HomeMy WebLinkAboutEIA 96-03; Carlsbad Master Drainage Plan Amendment; Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA); 1996-10-17c
5) OWNER
NAME (PRINT OR TYPE)
MAILING ADDRESS
CITY AND STATE ZIP TELEPHONE
I CERTIFY THAT I Ah4 THE LEGAL OWNER AND THAT ALL THE
ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF
MY KNOWLEDGE.
SIGNATURE DATE
A CITY OF CARLSBAD LAND USE REVIEW APPLICATION FOR PAGE 1 OF 2
6) APPLICANT
NAME (PRINT OR TYPE Cry OF WAA~
207s kwm1Qjm MAILING ADDRESS
CITY AND STATE TELEPHONE
L3-eL.SBAb Ffi, 9m7 438-llQ I
I CERTIFY THAT I AM THE LEGAb REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OWNER
AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT
TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.
SIGNATURE DATE
k4(h,ec30 1) APPLICATIONS APPLIED FOR: (CHECK BOXES)
Master Plan
Specific Plan
Precise Development Plan
Tentative Tract Map
Planned Development Permit
Non-Residential Planned Development
Condominium Permit
Special Use Permit
Redevelopment Permit
Obtain from Eng. Dept
Administrative Variance
Administrative Permit - 2nd Dwelling Unit
, - --" (FOR DEPT
USE ONLY)
General Plan Amendment
Local Coastal Plan Amendment
Site Development Plan
Zone Change
Conditional Use Permit
Hillside Development Permit
Environmental Impact Assessment
Variance
Planned Industrial Permit
Coastal Development Permit
Planning Commission Determination
List any other applications not specified
(FOR DEPT
USE ONLY)
I
7) BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
NOTE:
- CITY OF CARLSBAD
LAND USE REVIEW APPLICATION FORM
-
PAGE 2 OF 2
8) LOCATION OF PROJECT : elm -dl 06
STREET ADDRESS
ONTHE 81 SIDEOF 11
(NORTH, SOUTH EAST, WEST) (NAME OF STREET)
BETWEEN ml AND 71
(NAME OF STREET) (NAME OF STREET)
9) LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE WI
10) PROPOSED NUMBER OF LOTS
13) TYPE OF SUBDMSION
(RES/ COMM/ INDUS)
16) PERCENTAGE OF PROPOSED PROJECT IN OPEN SPACE
19) GROSS SITE ACREAGE
22) EXISTING ZONING
- 11)NUMBEROFEXISTING - 12) PROPOSED NUMBER OF 0 RESIDENTIAL UNITS RESIDENTIAL UNITS
El 14) PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL 15) PROPOSED COMMERCIAL
OFFICEISQUARE FOOTAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE
17) PROPOSED INCREASE IN 18) PROPOSED SEWER USAGE AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC IN EQUIVALENT DWELLING FA UNITS 7-i a ZEINGGENERAL 21) PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN [j DESIGNATION
-23) PROPOSED ZONING ,/-.
24) IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING THIS APPLICATION IT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR MEMBERS OF CITY STAFF, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS, OR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO INSPECT AND ENTER THE
PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION. I/WE CONSENT TO ENTRY FOR THIS PURPOSE
SIGNATURE
..........................................................................................................................
FOR CITY USE ONLY
FEE COMPUTATION:
APPLICATION TYPE FEE REQUIRED
DATE STAMP APPLICATION RECEIVED
RECEIVED BY:
TOTAL FEE REQUIRED L
DATE FEE PAID I I RECEIPT NO. I
FRM0016 3/96
LOT D
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: EIA 96-03
DATE: October 17,1996
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: CARLSBAD MASTER DRAINAGE AND STORM WATER QUALITY
MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT
2. APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: Citv of Carlsbad, Planning Department,
2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad CA 92009; (61 9) 438- 1 16 1
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: October 17,1996
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Amendment of the citywide Master Drainage and Storm Water
Oualitv Management Plan to include that portion of the Agua Hedionda Creek that was
previously omitted.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Land Use and Planning 0 TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Water Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
0 Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
r'
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
n
IXI
0
0
0
0
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An EIR is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
/.fztls(o
Planner Signature Date
\s/z?/q (0
Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
“Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
“Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
e 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.
e An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significan Impact
Impact Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l, pg. 7)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project?
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?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l, pg. 7)
0 0 0 IXI o 0 (XI
0 0 (XI
0 0 0 Ix1
0 0 0 IXI
(# 1, Pg. 7)
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l, pg. 7)
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, pg. 7)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (# 1, pg. 7)
0 0 0 IXI o 0 0 El
0 0 0 IXI
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
0 0 0 IXI o 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 IXI
a) Fault rupture? (#l, pg. 6) ~
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#1, pg. 6)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#1 , pg.
6) n d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#1, pg. 6)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l, pg. 6) U n U 0
0 0 0
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#1, pg. 6)
g) Subsidence of the land? (#1, pg. 6)
h) Expansive soils? (#l, pg. 6)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l, pg. 6)
0 0 El 0 0 (XI 0 IXI
0 0 IXI 0 0 IXI 0 0
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
0 0 0 (XI o 0 0 IXI
0 0 0 (XI
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (# 1 , pg. 6)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#1, pg. 6)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (# 1, pg. 6)
5 Rev. 03/28/96
n
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (#1 , pg. 6)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l, pg. 6)
Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (#1, pg. 6)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (#l,
Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l, pg. 6)
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l, pg.
6)
Pg. 6)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (#l, pg. 6)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l, pg. 6)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#1, pg. 6)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l, pg. 6)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#1, pg. 8)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l, pg. 8)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (#l,
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (#l,
0 Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (eg. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (#l,
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l, pg. 8)
(# 19 Pg. 8)
Pg. 8)
Pg. 8)
Pg. 8)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (# 1, pg. 7)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#l,
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak Pi5 7)
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l, pg. 7)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0 0
n
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0 0
0
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
0
0
0
0
0 0
No
Impact
IXI
IXI
Ixl
IXI
[XI IXI
0 1x1
0 IXI 0 IXI
0 IXI
0 0 IXI 0 0 IXI
0 0 IXI
0 0 IXI
0 0 [XI
0 0 [XI
0 0 IXI
0 0 [x1
0 0 IXI
6 Rev. 03/28/96
-. ,P.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant Impact
0
0
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l, pg. 7) Pi?. 7)
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (#l,
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#1, pg. 6)
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, pg. 6)
0 o
0
PI5 6)
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, pg. 7)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (# 1, pg. 8)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#l, pg. 7)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#l, pg. 7)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l, pgs. 7-8)
0
0
0
0
0
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#1, pg. 7)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l, pg. 7)
0 o
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? (# 1, pg. 7)
b) Police protection? (#l, pg. 7)
c) Schools? (#l, pg. 7)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (# 1,
e) Other governmental services? (#l, pg. 7) Pg. 7)
0 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, pg. 6)
b) Communications systems? 0 o
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significan Impact
Mitigation Incorporated
Unless t Impact
0 0 [XI
0 0 [XI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0 [XI
0 IXI
IXI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI 0 [XI
0 [XI 0 IXI 0 [XI 0 [XI
0 [XI
0 0 [XI 0 0 [XI
7 Rev. 03/28/96
r.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#1, pg. 7)
Sewer or septic tanks? (#l, pg. 7)
Storm water drainage? (#I , pg. 7)
Solid waste disposal? (#l, pg. 7)
Local or regional water supplies? (#l, pgs. 6-8)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l, pg. 8)
Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l, pg.
8) Create light or glare? (#l, pg. 7)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#1, pg. 6)
Disturb archaeological resources? (#l, pg. 6)
Affect historical resources? (#1 , pg. 6)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (# 1, pg. 6)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#1, pg. 6)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l, pg. 8)
Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#1 , pg. 8)
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
8
Potentially Significant
Impact
0
0 0 0 0
0 0
0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
o
n
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
Significan
t Impact
0
0 0 0 0
0 0
0
0 0 0 0
0
0
No
Impact
IXI
[XI IXI IXI IXI
IXI IXI
IXI
[XI IXI IXI IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
0 IXI
0 1xI
IXI
Rev. 03/28/96
h
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. In this case a discussion should identifj the
following on attached sheets:
Section 15063(c)(3)(D).
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects fiom the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
9 Rev. 03/28/96
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is an amendment to the Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality
Management Plan to include that portion of the Agua Hedionda Creek that was omitted
previously fiom the plan (see attached Exhibit “A”). This portion of the creek traverses the
Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park. During preparation of the Master Drainage Plan, the
owner of the Park requested that his property be omitted from the plan and that he be exempted
from any associated fees. Recently, the Park was purchased by the Park residents, with the intent
to convert the mobile home park into condominium ownership. To mitigate onsite flooding that
is considered a health and safety issue, the owners of the mobile home park have now offered to
be included in the Master Drainage Plan and to pay the associated drainage area fee.
The storm water attenuation measures required to bring the existing Agua Hedionda Creek (a
natural channel) into conformity with current design standards may include berms, levees, or
other features, such as detention areas. The attenuation measure(s) selected will be used to
contain a 100 year flood. Future development of the upstream area will aggravate the drainage
deficiency unless a facility is built. The proposed measures of this amendment are required to
bring the existing Agua Hedionda Creek into conformity with current design standards and are
similar to those measures of the approved Drainage Master Plan.
Future long range City programs often include facilities which can be deleted or modified based
upon site specific environmental criteria. Therefore, it is appropriate that the future facilities
shown in the drainage Master Plan, as amended, be reviewed for adverse environmental effects
on a project by project basis. As such, the proposed amendment to the Master Drainage and
Storm Water Quality Management Plan will not produce any adverse environmental impacts.
11. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
1. Land Use and Planning
Since the amendment document is a Master Plan containing existing and future major drainage
facilities and the establishment of fee areas to fund major drainage facility costs, the proposal
will not:
(a)
(b) (c) Affect agricultural resources;
(d)
(e)
conflict with the General Plan or zoning;
Be incompatible with existing land uses;
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of a community; or
Conflict with applicable environmental plan or policies.
2. Population and Housing
As the proposal is an amendment to a Master Plan document only, and does not entitle any
physical development the proposal will not:
(a) Impact population projections;
(b)
(c)
Induce substantial growth in an area; or
Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
3. Geologic Problems
The Master Plan, as amended is a policy document which identifies future major drainage
facilities and established fee areas for payment of these facilities. As such, the proposed will not:
(a)
(b)
(c)
Result in changes to topography;
Result in geologic or seismic hazards; or
Impact erosion of a site.
All potential geologic problems of specific drainage facility improvements will be evaluated on a
project-by-project basis.
4. Water
No construction is proposed with this Master Plan amendment, therefore, no changes in
absorption rates, water related hazards, surface water, ground water, or other water resource will
result.
5. Air Quality
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the
San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the
updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
The future facilities of the Master Drainage Plan, as amended, will be reviewed for potential
adverse environmental effects on a case by case basis. As such, the amendment of the Master
Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan will not produce any adverse air quality
environmental impacts.
6. 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.
The hture facilities of the Master Drainage Plan, as amended, will be reviewed for potential
adverse environmental effects on a case by case basis. As such, the amendment of the Master
Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan will not produce any adverse circulation
environmental impacts.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
7. Biological Resources
Since no site specific development is proposed with this Master Plan Amendment, no impacts to
endangered, threatened or rare species, locally designated species or natural communities,
wetland habitat or wildlife dispersal or migration corridors are anticipated. Impacts to biological
resources will be evaluated on a project specific basis.
8. Energy and Mineral Resources
The Master Drainage Plan Amendment plans for future drainage facility needs. Any affect upon
energy and mineral resources will be addressed upon individual project review.
9. Hazards
All projects suggested in the Drainage Master Plan, as amended, will undergo project specific
environmental review to ensure that no hazards will result due to implementation of specific
drainage facilities.
10. Noise
There may be an incremental increase in noise levels due to construction of the facilities
proposed in the Drainage Master Plan, However, those site specific issues will be addressed upon
individual project environmental review.
11. Public Services
The Master Drainage Plan, as amended, was prepared te plan for fbture drainage facilities needs.
Any affect upon public services or public utilities and service systems would likely be positive as
there is an identified need for these major drainage improvements. All potential impacts on
public services, utilities and service systems will be evaluated on a project-by-project basis.
12. Utilities and Services Systems
See #11 , Public Services, above.
13. Aesthetics
The Amended Master Drainage Plan does not condone any construction at this time. As such, no
impacts to scenic vistas or highways or other aesthetics impacts are anticipated. Each Drainage
project of the Master Drainage Plan Will undergo separate environmental review to ensure
significant aesthetic impacts do not occur.
14. Cultural Resources
The potential for the existence of significant archeological, paleontological, or historical
structures or objects on future project sites will be reviewed during project specific
environmental review. The amended Master Plan does not, in and of itself, impact any
significant cultural resources.
12 Rev. 03/28/96
15. Recreation
No significant recreational opportunities will be impacted by the proposed facility plan since the
improvements suggested in the plan will undergo site specific environmental review that will
assess recreational opportunities.
16. Mandatory Findings of Significance
As discussed above, no significant adverse environmental impacts are anticipated with the
Amended Master Drainage Plan including environmental impacts such as the degradation of the
environment, reduction of wildlife habitat or species, reduction of range, or elimination of
important examples of California History or prehistory. Further, the project does not pose
impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, nor will the Amended
Master Drainage Plan have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly.
17. Earlier Analyses
The environmental impacts of the Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan
were analyzed in an earlier Negative Declaration (EIA 92-04), dated April 30, 1992. No
additional adverse environmental impacts have been identified for the Amended Drainage Master
Plan.
111. SOURCE DOCUMENTS: (Note: all source documents are on $le in the Planning
Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009; Phone:
(61 9) 438-1 161)
1. Negative Declaration, dated April 30, 1992 and Environmental Impact Assessment Form
Part 11, EIA 92-04 for the Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan,
dated April 24, 1992.
13 Rev. 03/28/96
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddressLocation: Citywide, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California
Project Description: Amendment of the citywide Master Drainage and Storm Water
Quality Management Plan to include that portion of the Agua
Hedionda Creek that was previously omitted.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within thirty (30) days
of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Teresa Woods in the Planning
Department at (6 19) 43 8- 1 16 1, extension 4447.
DATED: OCTOBER 24,1996
CASE NO: EIA 96-03
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN AMENDMENT
PUBLISH DATE: OCTOBER 24,1996
\
Planning Director
2075 Las Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (619) 438-1161 0 FAX (619) 438-0894 @
CARLSBAD MASTER DRAINAGE AND
STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT
PLAN AMENDMENT
- EIA 96-03