HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-05-19; Planning Commission; Resolution 4548- 0 0
..I 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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4548
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM TO GRADE AND SUBDIVIDE 4.93 ACRES INTO
15 LOTS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH
OF MAGNOLIA AVENUE AND WEST OF VALLEY STREET
IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1
CASE NAME: MAGNOLIA GARDENS
CASE NO.: CT 98-12/SDP 98-22
WHEREAS, Pacific Scene Financial, LLC, “Developer”, has filed a
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Gloria Aguilerz
“Owner”, described as
That portion of Tract 245 of Thum Lands, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according
to Map thereof No. 1681, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, December 9,1915
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Mo
and Reporting Program was prepared in conjunction with said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 19th day of May 199!
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all te
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by SI
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the I
28 Commission as follows:
- 0 0
- 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
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Mitigated
Declaration according to Exhibit "ND" dated January 29, 1999, and "P
January 13, 1999, and Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting P
attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findinys:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analy
considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts
identified for this project and said comments thereon, and the Mitigation Mo
and Reporting Program, on file in the Planning Department, 1
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project. Based on the EIA Par
comments thereon, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial
the project will have a significant effect on the environment and
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
2. The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Dec
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared in ac(
with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guide1
the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad.
3. The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration ref
independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad.
4. The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures or
alternatives identified in the MEIR 93-01 which are appropriate to this project ha
incorporated into the project.
Conditions:
1. The Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of the Magnolia <
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
...
...
..
...
..
...
~ PC RES0 NO. 4548 -2-
- II 0 0
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
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 19th day of May 199
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners L’Heureux, Sega
and Welshons
NOES: Commissioner Nielsen
ABSENT: Commissioner Compas
ABSTAIN:
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
11 PC RES0 NO. 4548 -3-
4 0 e
- City of Carlsba(
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddressLocation: North of Magnolia Avenue and west of Valley Street
Project Description: A Tentative Tract Map to create 15 lots greater than 7,500 squ
feet in area for single family detached residences and a S
Development Plan for two second dwelling units to sati.
requirements of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance on a 4.93 a(
site.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described projt
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act a
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, t
initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (
revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before tl
proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid tl
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environme
would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Ci
that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore,
Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for th
action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in tf
Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from tk
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 2
days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Don Neu in the Plannir
Department at (760) 438-1 161, extension 4446.
DATED: JANUARY 29,1999
CASE NO: CT 98-12/SDP 98-22
CASE NAME: MAGNOLIA GARDENS
PUBLISH DATE: JANUARY 29,1999
Planning Director
2075 La Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 - (760) 438-1 161 - FAX (760) 438-089~
e 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CT 98-12/SDP 98-1
DATE: January 13. 191
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Magnolia Gardens
2. APPLICANT: Pacific Scene Financial. LLC - Attn: Dennis M. Ferdicr
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2505 Congress Street, Suite 200. S:
Diego. CA 921 10: (6 19) 299-5 1 12
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: August 25.1998
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 15 lot tentative subdivision map proposing single family horn
lots greater than 7,500 square feet in area with two second dwelling units to comply with th
requirements of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance proposed for a 4.93 acre site located nort
of Magnolia Avenue and west of Valley Street. The entire site is proposed to be graded. The si1
is currently covered with agricultural greenhouses used for growing flowers.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this projecl
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 1x1 TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services
Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 Water Hazards
[XI Air Quality 0 Noise
0 Cultural Resources
0 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
a
DETERMTNATION.
e
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on t:
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[XI I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on tl
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because. the mitigatic
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIV
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and i
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but i
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed -in an earlic
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigatic
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An EIR
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 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 Environment:
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.
n Lz /-z2-94
Planner Signature Date
IWAnh,\,nnn, I/ *G/q 5 Plznning Directoa Signade Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL, IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the Ci
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a SigniQa
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the followi
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and hum:
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negati.
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 a
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following eac
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced informatic
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved.
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, f
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
e “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that tl
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopt€
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.
0 Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significan
effect on the environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyze1
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicabl
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigatel
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed up01
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to o
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prio~
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additiona
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
e When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily requirec
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIF
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement 0:
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
-
0 0
e If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, a
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In tl
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporate
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
e An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and includil
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect h
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, a
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce .the impact to less th
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact h
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not redu
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is n
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, ’
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significa
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of tl
form under DISCTJSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attentic
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determim
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
0
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?
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)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
(#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
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) o
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area 0
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 -
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
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? ((#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l: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
((#l:PgS 5.1-1 - 5.1.15)
5.1-15)
5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
g) Subsidence of the 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
0 1 1)
such as flooding? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
5
0
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
0 o 0
0 0 0
0
0
LessThan No
Significant Impac Impact
0 w
0 [XI
O El
DEI
0 IXI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 w
0 lx 0 w w
0 [XI
0 [XI 0 IXI
0 [XI 0 [XI 0 [XI
0 [XI
0 IXI
Rev. 03/28/96
0 e
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? ((#l: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
0
0
0
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- [XI
1 - 5.3-12)
- 5.3-12) 0 b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
d) Create objectionable odors? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
any change in climate? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) 0
0
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
a) Increased vehicle tips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. 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)
[XI
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 No
Significant Impac Impact
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 IXJ
0 w
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 0
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 IXI
0 cl
0 IXJ
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
6 Rev. 03/28/96
a 0
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? (#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
(#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
(#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
- 5.4-24)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
El
o
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0 a
0
0
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
proposal?
(#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 0 0
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13- 0 0
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and 0 0
the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5
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, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IXI
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 o
1 - 5.9-15) 0 0
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) 0 o 0 0 0 a C) Schools? (#l:PgS 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
7
Less Than No
Significant Impal Impact
0 lsI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
a [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
w
0 0 a
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 €3 0 [XI 0 [XI
Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Significant Significant
Impact Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (#l,
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
5.12.8-7) 0 0
0 0
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 - 5.12.8-7)
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:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
5.12.3-7)
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5)
- 5.11-5)
5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
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)
0
0
0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0 Cl D o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
No
Impa
E!
€3
[XI w
5
IXI w IXI €3
0 €3
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 w
0 €a
0 IXI 0 €3
0 €3
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? (#l:Pgs
0 0 0 Kl
0 0 cl €a
5.12.8-7)
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
8 Rev. 03/28/96
0
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’future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
9
0
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impac Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
0 0 0 [XI
w 0 0
cl [XI 0 0
Rev. 03/28/96
- e 0
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis of this proposed single family residential project has been completed through
the General Plan Update (GPA 94-01) and related Master Environmental Impact Report (ME1
93-01) . The MEIR is cited as source #1 in the preceding checklist. This proposal is consiste
with the applicable portions of the General Plan and is considered a project that was describc
in MEIR 93-01 as within its scope. There will be no additional significant impacts due to tf
development that were not analyzed in the MER and no new or additional mitigation measur
or alternatives are required. This project is, therefore, within the scope of the prior MEIR a
no new environmental document nor Public Resources Code 2108 1 findings are required. A
feasible mitigation measures identified in MER 93-01 which are appropriate to this proje
have been incorporated into this project.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Magnolia Gardens project is a proposal to demolish the existing greenhouses on a 4.93 ac:
site and construct a 15 lot single family detached residential project with two second dwellir
units. A public street is included as are numerous panhandle lots necessary because of the 11
configuration and surrounding land development. The project site is located north of Magnoli
Avenue and west of Valley Street withn Local Facilities Management Zone 1. Grading for tk
project includes 10,150 cubic yards of cut, 8,850 cubic yards of fill and the export of 1,300 cubi
yards of dirt. The project site is designated as RLM (Residential Low-Medium Density) on tl
General Plan Land Use Map. The zoning for the site is R-1 (Single Family Residential) whic
has a minimum lot area of 7,500 square feet. The proposed street design provides for tl
extension of a proposed public street to the north of the project site to provide access to thl
adjacent property should it ever be developed in the future with single family residences. Pla~
for a second dwelling unit are included with the project. A second dwelling unit is proposed fc
two lots to satisfy the requirements of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in additional 1
payment of an in-lieu fee to satisfy the requirement for the fractional unit resulting from the 1
percent calculation.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
* 0 0
11. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
B. Environmental Impact Discussion
V. a) Air Quality
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updatc
1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle mil
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactil
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are tl
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since tl-
San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considere
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in tl
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 variel
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisior
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measurc
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demar
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including ma!
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and i
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable ar
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into tl-
design ofthe project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project i
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, th
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by Cit
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for a!
quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subseque1
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, n
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at th
Planning Department.
VI. a) 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. Thess
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbar
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]
12 Rev. 03/28/96
.. 0 0
alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestri:
linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies wht
adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic fi-om a failing Interstate or State Highw:
onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. TI
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either bet
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 tl
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefor!
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 ti
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 circulatic
impacts is required.
IX. d) Hazards
Master Environmental Impact Report 93-01 prepared for the General Plan Update requires th
following mitigation measure for proposed residential development in areas that are presently c
have previously been used for agricultural production. Chemical residue may exist in soil an
affect the health of future residents. The project site has been occupied by greenhouses whic
have been used to grow .flowers. Therefore, the following mitigation measure shall b
implemented to reduce impacts related to hazardous materials to less than significant:
1. Prior to the approval of the Final Map or issuance of a grading permit, whichever OCCLU
first, a detailed soils testing and analysis report shall be prepared by a registered soil
engineer, and submitted to City and County Health Departments for review and approva
This report shall evaluate the potential for soil contamination due to historic us(
handling, or storage of agricultural chemicals restricted by the San Diego Count:
Department of Health Services. The report shall also identify a range of possibl
mitigation measures to remediate any significant public health impacts if hazardou
chemicals are detected at concentrations in the soil which would have a significant1
adverse effect on human health.
13 Rev. 03/28/96
* 0 0
111. EARLIER ANALYSES USED
u
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City (
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 9200
(760) 438-1 161, extension 4471.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Upda.
(MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
14 Rev. 03/28/96
. 0 0
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
1. Prior to the approval of the Final Map or issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs firs
a detailed soils testing and analysis report shall be prepared by a registered soils engine€
and submitted to City and County Health Departments for review and approval. This repc
shall evaluate the potential for soil contamination due to historic use, handling, or storage I
agricultural chemicals restricted by the San Diego County Department of Health Service
The report shall also identify a range of possible mitigation measures to remediate ar
significant public health impacts if hazardous chemicals are detected at concentrations in tl
soil which would have a significantly adverse effect on human health. The developer sha
implement one of the mitigation measures identified in the report prior to the issuance (
building permits should mitigation be necessary so as to reduce the impact below a level (
significance. The Developer shall implement one or more of the mitigation measurt
identified in the report prior to the issuance of building permits should mitigation 1:
necessary so as to reduce the impact below a level of significance.
.
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORTNG PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
15 Rev. 03128196
-I - 0 e
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AN
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
/ /TI lq5 Il-AVP I /-*I ' I I
/AN /' / ) l!P
Date Signature I I
16 Rev. 03/28/96
-, 0
m
$52? mrQ 2; 5 v)
0 04 $ -e 0 % .G z w
LFa,
.G i 3 .-
+ us $ Es .a, t
.-
E$$ 2
uo
03Q 0 S
.- K '$ 20 %E >A?
Y m-E .2 .P a, E
Qo
Q* .& eb
S + &:.e! n
5 C E
l- a .v, ,O
of w g".,
3 2 09, z z 0mz w -I ZFu3 A a +m= LL z om5 5? FS+ b "2 5% n mEa z SE
0 paE a
ka,
(v Q*= (A -
m
P
+ v) $g 28m r
:E :a2 (v
-$
Q)
0
0" L
S " ,$E 000
$ a guh
v) - .- +X K ~~
.- pi
Q rg gL! 5 K r0 E .- 9r -(J a, -=
u)
L E .E
u) S .-
c s"xg
0 pg =E
QajE 6 yr LI5.v)- L XT a, a,k% m -+rs a, .- s os 3oa,-cpaem% 5ooss asp 4 g.E Qa, Q) m+ 6-0 a, mu v) & .o " ([Jo a1 L"c$!ILa,-tjm2_t: 3Sm . 2 L.V) s .bl-o.g ([I € m a, a, m a57ij ChZ22 Q-tiq C LS.-f=-CJ Earns ,.Ek@ F Err- zpss>zmm .- Q+-o Eg
3 .- .= 03 Kc 03.- 3 2.,r 2~2s"- a, 0 E a,.G L
a,
m s .- ?$g&
0-
%% se k.gs$OQs 1 0 g3 $2 - aCU €egg -_=gugsai r
E $2 K c E3 ._m gr g 5 g g$ 5ZG.G mv) m $ s
v)
-Qv)~zs +Oh -5" m E.2 Ok am+ 2-z Q, m,O 2 +€m.~)mmgszo=~ O$.Grn - " ax2 v, & s a gmgg Kj "0 Q)
+.-f=-m&)cz -2 E $z p m 3- E Q) a,= cu 05 2 ~2 Qg
G =,mu E5WO sa, I 9m&jo.5$zmr a, 3% sz+ v) a, E g 0 (IJ+
.- (II -ma0 ._ 5 g.r,x am L gi; &:E a= - 2 Q, * QF$U ~93Z~a)Ol OC?ma(ua)a, g $.Em8 c
ao"s e;z Qmco> m" a,$
P; -X 2 .- ;t: m mu gug am-= 0 L "~"- 'E L E 2 c z ESFS ma, s mana, E g c m g:"., a, m
gam s3g
= a,m2a5s=om.a,E .- w .sEmm 5~2 2.E s (uz+n a,k .II >.gg a,a g
iLi + ccoof 0 U-CJ 0 a, Qa 3 E UT m.G a 0 c vje m3 F 5 >.e- 011 CUI+= a, mc =ij r a a2E.o - -0 m*- o-r a n m.s c a c ma mr E a, m a, m mp &g$pgt; z -I !=KgL 3 Lm 0 3 "7ij - u gE2 mm 2 .g g (Is " .-
I- a 'paw 'C m y1 c a, as 0 a, a,+ 2 t= hNCcQ) m o.grS..r.- sgg 0-0 m3)o a.v,G m con? 8~sm o mc 0 mt", =E.- € y >o =a,=m
a,"ucu a, 3:Zm 0
c
Q .- a, - .- .-
Sam mo
0
-
7 E PsE;;;
a 6 I-ZSm 7
On c cy a 2 m.E=
..
v)
-0
C
m Q) I
0
S 0
m C m P X W
.-
c
.- c
-