HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDP 98-17; Beliveau Residence; Hillside Development Permit (HDP) (2)r
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: HDP 98-17KDP 98-71
DATE: Feb. 2.1999
1. CASE NAME:_Beliveau Residence
2. APPLICANT: Andrew Wilt
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 829 B Second Street. Encinitas. CA
(760) 9421062
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: 10-01-98
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Demolish existine two story 2.939 square foot single family
residence with 537 square feet of garage. Replace with new two story 4.091 square foot single
familv residence with 1.069 square foot earage and associated grading to allow a pool adjacent to
the house in the back yard,
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.
c] Land Use and Planning [XI TransportatiodCirculation Public Services
0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
r
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
(XI
0
0
0
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 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. An EIR 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 EIR pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
n
Planher Signitwe Date
Planning Director's Signature Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
r
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.
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 fl 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
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 DISCWION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
f-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Significant Significant
Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l:Pages 5.6-1-5.6-18)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project? (see Ia.)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (see Ia.)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses? (see Ia.)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (see Ia.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1-5.5-6)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infiastructure)? (see IIa.)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (see IIa)
0 o
0 0
0 0
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (#l:pgs 5.1-1-5.1-15)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (see IIIa)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (see IIIa)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (see IIIa)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (see
IIIa)
(see IIIa)
g) Subsidence of the land? (see IIIa)
h) Expansive soils? (see IIIa)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (see IIIa)
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs5.2-
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
0 0
0 0
1-5.2-1 1)
hazards such as flooding? (see IVa)
Less Than No
Significant Impact Impact
0 [XI
0 [XI
[XI
0 [XI
[XI
0 [XI
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 IXI 0 [XI 0 IXI
0 [XI
0 IXI 0 IXI IXI
0 [XI
0 IXI
5 Rev. 03/28/96
r.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
V.
VI.
VI1 .
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (see IVa)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? (see IVa)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements? (see IVa)
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? (see Iva)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(see IVa)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (see Iva)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies? (see Iva)
AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
(#l:Pgs5.3-1-5.3-12)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (see Va)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
d) Create objectionable odors? (see Va)
cause any change in climate? (see Va)
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCUTION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (see VIa)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses? (see VIa)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(see VIa)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(see VIa)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (see VIa)
(#l:pgs 5.7-1-5.7-22)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (see VIa)
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
[XI
0 0
0
IXI
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
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
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6 Rev. 03/28/96
n
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds? (#1 ,pgs 5.4- 1-5.4-24)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(see VIIa)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (see VIIa)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)? (see VIIa)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (see
VIIa)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (see VIIIa)
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? (see
VIIIa)
(#l:pgs 5.12.1-5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1-5.13-9) CI
0
0
IX.
X.
XI.
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)? (#l:pgs
b) Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? (see IXa)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazards? (see IXa)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (see IXa)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (see IXa)
5.10.1-1-5.10.1-5)
0
0
0
0
0
NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#1 :pgs 5.9-1-
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (see
5.9-15
0 Xa)
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? (#l,pgs.5.12.5-1-5.12.5-6)
b) Police protection? (#l,pgs5.12.6-1-5.12.6-4)
o
0 C) Schools? (#l,pgs 5.12.7-1-5.12.7-5)
Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
Less Than No
Significant Impact Impact
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 IXI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
[XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI 0 [XI 0 [XI
Rev. 03/28/96 7
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation
Incorporated
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services? (see Xid)
(#l,pgs5.12.1-1-5.12.8-7) 0 0 0 [XI
0 0 0 IXI
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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1-5.12.1-5
b) Communications systems? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1-
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l: Pgs 5.12..3-1-5.12.3-7)
e) Storm water drainage? (#l: Pg 5.2-8)
f) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pg.5.12.4-1-5.12.4-3 )
g) Local or regional water supplies? (#I, Pg. 5.12.2-
8~5.13-1-5.13-9)
5.12.8-7)
facilities? (#l: Pgs 5.12.2-1-5.12.3-7)
1-5.12.3-7)
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway?
b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect?
c) Create light or glare? (see XI11 a)
(#l:Pgs.5.11-1-5.11-5)
(see XIIIa)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#1:5.8-1-5.8-
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (see XIVa)
c) Affect historical resources? (see XIVa)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
(see XIVa)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (see XIVa)
10)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (see
5.12.8-1-5.12.8-7)
XVa)
0
0
0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
0
0
0
0 [XI
[XI
0 [XI
0 [XI 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI 0 [XI 0 [XI
0 [XI
0 IXI
[XI
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
8 Rev. 03/28/96
P
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish
or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
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 kture 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
Incorporated
0 0 0 IXI
0 0 IXI
0 0 0 [XI
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). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identi@ earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated,“ describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
9 Rev. 03/28/96
r -.,
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The project is located at 4125 Skyline three lots south of Tamarack Avenue. The site is
designated RLM which allows for the development of a single family dwelling, which is similar
to the existing development on and adjacent to the property. The applicant proposes to demolish
an existing two story 2,939 square foot single family residence with a 537 square foot garage
and replace it with a new two story 4,091 square foot single family residence with a 1,069 square
foot garage. Associated grading to allow a pool adjacent to the structure will construct a ten foot
fill slope in the rear and six foot retaining walls on the side.
Housing - While the project reflects the continued gentrification of the Carlsbad area, the
existing home is presently already within this high income classification, therefore no affordable
housing extant is being displaced.
Water - The project would result in a minor increase in runoff, however, the onsite drainage will
be discharged and dissipated consistent with City Standards to avoid adverse impacts due to
surface runoff.
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
hrther environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
10 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 - The site has been previously disturbed by the construction of a single
family home and associated landscaping.
Aesthetics - The project is located at Skyline Drive near its intersection with Tamarack Avenue.
There are no public views of the coast or lagoons from this location.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
P
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
-.
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
12 Rev. 03/28/96
\ PL
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
13 Rev. 03/28/96