HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 98-20; James Canyon Estates; Tentative Map (CT) (3)NOTICE OF COMPLETION
Mail to: State Clearinghouse, 1400 Tenth StrewRoom 121, Sacramento, CA 95814 - (916) 445-061~
Project Title: James Canvon Estates - CT 98-20/SDP 99-09/HDP 98-22/CDP 98-90
Lead Agency: CITY OF CARLSBAD Contact Person: Anne Hvsong
Street Address: 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE Phone: {760) 438-l 161. ext.4477
City: CARLSBAD Zip: 92009 County: SAN DIEGO COUNTY
.p’~~~~;i;‘ .~~~ATION’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................... ......... ................ ........._......_.................... ._..._
County: San Dieeo City/Nearest Community: Carlsbad
Cross Streets: Tamarack Avenue/Hillside Drive Total Acres: 4.28
Assessor’s Parcel No. 207-022-54 Section: Twp. Range: Base:
Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #: I-5 Waterways: Pacific Ocean/Aeua Hedionda Lagoon
Airports: McCLELLAN/F’ALOMAR Railways: NCTD Schools: Vallev Junior Hieh
“.~ocvME~~.;i;y~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................................................................................................................
CEQA: c] NOP 0 Supplement/Subsequent NEPA: 0 NOI
0 Early Cons [7
OTHER: c] Joint Document
EIR (Prior SCH No.) q EA
IxI iENeg rJ other:
0 Final Document q DraftEIS 0 Other:
0 Draft EIR [7 FONSI ”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._ . _. _ . . . .._ . . . . . _ ._ . . . . __. . . . _. _. . _.._ . . . . . . . . . __ . . . . _ . LOCAL ACTION TYPE: 0 General Plan Update 0 Specific Plan c] Rezone 0 Annexation
0 General Plan Amendment q Master Plan 0 Prezone [7 Redevelopment q General Plan Element c] Planned Unit Development 0 Use Permit q Coastal Permit
[7 Community Plan q Site Plan q Land Division (Subdivision, q Other: Hillside Dev. Pennit Parcel Map, Tract Map, etc.)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . __.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DEVELOPMENT TYPE: 0 Residential: Units 14 Acres 4.28
0 Office: Sq. Ft. Acres Employees B /-J Commercial: Sq. Ft. Acres Employees q q Industrial: Sq. Ft. Acres Employees
c] Educational: B q Recreational:
..-...- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Water Facilities:
Transportation:
Mining:
Power:
Waste Treatment:
Hazardous Water:
Other:
Q-v MGD
Tw Mineral
Type Watts
Tee
Twe
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............. , .................................................................................................................................................... PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN DOCUMENT:
Aesthetic/Visual q Flood Plain/Flooding q Schools/Universities
Agricultural Land q Forest Land/Fire Hazard 0 Septic Systems
Air Quality q Geological/Seismic 0 Sewer Capacity
Archaeological/Historical i M$;;ls q Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading
Coastal Zone q Solid Waste
Drainage/Absorption 0 Population/Hsg. Balance q Toxic/Hazardous
Economic/Jobs 0 Public Services/Facilities q Traffic/Circulation
Fiscal q Recreation/Parks q Vegetation
q Water Quality q H,O Supply/Ground H20 q Wetland/Riparian q Wildlife
i EroTA Inducing
i EFulazve Effect
t er
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Use
Vacant/R- 1 IRLM
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Project Description:
A tentative tract map, site development plan, hillside development permit, and coastal development permit to allow the subdivision and grading of 12 standard single family lots with 12 single family homes and two second dwelling units on a 4.28 acre infill parcel located in the northwest quadrant in the R-l (One Family Residential) zone at the southern terminus of James Drive between Highland Drive and Park Drive in Local
Facilities Management Zone 1.
NOTE: Clearmghouse 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 C&-lsbad F
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: Located in the northwest quadrant in the R-l (One Family
Residential) zone at the southern terminus of James Drive between
Highland Avenue and Park Drive in Local Facilities Management
Zone 1.
Project Description: A tentative tract map, site development plan, hillside development
permit and coastal development permit to allow the subdivision
and grading of 12 standard single family lots with 12 single family
homes and 2 second dwelling units on a 4.28 acre infill parcel
located in the northwest quadrant in the R-l (One Family
Residential) zone at the southern terminus of James Drive between
Highland Avenue and Park Drive in Local Facilities Management
Zone 1.
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 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 Anne Hysong in the Planning
Department at (760) 438-l 161, extension 4477.
DATED: AUGUST 31,1999
CASE NO: CT 98-20/SDP 99-09HDP 98-22/CDP 98-90
CASE NAME: JAMES CANYON ESTATES
PUBLISH DATE: AUGUST 3 1,1999 .
Planning Director
2075 La Paltnas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 l (760) 438-l 161 * FAX (760) 438-0894 @
-
JAMES CANYON ESTATES
CT 98:2O/SDP 99=09/CDP 98-901
HDP 98-22
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
BACKGROUND
CASE NO: CT 98-2O/HDP 98-22/CDP 98-90
DATE: JULY 2 1.1999
1.
2.
3.
CASE NAME: JAMES CANYON ESTATES
APPLICANT: HALL INVESTMENT COMPANY. INC.
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2775 VIA DE LA VALLE. SUITE 208,
DEL MAR, CA 92014
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: DECEMBER 22.1998
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP. SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN,
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO
ALLOW THE SUBDIVISION AND GRADING OF 12 STANDARD SINGLE FAMILY LOTS
WITH 12 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND TWO SECOND DWELLING UNITS ON A 4.28
ACRE INFILL PARCEL LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST OUADRANT IN THE R-l (ONE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE AT THE SOUTHERN TERMINUS OF JAMES DRIVE
BETWEEN HIGHLAND AVENUE AND PARR DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
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.
cl Land Use and Planning Ix1 Transportation/Circulation q Public Services
0 Population and Housing q Biological Resources El Utilities & Service Systems
q Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
cl Water lxl Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
q Air Quality 151 Noise 0 Recreation
El Mandatory Findings of SignifiCance
Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION. -
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0
0
0
Ix1
cl
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have 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. A Mitigated
Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be
addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore,
a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
Planner Signature ” Date
dZd?~
Date ’
2 Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPA%
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment. to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
l 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.
l “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
l Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but fi 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).
l 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.
l 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. 03128196
l 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.
l 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
the 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.
Rev. 03128196
ENVIRONMENTAL
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I.
a>
b)
cl
4
4
II.
4
b)
cl
III.
4
b)
c>
4
e)
f,
g)
h)
9
IV.
4
b)
c)
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
Conflict with general plan d&nation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority commnnity)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
q
q
POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l -
5.5-6)
Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
cl
I7
cl
0
q
q
q
El
El
IXI
Lx.
q
0
q
0
cl
(XI
Ix1
ixl
IXI
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2)
Seismic ground shaking? ((#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
((#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1.15, #2)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15)
Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15, #2)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
5.1-I - 5.1-15, #2)
Subsidence ofthe land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2)
Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2)
Unique geologic or physical features? (#l :Pgs 5. l-l -
5.1-15, #2)
cl III El
El
0 El 0 Ix) q IXI
0 lxl
El 0 lxl (7 cl IXI
0 0 Ia cl cl (XI 0 0 lxl
WATER. Would the proposal result in:
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-
11, #3)
Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11, #3 )
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
cl q IXI
0
0
5 Rev. 03/28/96
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact
No Impact
ENVIRONMENTAL -
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
4
d
f,
g)
h)
i)
V.
a)
b)
cl
4
VI.
4
b)
cl
4
e)
f)
g)
VII.
4
b)
c>
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-I - 5..2-11)
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? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Impacts to groundwater quality? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-
11) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? ((#l :Pgs
5.2-l - 5..2-11)
AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
1 - 5.3-12)
Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l
- 5.3-12)
Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
Create objectionable odors? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l :Pgs 5.7-l -
5.7.22)
BIOLOGICAL RBSOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
6
Potentially
Significant Impact
q
q
q
q
0
q
lxl
q
q
q
lxl
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
0
Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
cl
q
El
q
III
q
q
q
q
q
lxl
[SI
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
Less Than
Significant impact
q
q
q
q
Cl
q
q
0
q
q
0
q
u
q
q
q
El
IXI
q
IXI
No
Impact
Ix]
IXI
lxl
q
lxl
•l
lx
q
Ix1
q
IXI
q
Rev. 03128196
ENVIRONMENTAL -
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
4
4
VIII.
a>
b)
cl
IX.
a)
b)
c>
4
e)
X.
a>
b)
Xl.
4
b)
c)
4
e)
XII.
a>
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l
- 5.4-24)
Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated q q
q q
q
q
lxl
IXI
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-l - 5.13-9)
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
1 - 5.13-9)
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the r$gion and
the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.1-5
& 5.13-l - 5.13-9)
q q
q q
q
q
q q ,. cl
HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
stibstances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l -
5.10.1-5)
The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-I - 5.10.1-5)
Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
q q El Ix1
q q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q lxl
cl lxl
q txl
NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-l - 5.9-
15) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-
1 - 5.9-15)
q
0
lxl
q
q q
q lzl
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:
Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-I - 5.12.5-6)
Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-l - 5.12.6-4)
Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1,
pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.8-7)
Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l -
5.12.8-7)
q q q q
q
q lxl q q q El q lxl q q 0 lxl
q q l.xl
UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result. in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-l - 5.13-9) q q q IXI
7 Rev. 03128196
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
‘V
ENVIRONMENTAL
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b)
c)
4
e)
f,
g)
XIII.
a)
b)
XIV.
a>
b)
cl
d)
e)
xv.
4
b)
XVI.
a)
Communications systems? (#l; pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.8-7)
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-l - 5.12.3-7)
Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-l - 5.12.3-7)
Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-l - 5.12.4-3)
Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-l -
5.12.3-7)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
5.1 l-l - 5.1 l-5)
Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
5.1 l-l - 5.1 l-5)
Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-l - 5.11-5)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-
10) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-
10) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs
5.8-l - 5.8-10)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10)
RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-I -
5.12.8-7)
Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#1 :Pgs
5.12.8-l - 5.12.8-7)
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
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?
Potentially Significant Impact
q q
q q q q
q
q
q
q
q
q q
q
q
q
q
.-
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated q q
q q q q
q
II
q
q
q
q q
q
q
q
q
Less Than
Significant Impact
q q
q q q q
q
q
q
q
q
q q
q
q
q
No Impact
IXI
lxl
Ix1
q lxl
Rev. 03128196
ENVIRONMENTAL -
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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 come&on 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?
Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact Unless impact
Mitigation Incomorated q q q Ed
q q q lxl
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis of this proposed 12 lot subdivision has been completed through the General Plan
Update (GPA 94-01) and related Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR 93-01). The
MEIR is cited as source #l in the preceding checklist. This proposal is consistent with the
applicable portions of the General Plan and within the scope of MEIR 93-01. A mitigation
measure is proposed to reduce the project’s cumulative impact on traffic which is the only
potentially significant impact identified for the project not analyzed and mitigated in the MEIR.
All feasible mitigation measures identified in MEIR 93-01 which are appropriate to the project
have been incorporated into the project.
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRON-MENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
This project, which is located in the northwest quadrant at the southern terminus of James Drive
between Hillside Drive and Park Drive in the R-l (One Family Residential) zone, consists of the
subdivision and grading of a 4.28 acre parcel into 12 standard single family lots with 12 single
family residences and two second dwelling units. The project site is designated by the General
Plan for Residential Low Medium (RLM) density land use allowing a maximum of 3.2 dwelling
units per developable acre under the Growth Management growth control point (gcp) regulations.
The site, which is surrounded by existing single family development, consists of an irregularly
shaped vacant lot which has been previously disturbed by undocumented grading and illegal
dumping. Vegetation on the site consists of disturbed native and non-native plant species
including two potentially sensitive plant species, Torrey Pine and Wart stemmed Ceanothus.
Topographically, the site consists of elevations that range from 94’ to approximately 166’ above
sea level and is characterized primarily by gently to moderately sloping natural terrain that
descends generally to the east from the northwest and southwest property boundaries and by an
existing, relatively level building pad surrounded by manufactured 1: 1 and 2: 1 slopes in the area ’
along Hillside Drive. A large, approximately 15’ deep north-south trending unimproved drainage
course traverses the property although storm water is currently carried through the property by a
48 inch storm drain located within a 20’ storm drain and sewer easement. Sidewalls of the
drainage course are very steep to vertical and exhibit numerous slope failures.
Existing infrastructure and public utilities serve the project from James Drive, a local street that
the project will extend approximately 650’ to the south where a cul-de-sac will be created. The
proposed project grading necessitates 17,000 cubic yards of import to create building pads for 12
9 Rev. 03128196
--
single family lots ranging in size from 7,809 square feet to 22,688 square feet in area. One and
two-story single family homes are proposed and two of the units will have second dwelling units
to satisfy the project’s inclusionary housing requirement.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
A. Environmental Impact Discussion
I. Land Use
a/c) The proposed density of 3.3 du/acre is consistent with the applicable General Plan
Residential Low Medium (RLM) density land use designation (0 - 4 du/acre) which would allow
for the development of a maximum 13 lots/units using the Growth Management growth control
point of 3.2 du/acre. However, the subdivision is located in LFMP Zone 1 where project density
may exceed the growth control point if the applicable zoning would allow a higher yield and
additional public facilities are in place to satisfy the additional demand. The proposed
subdivision is infill and all required public facilities are adequate to sati@ the additional demand
The parcel is zoned R-l allowing minimum 7,500 square foot lots. While the R-l zoning would
allow 5 du/acre, consideration is also given to compatibility with respect to existing lot sizes in
the surrounding area. The project site, which is currently vacant, is surrounded by existing single
family lots of varying size. The proposed 7,809 - 22,628 square foot lots are compatible with
surrounding development in that existing lots adjacent to the proposed subdivision range in size
from approximately 7,500 square feet to larger one-half to one acre parcels. Consistent with the
existing and proposed development, the larger parcels in the area which can be further
subdivided, are likely to create parcels similar in size to those proposed.
Additional compatibility considerations include subdivision and grading design. The proposed
design would extend James Drive approximately 650’ to the south where a cul-de-sac will be
created. A second, very short cul-de-sac street that interesects with the James Drive extension
will provide access to four lots in the northwestern portion of the site. No access would be
provided from Hillside Drive due to traffic safety concerns. Generally the pad elevations are
within 5’ of existing grade and single family units are one and two story, consistent with
surrounding residential development. Rear yard 2:lslopes are created that ascend to Hillside
Drive and a 30’ descending slope at the rear of Lot 12 is necessitated to create a building pad for
that lot. The single family lot abutting Lot 12 to the southeast is currently vacant and its building
pad height will likely have to increase to enable access from Hillside Drive. When this occurs,
the slope on Lot 12 is likely to be substantially reduced in height. A covenant of easement to
enable grading to reduce the Lot 12 slope will be a condition of project approval.
b) The project is consistent with Mello II LCP policies limiting grading to the summer
season (April - October) and preservation of steep slopes (25%+) possessing coastal sage scrub
and chaparral plant communities (dual criteria). The project is consistent with these policies in
that the project will be conditioned to restrict grading to the summer season, and the site contains
no dual criteria slopes. Additionally, the Mello II hydrology standards require the drainage
system to be designed to ensure that runoff resulting from a 10 year frequency storm of 6 hours
and 24 hours duration under developed conditions, are less than or equal to the runoff from a
storm of the same frequency and duration under existing conditions. The project has been
designed so that runoff from the project will be substantially less than existing after development
is completed..
10 Rev. 03128196
V. Air Quality
The implementation of projects that are consistent with and within the scope of 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 sulfin-, 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.
VI. Transportation/Circulation
a) The City has received its annual Growth Management Traffic Monitoring Report and the
Report has recorded an unanticipated intersection “level of service? (LOS) failure at Palomar
Airport Road (PAR) and El Camino Real (ECR) during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. This
potentially creates a changed circumstance negating reliance on previous environmental
documentation. Pursuant to $15 162 of the CEQA Guidelines a lead agency must prepare
“subsequent” environmental documentation if substantial evidence (i.e., the recorded
intersection failure) determines that a changed circumstance exists. However, case law has
interpreted this section of the CEQA Guidelines to not require the preparation of a “Subsequent
EIR” if mitigation measures are adopted which reduce the identified impacts to a level of
insignificance.
A mitigation measure has been identified which, if implemented, will bring the peak hours LOS
into the acceptable range. The mitigation measure involves construction of two dual right turn
lanes-northbound to eastbound and westbound to northbound. This project has been
conditioned to pay its fair share of the intersection “short-term improvements” thereby,
guaranteeing mitigation to a level of insignificance.
11 Rev. 03128196
The implementation of projects that are consistent with and within the scope of 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 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.
b) The project will require the import of 17,000 cubic yards of fill dirt and the export of an
unknown quantity of unsuitable surface soils (trash and debris, undocumented fill, topsoil, and
alluvium). This will result in the transport of approximately 850 truck loads of fill dirt and an
unknown number of truck loads of unsuitable surface soils past existing single family residences
and Valley Junior High School to complete the proposed grading. Although this impact would
be temporary, the additional noise and safety hazard created by truck traffic through and adjacent
to a school and single family neighborhood is a potentially significant impact without mitigation.
The applicant has agreed to mitigate this impact by limiting the transport of fill and removal of
unsuitable soils to the hours between 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. daily. This will avoid conflicts with
pedestrian traffic to and from the school and avoid disturbance to residents during the early
morning and late afternoon and evening hours.
VII. Biological Resources
The site is largely void of native vegetation and is described by biologists (Royce Riggan of
RBRiggan and Denise Dixon of REC) as disturbed, dominated by non-native plant species. No
endangered, threatened or sensitive wildlife species were observed. The existing drainage swale
is deeply incised and does not support a definable wetland. With the following two exceptions,
no endangered, threatened or sensitive plant species were encountered on the site. A single
individual of Torrey Pine is located on the site, however, it is a very large shrub-like aspect of
the tree which has sprouted from a stump and is not a relict of a former natural stand of trees. No
further consideration is given since it is not considered sensitive coastal vegetation.
Approximately 6 individuals of Wart stemmed Ceanothus are located within two relictual stands
12 Rev. 03/28/96
of mixed chaparral. The mixed chaparral stands are approximately .15 acres each and disturbed
and disjunct from any significant adjacent stands of natural vegetation. The chaparral does not
occur on coastal slopes (>25% gradient), and does not constitute (because of its size and
isolation) a significant wildlife habitat. The collection of Ceanothus are small in stature and an
association of this small number of plants does not constitute either a viable or necessarily
significant stand. More action to preserve or mitigate any impacts to this species are
inappropriate. Therefore, given the heavily disturbed nature of the site, the very limited resource
and wildlife habitat value of the vegetation present, and the level of surrounding urban
development, it is concluded that implementation of the project as proposed will not result in
significant biological resources.
X. Noise
Construction activities, including the transport of fill dirt to the site and removal of unsuitable
soils from the site, will temporarily increase noise levels within the surrounding residential
neighborhoods. The applicant has agreed to mitigate this potentially,.significant noise impact by
limiting the transport of fill to the site and removal of unsuitable soils from the site to the hours
between 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. daily. This will avoid disturbance to residents during the early
morning and late afternoon and evening hours.
XI. Public Services
b) Fire Protection
The project, which is located at the end of an existing local public street (James Drive), will
create a cul-de-sac. The length of the cul-de-sac exceeds the length permitted by City policy,
however, there is no alternative design. The surrounding area is currently developed with single
family homes, and access from Hillside Drive which abuts the property along its western
boundary and provides the logical secondary access point, would create a traffic safety hazard.
To ensure timely emergency response, the Fire Department will condition the project to require
that all structures be protected by approved fire sprinkler systems due to the inability to conform
to the City’s secondary access and cul-de-sac standards.
II. EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92009,
(760) 438-1161, extension 4477.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Final Master Environmental Imnact Renort for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-Ol), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
“Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation”, prepared by Hetherington Engineering, Inc.
dated August 8, 1989, and
“Preliminary Hydrologic and Hydraulic Report - James Canyon Estates” dated December
1998, prepared by Crosby Mead Benton & Associates.
“A Biological Survey of City of Carlsbad Tract 88-5” (currently CT 98-20) dated
September 28, 1989 prepared by RBRiggan and Associates and update letter for
“Carlsbad Tract 88-5” (currently CT 98-20) dated April 2 1, 1999 from Denise Dixon,
Associate Biologist, REC.
13 Rev. 03/28/96
nub-03-33 Inu lo;lt3 r. 15
I. The Developer shall pay heir hir share fix rhe “short-mm im~vmt$’ fo tho El Camin0
Rd Pdomar Aiqt0Il Road intim ptior to approvai of the ikal map or the issuance of
a grading pear& whichever occurs SW. The asnouni shall be detcmriaad by the rnctbdobgy taMmate& selected by Council, including buz not limited to, an iacreooe in rbe ci~wide~cimpact~;miWcascdM~Z~el~~fee;the~~anofnfcccrr
asseasrncnt disuicq or itmxpmion into a M&-Roos * diaricl
2. Tnxks worting fill ditt to tic site and tmsuitabk soils &om the Jite Jyollgh C&G tisti~
ncighborhoods and ndjaeeat to Valley Junior High Schoctl are r&&ted to the hours bexswen
9:00 am. to 290 p.m. daily.
Q
mIS IS To cERnr;y -IRAT I IIAVE ItEm m ABOVE MlTIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH -ITUt ADDnYION OF TffESE MURES IQ THE PROJECT.
Date Signauue
14 Rev. 03128t96
___ -, ,c, ,I I-r 1 ,I I--Y
__ ,r~ r.-- > -t-3-
ir,r--r,C---
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIG, ION MONITORING CHECKLIST: dge 1 of 1
. . m
E P .g
‘iz +
2%
3: II c m 2u m 2 n .m c .c 0 .c