HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDP 97-12; Huber Residence; Hillside Development Permit (HDP) (6)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) 438-1 16 1, ext.4448
City: CARLSBAD Zip: 92009 County: SAN DIEGO COUNTY
PROJECT LOCATION;
County: San Diego City/Nearest Community: Carlsbad
Cross Streets: Adams Street / Highland Drive Total Acres: 1.53
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: McCLELLANPALOMAR Railways: NCTD Schools: Kelly School
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
. DOCUMENT TYPE:
CEQA: 0 NOP 0 Supplement/Subsequent NEPA: 0 NO1 OTHER: 0 Joint Document
Early Cons EIR (Prior SCH No.) 0 EA 0 Final Document
Neg Dec 0 Other: 0 Draft EIS 0 Other:
0 Draft EIR 0 FONSI
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ LOCAL ACTION TYPE: 0 General Plan Update 0 Specific Plan 0 Rezone 0 Annexation 0 General Plan Amendment 0 Master Plan 0 Prezone 0 Redevelopment
General Plan Element 0 Planned Unit Development c] Use Permit IXI Coastal Permit
Community Plan 0 Site Plan 0 Land Division (Subdivision, Other: Hillside
Parcel Map, Tract Map, etc.) Development Permit
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ DEVELOPMENT TYPE:
0 Office: Sq. Ft. - Acres - Employees - 0 Transportation: Type 0 Commercial: Sq. Ft. Acres - Employees - 0 Mining: Mineral 0 Industrial: Sq. Ft. - Acres - Employees - 0 Power: Type Watts 0 Educational: 0 Waste Treatment: Type
[7 Recreational: 0 Hazardous Water: Type
Residential: Units Acres 1.53 0 Water Facilities: Type - MGD
0 Other:
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN DOCUMENT: 0 AestheticNisual 0 Flood Plaifllooding 0 SchoolsAJniversities 0 Water Quality 0 Agricultural Land 0 Forest LandlFire Hazard 0 Septic Systems 0 H,O Supply/Ground
Air Quality 0 Geological/Seismic Sewer Capacity Wetland/Riparian
ArchaeologicaVHistorical 0 Minerals 0 Soil Wildlife
HZ0
ErosionKompactiordGrading
Coastal Zone 0 Noise Solid Waste 0 Growth Inducing 0 Drainage/Absorption 0 PopulatiodHsg. Balance 0 Toxickiazardous 0 Land Use 0 EconomidJobs 0 Public Services/Facilities B TraffidCirculation 0 Cumulative Effect
0 Fiscal 0 RecreatiodParks Vegetation 0 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 dr& document) please fill it in. Revised October 1989
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddressLocation: 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) 438-1 161, extension 4448.
DATED: SEPTEMBER 26,1997
CASE NO: HDP 97-12
CASE NAME: HUBER RESIDENCE
PUBLISH DATE: SEPTEMBER 26,1997
MICHAEL J. HmZMmER
Planning Director
2075 Las Palmas Dr. * Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 (760) 438-11 61 - FAX (760) 438-0894 @
AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON
HUBER RESIDENCE
HDP 97-12
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: HDP 97- 12 HUBER RESIDENCE
DATE: SEPTEMBER 16. 1997
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: HUBER RESIDENCE
2. APPLICANT: GENE HUBER
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 6407 El Pato Court Carlsbad. CA 92009
4. DATE ETA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: SeDtember 9, 1997
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 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.
0 Land Use and Planning Transportation/Circulation Public Services
0 Population and Housing Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 Water 0 Hazards [XI Cultural Resources
Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
0 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.
0 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.
Planning Directomignaue Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
e 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.
a “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.
e “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.
e “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
0 Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but @ 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).
0 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.
0 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
8 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.
8 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 I1 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 Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than No
Significant Impact Impact
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?
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)
(# 1,#2)
0
0
0
0
0 IXI
0 1x1
0
0
0
0
0 [XI
0 1x1
0 0 1x1
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
population projections? (#1,#2) o
indirectly (eg. through projects in an undeveloped area 0
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#1,#2)
housing? (# 1 ,#2) 0 c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
0 1x1
0 IXI
0 0 1x1
111. 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? (#I $2)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (# 1 ,#2)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#I ,#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)
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 CI 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 1x1 0 1x1 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 1x1 0 1x1
0 IXI 0 1x1 0 [XI
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 hazards
such as flooding? (#1,#2)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (# 1 ,#2)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (# 1,#2)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 [XI
0 IXI
1x1 0
0 [XI 0 0
5 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#1,#2)
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)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(# 1 ,#2) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#1,#2)
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 quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality 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? (#I ,#2)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or trafic congestion? (#1,#2)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (# 1,#2)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (#1,#2)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#1,#2)
(# 1,#2)
(# 1,#2)
(#I ,w
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0 0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0 0
Less Than No
Significant Impact Impact
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 IXI 0 IXI
txI 0
0
0 0
0
0
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
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#1,#2)
0
0 0
0
0
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (# 1,#2)
(# 1,#2)
0 0
0
0 0
0
0
0 0 0 [x1
0 IXI
0 IXI 0 El
0 [x1
0 Ixl
Ixl 0 0
6 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting information Sources).
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(# 1 b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
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 hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (#1,#2)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (# 1 ,#2)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (# 1,#2)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (# 1,#2)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (# 1,#2)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#1,#2)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (# 1 ,#2)
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:
Fire protection? (# 1 ,#2)
Police protection? (#1,#2)
Schools? (# 1,#2)
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
Other governmental services? (#I ,#2) (# 1 $2)
XILUTILITIES 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)
b) Communications systems? (# 1 ,#2)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#1,#2)
e) Storm water drainage? (# 1 ,#2)
f) Solid waste disposal? (# 1 ,#2)
facilities? (# 1,#2)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
Less Than No
Significant Impact Impact
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 IXI
0 [XI
0 IXI
0 [XI
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 [XI 0 IXI
0 0 IXI 0 0 IXI 0 0 IXI 0 0 IXI
0 0 IXI
0 0 Ix) 0 0 IXI 0 0 IXI
0 0 IXI 0 0 Ix1 0 0 IXI
7 Rev. 03/28/96
u Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Local or regional water supplies? (#1,#2)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#1,#2)
Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (# 1 ,#2)
Create light or glare? (#1,#2)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (# 1 ,#2) ’
Disturb archaeological resources? (#1,#2,#3)
Affect historical resources? (#1,#2,#3)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#1,#2)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (# 1 ,#2)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (# 1 ,#2)
Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#I $2)
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?
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)?
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
El
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0 o
0
0
0
No
lmpact
1x1
[XI El 1x1
1x1
[XI
[xi
[XI
IXI
[XI
[XI
1x1
1x1
IXI
8 Rev. 03/28/96
4 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 Ordinance, 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 93-0 1, 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
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 cleareddisturbed 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