HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-10-18; Planning Commission; Resolution 48408
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4840
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO CREATE 6
LOTS WITH GRADING, STREET IMPROVEMENTS AND
UTILITIES ON A 1.83 ACRE SITE LOCATED NORTH OF
MAGNOLIA AVENUE AND WEST OF VALLEY STREET IN
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: MAGNOLIA GARDENS II
CASE NO.: CT 00-05
WHEREAS, SILVERGATE FINANCIAL, INC, “Developer,” has filed a
verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by SAM CAITO,
“Owner,” described as
That portion of Tract 240-5 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 Monitoring
Program was prepared in conjunction with said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 18th day of October 2000,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby APPROVES the Mitigated Negative Declaration according
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
to Exhibit “ND” dated July 24, 2000, “PII” dated July 11, 2000, and the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto and made a
part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A.
B.
C.
D.
It has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the environmental impacts
therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to
APPROVING the project; and
The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines
and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
Based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PC RESO NO. 4840 -2.
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 Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of October 2000, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Baker, L’Heureux, Nielsen,
Segall, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Heineman
ABSTAIN:
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
\M I./~~
MICHAEL J. HOtiIL R
Planning Director
PC RBSO NO. 4840 -3-
city of Carlsbad
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: North of Magnolia Street and west of Valley Street
Project Description: A tentative subdivision map proposing 6 lots greater than 11,000
square feet in area for single family homes with grading, street
improvements and utilities for a 1.83 acre site. The entire site is
proposed to be graded with 2,960 cubic yards of soil imported
from the adjacent property approved for the Magnolia Gardens I
project. The project includes completion of improvements for part
of a proposed public street approved for the Magnolia Gardens I
project that would provide a connection between Magnolia Avenue
and Valley Street.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the
initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1)
revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the
proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment
would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City
that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this
action is on tile in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on tile in the
Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30
days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Don Neu in the Planning
Department at (760) 602-4612.
DATED: JULY 24,200O
CASE NO: CT 00-05
CASE NAME: MAGNOLIA GARDENS II
PUBLISH DATE: JULY 24.2000
MICHAEL J. HO&MItiER
Planning Director
I635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 - (760) 602-4600 l FAX (760) 602-8559
-
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CT 00-05
DATE: Julv 11.2000
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
CASE NAME: Mamolia Gardens II
APPLICANT: Silveraate Financial. Inc - Attn: Dennis M. Ferdie
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2505 Conaress Street. Suite 200. San
Dieeo, CA92110; (619) 299-5112
4.
5.
DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: Mav 18.2000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A tentative subdivision man monosine. 6 lots ereater than 11,000
souare feet in area for sinale familv homes with aradina. street improvements and utilities for a
1.83 acre site located north of Magnolia Avenue and west of Valley Street. The entire site is
pronosed to be graded with 2.960 cubic vards of soil imported from the adjacent uronertv
anproved for the Magnolia Gardens I proiect. The proiect includes completion of imurovements
for a prouosed oublic street auproved for the Magnolia Gardens I project that would urovide a
connection between Maanolia Avenue and Valley Street. The site is currently covered with
aaricultural zreenhouses and sheds.
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.
q Land Use and Planning El Transportation/Circulation Cl Public Services
q Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources q Utilities & Service Systems
q Geological Problems q Energy & Mineral Resources q Aesthetics
q Water IXI Hazards q Cultural Resources
[x1 Air Quality 0 Noise q Recreation
q Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03128196
DETERMINATION. -
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
q
Ed
cl
q
q
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 Master Environmental
Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-Ol),
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
Planner Signature
7-/c/- so
Date
7/lTlOO
Date
Rev. 03128196
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPXCTS -
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 paredtheses 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 II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but fi potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
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.
Rev. 03128/96
. 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.
. An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
=)
b)
e)
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #i(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Affect agriculhlral resources OI operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, 01 impacts from incompatible
landuses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income 01
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
Induce substantial growth in an area either directly OI
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
01 extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l -
5.5-6)
Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-I - 5.5-6)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
4
b)
C)
4
e)
0
9)
h)
0
expose people to potential impacts involving:
Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15)
Seismic ground shaking? ((#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
((#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1.15)
Seiche, tsunami, 01 volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-I -
5.1-15)
Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, OI till? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Subsidence ofthe land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-I - 5.1-15)
Unique geologic 01 physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-I -
5.1-15)
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-l 5..2-
11) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
c) Discharge into surface waters 01 other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen 01 turbidity)? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
q
q
q
q
q
cl
0
q
B q
q
El
q
B
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
B
q
B
q q q
q
q
q
q
q
cl
q
q
q
q
q
B cl
cl
El
q
8’
q
q
q
5 Rev. 03128196
Potentially Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant UIlkSS Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
impact
NO
Issues (and Supporting Infonna?ion Sources).
d)
e)
f-l
9)
h)
0
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, 01 through
interception of an aquifer by cuts OI excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.,2-l 1)
Altered direction 01 rate of flow of groundwater?
((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Impacts to groundwater quality? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-
11) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
5.2-l - 5.2-11)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
4
b)
Cl
4
Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
1 - 5.3-12)
Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l
_ 5.3-12)
Alter air movement, moisture, 01 temperahue, or cause
any change in climate? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-l 5.3-12)
Create objectionable odors? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
4
b)
C)
4
e)
f-l
EG)
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
5.7-I - 5.7.22)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
InsuffXent parking capacity on-site 01 off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l
5.7.22)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l :Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
q
q
q
q
Cl
q
IXI
cl
q
q
El
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
cl q [XI
q q [XI
q Cl IXI
6 Rev. 03128/96
Potentially
Significant
1”lpCt
-Potentially Significant
U”kSS Mitigation Incorporated q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
0
q
q
q
q
q
0.
q
Less Than Significanl
Impact
q
q
0
q
q
cl
q
q
q
q
cl
q
cl
q
q
q
q
: No Impact
Issues (and Supporting Infoma?ion Sources).
4
e)
VIII.
a)
b)
Cl
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-t - 5.4-24)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l
- 5.4-24)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pes 5.12.1-t - 5.12.1-5 &5.13-l -5.13-g)
irse ;on-renewable remurces in a w&id and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
1 - 5.13-9)
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
remurce 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
& 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a)
4
Cl
4
e)
A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited t”: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
Possible interference with a” emergency response plan
“I emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1
5.10.1-5)
The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards?(#l:Pgs 5.10.1-t - 5.10.1-5)
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
healthhazards?(#l:Pgs5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5;#2)
Increase fne hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-I - 5.10.1-5)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-l - 5.9-
15) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-
1 - 5.9-15)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, “r result in a need for new or altered governnxnt
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-l - 5.12.5-6)
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-t - 5.12.6-4)
c) Schools?(#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (#l,
pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.8-7)
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
5.12.8-7)
XILUTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems “I supplies,
or substantial alterations t” the following utilities:
a) ‘Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-t - 5.12.1-5 81
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
7
Potentially -Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact U”1.S Impact Mitigation
Incorporated q q q [xI
q Cl q EI
q
q
Cl
q
q
q
q
q
q
0
q
El cl
q
q
q q Es4
q q El
q q E4
q q [51
cl q Ix1
q cl IXI
IXI q q
q q [x1
q q [XI
q q Lx3
q q IXI
Rev. 03128196
b)
4
d)
e)
0
&?I
XIII.
=I
b)
C)
XIV.
=I
4
Cl
d)
e)
Issues (and Supporting Inform%ion Sources).
Communications systems? (#l; pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-l - 5.12.3-7)
Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-t 5.12.3-7)
Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-I - 5.12.4-3)
Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.12.3-7)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs 5.11-t
-5.11-5)
Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
5.11-t 5.11-5)
Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.1 l-l - 5.1 l-5)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5%
10) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8.
10) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs
5.8-l - 5.8-10)
Restict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10)
XV.R!ZCREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
=)
b)
XVI.
=I
Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-l
5.12.8-7)
Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Potentially YOW”“UlY Signiticanl
Impact
q q
B
B
q
q
q
q
q
B
q
q
q
q
significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated
El
q
El 0
Cl
q
q
q
q
q q
q
q
q
0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
q q
El
B
q
q
q
q
q
B
q
q
q
q
NO
Impact
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Inform&m Sources). Potentially -Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact UIllW Impact
Mitigation Incorporated b)
C)
Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? El cl 00
(“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 proiects, and the effects of
probable future projects)? - -
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, cl [XI Cl0
either directly or indirectly?
Rev. 03/28/96
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 (MEIR
93-01). The MEIR is cited as source #I in the preceding checklist. This proposal is consistent
with the applicable portions of the General Plan and is considered a project that was described in
MEIR 93-01 as within its scope. There will be no additional significant impacts due to this
development that were not analyzed in the MEIR. This project is, therefore, within the scope of
the prior MEIR and no new environmental document nor Public Resources Code 2 108 1 findings
are required. All feasible mitigation measures identified in MEIR 93-01 which are appropriate to
this project have been incorporated into this project.
10 Rev. 03128196
-
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONlENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Magnolia Gardens II project is a proposal to demolish the existing greenhouses and sheds
on a 1.83 acre site and create 6 lots greater than 11,000 square feet in area for single family
homes. The project includes grading of the entire site which consists of 540 cubic yards of cut,
3,500 cubic yards of till and 2,960 cubic yards of import from the adjacent site of the approved
Magnolia Gardens I (CT 98-12) project. Completion of improvements for a public street
approved as part of the Magnolia Gardens I project that will make a connection between
Magnolia Avenue and Valley Street are included in the proposal, The project site is located
north of Magnolia Avenue and west of Valley Street within Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
The project site is designated as RLM (Residential Low-Medium Density) on the General Plan
Land Use Map. The zoning for the site is R-l (Single Family Residential) having a minimum lot
area of 7,500 square feet.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
B. Environmental Impact Discussion
V. a) Air Quaiity
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 concunent 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 been incorporated into the design
of the project.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air
quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
VI. a) Transportation/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 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
12 Rev. 03128196
adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failingInterstate 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 ElR 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 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.
IX. d) Hazards
Master Environmental Impact Report 93-01 prepared for the General Plan Update requires that a
soils testing report be prepared by a registered engineer and submitted to the County Health
Department for review and approval where residential development is proposed in areas that are
presently or have previously been used for agricultural production. Chemical residue may exist
in soil and affect the health of future residents. The project site has been occupied by
greenhouses. The required soils testing has been completed and a report submitted to the County
Department of Environmental Health Land and Water Quality Division. The report and the
mitigation measure proposed by the testing firm Geosoils Inc. has been accepted by County
Environmental Health. Therefore, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented to
reduce impacts related to hazardous materials to less than significant:
1. Remedial earthwork is proposed for the Toxaphene contaminated soil. The contaminated
soil shall be placed under the proposed roadway and not within 10 feet of finish pad
grades. The soil shall be buried at least five feet to mitigate the potential for human
contact. Geosoils, Inc. or another Registered Environmental Assessor is required to
submit a certification letter to the County Department of Environmental Health Services
verifying that the contaminated soil was placed under the proposed roadway according to
the criteria listed in the March 15, 1999 limited site assessment report. A copy of the
required certification letter shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the
issuance of the first building permit for a dwelling unit.
13 Rev. 03128196
III. EARLIER ANAL-SES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008,
(760) 602-4600.
1. Final Master Environmental lmnact Reuort for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-Ol), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
2. Limited Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Amicultural Chemical Residue
Survev. Magnolia Gardens Development, dated March 15, 1999, Geosoils, Inc. and the
April 4,200O Addendum.
14 Rev. 03/28/96
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES
1. Remedial earthwork is proposed for the Toxaphene contaminated soil. The contaminated
soil shall be placed under the proposed roadway and not within 10 feet of finish pad
grades. The soil shall be buried at least five feet to mitigate the potential for human
contact. Geosoils, Inc. or another Registered Environmental Assessor is required to
submit a certification letter to the County Department of Environmental Health Services
verifying that the contaminated soil was placed under the proposed roadway according to
the criteria listed in the March 15, 1999 limited site assessment report. A copy of the
required certification letter shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the
issuance of the first building permit for a dwelling unit. . .
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
15 Rev. 03128196
AF’PLICANT CONCURdENCE WITH MITIGATION MEA.%@-
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 ’ / I
16 Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL Ml1 -ATtON MONITORING CHECKLIS --age 1 of 1