HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-07-01; Planning Commission; Resolution 4283.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
e 0
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4283
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO CREATE AND DEVELOP A
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER
OF THE INTERSECTION OF MAGNOLIA AVENUE AND
ADAMS STREET IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 1
CASE NAME: MAGNOLIA SUBDIVISION
CASE NO.: CT 97-23/SDP 97-26
WHEREAS, Michael D. O’Gara, “Developer”, has filed a verified ap
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Ettore S. Bertagnolli and G
Bertagnolli, husband and wife as joint tenants, “Owner”, described as
A portion of Lots 13 and 17, Block “B” per map 2027.
9-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION ON PROPERTY
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 1st day of July 1991
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all tc
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by s
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered a1
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the
Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according tc
“ND” dated April 6, 1998, and “PII” dated March 30, 1998, attached hi
made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
....
1
2
3
4
5
6
e 0
FindinPs:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analy
considered the Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts therein identifiec
project and any comments thereon prior to APPROVING the project. Based on
Part I1 and comments thereon, the Planning Commission finds that the]
substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environr
thereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration.
7
9
8
2. The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration reflects the ind
judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
10
following vote, to wit: 11
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of July 199t
12
13
AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners Compas, Heineman, h
Nielsen, Savary, and Welshons
14
ABSENT: 15
NOES:
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
ABSTAIN:
I
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST: I
24
25 MICHAEL J. HOYZMILYER
Planning Director
26
27
28 PC RES0 NO. 4283 -2-
0 0
- City of Carlsbad
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddressLocation: Northwest corner of the intersection of Magnolia Avenue an
Adam Street
Project Description: A %lot single family subdivision
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described projec
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act an
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review,
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on tk
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in tl:
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Plannin
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments fkom the public a
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of da
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Elaine Blackburn in the Planning Departme]
at (760) 43 8-1 161, extension 447 1.
DATED: APRIL 6,1998
CASE NO: CT 97-23BDP 97-26
CASE NAME: MAGNOLIA SUBDIVISION
PUBLISH DATE: APRIL 6,1998
1’ .1 > x*
i 8>
MICH%J*
Planning Director
2075 La Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-1 161 - FAX (760) 438-08
e 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 11
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CT 97-23/SDP 97-2
DATE: March 30, 199
BACKGROUND
I. CASE NAME: Magnolia Subdivision
2. APPLICANT: Michael O’Gara
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: P 0 Box 1633, Carlsbad, CA 92011
J760) 434-7563
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: December 19, 1997
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 9-lot single family subdivision
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this projec
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impac
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning TransportatiodCirculation Iz] Public Services
0 Population and Housing Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems Energy & Mineral Resources [7 Aesthetics
Water Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
H Air Quality Noise 0 Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
0 e
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
[XI I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on thl
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on thl
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigatio~
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVI
DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and a1
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but a
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlie
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigatio:
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An is required
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
c] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on th
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potential1
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Master Environment2
Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voide
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-01:
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed projec
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
3-3 f-YZ
Date
41 //4@
Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
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 significan
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the followin;
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and huma~
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information tl
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negativ
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 ar
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following eac
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced informatio
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. 1
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, c
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
e “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that th
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopte
general standards and policies.
e “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporatio
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and th
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce th
effect to a less than significant level.
e “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that a
effect is significant.
e Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significal
effect on the environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyze
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicab:
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigate
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upc
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to (
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the pric
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no addition
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
e When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily requirt
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier E1
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement I
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
e A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence th
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
0 e
0 If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing ar
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, anc
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In thi:
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated’
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
a An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and includinl
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect ha;
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, an(
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less tha
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact ha
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reducl
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is nc
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, o
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significar
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of th
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attentio
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determine
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
e
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (# 1 :Pgs 5.6- 1 - 5.6-1 8)
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 infrastructure)? (#1 :Pgs 5.5-1 -
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
0
0
5.5-6)
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) 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? (# 1 :Pgs 5.1 - 1 - 5.1 - 1 5)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#1 :Pgs
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#1 :Pgs 5.1-1 -
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1.15)
5.1-15)
5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
g) Subsidence ofthe land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15)
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:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
0
11)
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
5
a
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
0
0
0
0
-0
0
0
0 0 0
0
0 0
0 cl
0
Less Than No
Significant Impact Impact
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 w'
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
o w
o El 0 [XI 0 [XI
0 El
[XI
[XI
[XI 0 [XI 0 [XI
o w
0 [XI
Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
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? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
body? (#I :PgS 5.2- 1 - 5..2-11)
(#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
11)
5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
0
0
0
0
cl
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
1 - 5.3-12)
- 5.3-12)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e& farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -
proposal result in:
5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
5.7.22)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
cl
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
cl
0
cl
cl
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
6
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
cl
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No Impact
w
w w
[XI
w w
[XI
IXI
IXI
[XI
[XI
[XI
[x]
IXI w
[x] w
w
Rev. 03128196
a Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4- 1 - 5.4-24)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1
(#1 :PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
(# 1 :PgS 5.4- 1 - 5.4-24)
- 5.4-24)
0
0
0 o
17
VIlI. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5
proposal?
(#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) O
0
0
1 - 5.13-9)
& 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
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)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
5.10.1-5)
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
grass, ortrees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
0
0
0
0
0
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9-
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-
15) 0
0 1 - 5.9-15)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6)
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4) O 0 cl C) Schools? (#l:PgS 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
7
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
0
CI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
Less Than No
Significant Impact Impact
0 [XI
0 El
0 w o w
IXI
0 IXI
El
0 w
0 IXI
0 w
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 El
0 [XI o w
O [XI 0 El 0 IXI
Rev. 03128196
e 0
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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 0 0 0 IXI
5.12.8-7) 0 0 0 [XI
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 &
5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 0 0 0 [XI
b) Communications systems? ( )
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7) n
El 0 facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
e) Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
f) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.12.3-7)
U 0 0 0
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5)
5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5)
5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
10)
10)
5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 -
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (# 1 :Pgs
5.12.8-7)
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0 w 0 0 [XI
0 0 [XI 0 0 IXI 0 0 [XI 0 0 IXI
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0 [XI o w o w
0 w
0 [XI
0 IXI 0 [XI
0 w
o w
[I] [XI
8 Rev. 03128f96
a a
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
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 future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
0
0
0
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless Impact
0 0 [XI
0 0 IXI
0 [x]
9 Rev. 03/28/96
e e
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQP
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 thf
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are availablt
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklis
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuan
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed b
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigatiol
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated o
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site
specific conditions for the project.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The proposed project is for the subdivision of a 2.1 -acre parcel of land into 9 single family
residential lots. (No development of the lots is being proposed. The subdivider anticipates
selling the lots to individuals for future development.) The lot sizes range from 7650 square feet
to 15,220 square feet. The site is a generally flat infill site surrounded by residential
developments.
11. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
A. Non-Relevant Items
1. Land Use and Planning
The proposed subdivision will not conflict with the General Plan or zoning or any othe
applicable environmental plans or policies for the subject property. The site is designated fc
IUM (Residential - Low to Medium Density) uses and is zoned R-1-7,500 (single famil
residential). The project would subdivide the parcel into single family residential lots consister
with the zoning designation. The project is consistent with the General Plan in the sense that it i
low to medium residential development. However, at a proposed density of 4.2 ddac, it exceed
the density range (0-4 ddac) allowed by the General Plan by .2 units. The City’s General Pla
does allow this to occur in some situations. This project appears to be a situation where thi
additional density could be allowed. There are no environmental plans which apply to th
subject property. The development of the site will not disrupt any established community. Th
site is currently undeveloped and is surrounded by existing older single family residentii
development. The project will not affect agricultural resources or operations. It is an infill sii
not recently used for agricultural purposes.
2. Population and Housing
The development of this infill site with single family residential housing was anticipated by tk
City’s General Plan. Therefore, it will not result in exceeding anticipated population projectior
nor will it induce substantial growth. It will not displace existing housing.
3. Geologic Problems
The subject site is a rather flat infill site. It is not located in a flood hazard area. The si
contains no unique geologic or physical features. Therefore, when developed in accordance wi
the applicable City regulations, the project will not result in exposure to potential geolog
problems including seiche, tsunami, volcanic hazard, erosion, or fault rupture).
4. Water
There are no water bodies on or near the subject site, and the City is not located in a groundwat
basin. Therefore, the project will not affect surface water or currents and will not affe
11 Rev. 03/28/96
a e
groundwater quality or quantity. The site is not within a flood hazard area and will not result ir
exposure to water related hazards. Eventual development of the site with residential uses will bc
required to comply with all applicable City regulations regarding drainage and runoff (includini
compliance with any applicable NPDES regulations/requirements).
7. Biological Resources
The site will not result in impacts to biological resources. It is an infill site containing nc
identified sensitive resources. It contains no designated natural communities or wetland habita
and does not serve as a migration corridor.
8. Energy and Mineral Resources
The site contains no identified natural resources and will not conflict with any energ;
conservation plans. There are no known mineral resources on the site.
9. Hazards
Eventual development of the site with single family residences is not likely to result in the risk o
accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances or other potential health hazard. Therl
will be no interference with emergency response or evacuation plans as the site will be developec
in accordance with all applicable City regulations, including placement of the structures on th
site and public improvement requirements (streets, drainage facilities, etc.). Therefore, th
proposed development of the site will not result in creation of any hazards.
10. Noise
The future development of the site with single family residences is not anticipated to result i
increasing noise levels or exposure of people to severe noise levels. When construction i
proposed, there will be temporary increases in noise as building occurs. However, thes
activities will be regulated by the City’s construction activity regulations and will be temporar
in nature and not severe.
1 1. Public Services
The eventual development of the subject site will not result in a need for new or altere
government services beyond what was already anticipated by the City’s General Plan. Th
project will be conditioned to comply with all applicable requirements of the Local Facilitie
Management Plan for Zone 1 to ensure that all necessary facilities are provided prior to c
concurrent with development.
12. Utilities and Services Systems
The eventual development of the subject site will not result in a need for new systems or supplie
or substantial alterations. The site is an infill site readily serviced by existing systems. Th
project will be conditioned to comply with all applicable requirements of the Local Facilitie
Management Plan for Zone 1 to ensure that all necessary facilities/systems are provided prior t
or concurrent with development.
12 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
13. Aesthetics .
The will not result in any aesthetic impacts. Future development of single family residences 01
the site will be required to comply with all applicable City regulations for such development
including yard setbacks, height limitations, and separation between structures. Lighting for sucl
structures would be minimal. The site is an infill site not adjacent to nor containing any scenir
highway or vista.
14. Cultural Resources
No cultural resources (paleontological, archaeological, or historical) have been identified on thl
project site. The site also does not serve as a site for religious or sacred uses. Therefore, therl
will be no impact to cultural resources.
1 5. Recreational
The project will not affect existing recreational opportunities as it does not currently serve as
recreation site. The single family homes to be developed in the future will provide yards fo
recreational uses and will be conditioned to comply with the requirements of the Local Facilitie
Management Plan for Zone 1 for park and recreation facilities.
B. Environmental Impact Discussion
5. Air Quality
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the update1
1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle mile
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactiv
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are th
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since th
San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considerel
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in th
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 variet
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provision
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measure
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Deman
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mas
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable an
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into th
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project :
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marke
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, tk
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-0 1, by Cit
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for a
13 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequen
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, nc
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at thl
Planning Department.
6. TransportatiodCirculation
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updatec
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequatl
to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severe1
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. Thesl
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbac
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersection
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, numerou
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measure
to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develo
alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestria
linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies whe
adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highwa
onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. Th
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either bee
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 th
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, thereforc
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project :
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because th
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, include
a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement C
Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulatio
impacts is required.
8
14 Rev. 03128196
I
1 e e 111. EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City o:
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92009
(760) 43 8- 1 16 1, extension 447 1.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Updatt
(MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
15 Rev. 03/28/96