home on an existing lot zoned as single family R-1-15,000. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a '~"Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. O Land Use and Planning O Population and Housing D Geological Problems D Water ~ Air Quality [81 Transportation/Circulation [gl Biological Resources Q Public Services D Utilities & Service Systems O Energy & Mineral Resources O Aesthetics 0 Hazards D Noise [gl Cultural Resources D Recreation O Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 03/28/96 •• DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) O I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. rgj 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. D I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. O I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. O 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 Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. er Signature Planning Directorsigna Date 2 Rev. 03/28/96 -. ENVIRONMENT AL IMPACTS ST A TE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. • A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. • "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. • "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect 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 significant. • Based on an "EIA-Part 11", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). • When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. • A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. 3 Rev. 03/28/96 --1 • If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. • An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce th~ impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 4 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Infonnation Sources). I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): (#1,#2) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (#1,#2) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (#1,#2) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (#1,#2) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (#1,#2) II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (#1,#2) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (#1,#2) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (#1,#2) III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (#1,#2) b) Seismic ground shaking? (#1,#2) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#1,#2) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (# 1,#2) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( # l ,#2) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#1,#2) g) Subsidence of the land? (#1,#2) h) Expansive soils? (#1,#2) i) Unique geologic or physical features?(# 1,#2) IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff'? (#1,#2) b) Exposure of people or property to water related haz.ards such as flooding? (#1,#2) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality ( e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (# l ,#2) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (#1,#2) 5 ......... Potentially Significant Impact D □ D □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ D □ D □ □ D D □ □ □ Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated □ □ D □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Less Than No Significant Impact Impact □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ D □ □ □ □ □ □ ~ D 181 181 181 181 181 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 181 181 □ ~ Rev. 03/28/96 ,,....... Issues (and Supporting Infonnation Sources). e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (#1,#2) f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (#1,#2) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (#1,#2) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#1,#2) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (#1,#2) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air qua1ity standard or contribute to an existing or projected air qua1ity violation? (#1,#2) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#1,#2) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (#1,#2) d) Create objectionable odors? (#1,#2) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposa1 result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#1 ,#2) b) Hazards to safety from design features ( e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#1,#2) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (#1,#2) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (#1,#2) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (#1,#2) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (#1,#2) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#1,#2) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result · in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? (#1,#2) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#1,#2) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#1,#2) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (#1,#2) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#1,#2) 6 ......... Potentially Significant Impact □ □ □ □ □ IZI □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ D □ □ □ IZI D D □ □ Less Than No Significant Impact Impact □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ D D □ □ D D □ □ D □ □ D □ IZI IZI IZI IZI IZI □ IZI IZI IZI □ IZI IZI IZI IZI IZI l8l D IZI IZI IZI IZI Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? □ □ □ ~ (#1,#2) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and □ □ □ [8J inefficient manner? (#1,#2) c) 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? (#1,#2) IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of haz.ardous □ □ □ ~ substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (#1,#2) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan □ □ □ [8J or emergency evacuation plan? (#1,#2) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health D D □ [8J hazards? (#1,#2) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential □ □ □ [8J health hazards? (#1,#2) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, □ D □ [8J grass, or trees? (#1,#2) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#1,#2) D D □ [8J b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#1,#2) □ D □ [8J XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (#1,#2) □ □ □ [8J b) Police protection? (#1,#2) D □ □ [8J c) Schools? (#1,#2) D □ □ [8J d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? □ □ □ [8J (#1,#2) e) Other governmental services? (#1 ,#2) □ □ □ ~ XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (#1,#2) □ □ □ [8J b) Communications systems? (#1,#2) □ D □ [8J c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution □ □ D [8J facilities? (#1,#2) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#1,#2) □ D □ [8J e) Storm water drainage? ( # 1,#2) □ □ □ ~ f) Solid waste disposal? (#1,#2) □ □ □ IZI 7 Rev. 03/28/96 .. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). g) Local or regional water supplies? (#1,#2) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#1,#2) b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#1,#2) c) Create light or glare? (#1,#2) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#1,#2) · b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#1,#2,#3) c) Affect historical resources? (#1,#2,#3) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#1,#2) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (#1,#2) XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#1,#2) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#1,#2) XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a ftsh or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered ·plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 8 Potentially Significant Impact □ □ □ □ □ □ D D □ □ □ □ □ D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ D □ □ □ □ □ Less Than No Significant Impact Impact □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Rev. 03/28/96 XVII. 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). DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION LAND USE: The project is a single family house on an existing lot which is designated as R-1-15,000. The use of the property for a single family residence is consistent with the Zoning Ordinan<,:e, the General Plan and Agua Hedionda Lagoon Segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program. AIR QUALITY: The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. 9 Rev. 03/28/96 • f CIRCULATION: The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR These include 1) measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: A biological survey was completed for the project site in addition to two sites, one on either side. In total, the 1.53 acres consists of .25 acres underwater, .14 acres of land up to the high water line, .54 acres of cleared/disturbed area, and .6 acres of coastal sage scrub. A small amount of wetland habitat consisting of pickleweed exists up to the high water line that will not be impacted. Although there is coastal sage, the site is not occupied by coastal California gnatcatcher. An assumption was made that the entire .6 acres of coastal sage would be impacted by this development and development of the two adjacent sites. A mitigation plan has been proposed consisting of the purchase of .5 acres of mitigation credits in the Carlsbad Highlands Mitigation Bank in Carlsbad. The proposed offsite mitigation is consistent with the Natural Community Conservation Plan standards for the following reasons: The impacts occur to isolated coastal sage scrub unoccupied by gnatcatchers; the impact is small; the loss of habitat does not preclude long term conservation planning; and, the mitigation site 10 Rev. 03/28/96 provides coastal resource replacement. The project results in less than one acre of coastal sage scrub and meets the criteria of " Specific Exemptions to and Recommended Format For Reviewing Requests For Interim Habitat Loss Permits" and therefore qualifies to be exempt from the Federal and State interim habitat loss approval process. Attached is verification that mitigation acreage has been purchased. HYDROLOGY: The project is proposed on an embankment leading to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Because there is the potential for erosion into the lagoon, precautionary measures consistent with the City of Carlsbad erosion control methods and NPDES must be taken during the construction of the project to eliminate potential impacts to the lagoon. CULTURAL RESOURCES: The site has been surveyed for cultural resources and that survey resulted in a finding that no significant resources were located onsite. No further investigation nor any mitigation is required. SOURCE DOCUMENTS: 1. Carlsbad General Plan 2. Carlsbad General Plan Master Environmental Impact Report 3. Archeological Survey and Test for the Huber Property LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) 1. A grading plan incorporating erosion control measures consistent with City of Carlsbad methods and NPDES shall be approved by the City of Carlsbad prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit. 11 Rev. 03/28/96 .. SI ' "· I 1>-.r--.,\o ,... . . '-'