HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 97-23x1; Magnolia Subdivision; Tentative Map (CT) (3)City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location:
Project Description:
Northwest corner of the intersection of Magnolia Avenue and
Adams Street.
2-year extension of a Tract Map and an SDP for Phase II of a 2-
phase 9-lot single-family subdivision.
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, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of date
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Elaine Blackburn in the Planning Department
at (760) 602-4621.
DATED:
CASE NO:
CASE NAME:
APRIL 9, 2001
CT 97-23xl/SDP 97-26x1
MAGNOLIA SUBDIVISION
PUBLISH DATE: APRIL 9, 2001
MICHAELLHOLZ
Planning Director
LER
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CT 97-23xl/SDP 97-26x1
DATE: April 2. 2001
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Magnolia Subdivision
2. APPLICANT: Michael O'Gara
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: P O Box 1633. Carlsbad. CA 92018.
(760) 434-7563
4.
5.
DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: December 19. 1997
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 2-vear extension of a Tract Map and an SDP for Phase II of a 2-
phase 9-lot single-family subdivision
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.
| Land Use and Planning |/\ Transportation/Circulation
Population and Housing
I | Geological Problems
I | Water
X] Air Quality
Hazards
Noise
Public Services
Biological Resources
Energy & Mineral Resources | | Aesthetics
| Utilities & Service Systems
Cultural Resources
Recreation
J Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
IX] 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 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 93-01),
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
fe^ff, M*mwt*i. V' H'ff/t^*"-" _ . *• / *^" '^i-^' fc^ " *^ '~ _ *er Signature Date
Planning DirectorVSignatore Date
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 II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but all 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. 03/28/96
• 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. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#l:Pgs 5.6-1-5.6-18)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 -5.6-18)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
Potentially Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant Significant
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
D
D
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
b) Induce substantial growth hi an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 -
5.5-6)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (# 1 :Pgs 5.1 -1 - 5.1 -15)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1-5.1.15)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (# 1 :Pgs 5.1 -1 - 5.1 -15)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 -5.1-15)
g) Subsidence of the land? (# 1 :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)
Dnn n x
x
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-
H)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
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
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1-5..2-11)
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?
(#l:Pgs 5.2-1-5..2-11)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
11)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
5.2-1-5..2-11)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
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-
1-5.3-12)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1
-5.3-12)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#1 :Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
D
D
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
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?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7.22)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7.22)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1-5.7.22)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1-5.7.22)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -
5.7.22)
D
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 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1-5.4-24)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
D El
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1-5.4-24)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#1 :Pgs 5.4-1
- 5.4-24)
Pot
Sig
It
entially
nificant
npact
Pot
Sig
L
Mi
Inco
entially
nificant
Jnless
igation
rporated
Le.
Sig
Ii
>s Than
nificant
npact
No
Impact
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
1-5.13-9)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5
& 5.13-1-5.13-9)
D
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 -
5.10.1-5)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
D
D
n EI
n IEI
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9-
15)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-
1 -5.9-15)
n IEI
XL 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)
c) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ()
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
5.12.8-7)
D
n
n X
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-1-5.13-9)D D El
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b) Communications systems? ()
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
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 -
5.12.3-7)
Pot
Sig
Ir
entially Potentially Less Than No
nificant Significant Significant Impa<
npact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
D H n
~
XIX
F\XXX
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
5.11-1-5.11-5)
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
5.11-1-5.11-5)
c) Create light or glare? (# 1 :Pgs 5.11 -1 - 5.11 -5)
D n
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
b)
e)
10)
Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
10)
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
5.8-1-5.8-10)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
n
D
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 -
5.12.8-7)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs
5.12.8-1 -5.12.8-7)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
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?
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Rev. 03/28/96
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
i
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The proposed project is a request for a 2-year time extension for Phase II of a tract map (CT 97-
23) and a Site Development Plan (SDP 97-26). The map subdivided a 2.1-acre parcel of land
into 9 single-family residential lots. The project was originally approved in 1998. (No
development of the lots was being proposed at that time. The subdivider anticipated selling the
lots to individuals for future development.) The Site Development Plan was required for the
provision of an affordable housing unit on the site (a second dwelling unit on one of the lots).
The lot sizes range from 7650 square feet to 15,220 square feet. The site is a generally flat in-fill
site surrounded by residential developments. Since the project was originally approved, the
developer has begun construction on the site within Phase I. However, no development has yet
occurred in Phase II. There have been no changes to the property conditions or other
circumstances since the original project was approved, and no potentially significant impacts
have been identified which were not identified previously. Therefore, no new mitigation
measures are required.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
A. Non-Relevant Items
1. . Land Use and Planning
The proposed subdivision will not conflict with the General Plan or zoning or any other
applicable environmental plans or policies for the subject property. The site is designated for
RLM (Residential - Low to Medium Density) uses and is zoned R-l-7,500 (single-family
residential). The original project approval subdivided the parcel into single-family residential
lots consistent with the zoning designation. The project is also consistent with the General Plan.
There are no environmental plans which apply to the subject property. The development of the
site will not disrupt any established community. The site is surrounded by existing older single-
family residential development. The project will not affect agricultural resources or operations.
It is an in-fill site not recently used for agricultural purposes.
2. Population and Housing
The development of this in-fill site with single-family residential housing was anticipated by the
City's General Plan. Therefore, it will not result in exceeding anticipated population projections
nor will it induce substantial growth. It will not displace existing housing.
3. Geologic Problems
The subject site is a rather flat in-fill site. It is not located in a flood hazard area. The site
contains no unique geologic or physical features. Therefore, when developed in accordance with
the applicable City regulations, the project will not result in exposure to potential geologic
problems including seiche, tsunami, volcanic hazard, erosion, or fault rupture).
11 Rev. 03/28/96
4. Water
There are no water bodies on or near the subject site, and the City is not located in a groundwater
basin. Therefore, the project will not affect surface water or currents and will not affect
groundwater quality or quantity. The site is not within a flood hazard area and will not result in
exposure to water related hazards. Eventual development of the site with residential uses will be
required to comply with all applicable City regulations regarding drainage and runoff (including
compliance with any applicable NPDES regulations/requirements).
7. Biological Resources
The site will not result in impacts to biological resources. It is an in-fill site containing no
identified sensitive resources. It contains no designated natural communities or wetland habitat
and does not serve as a migration corridor.
8. Energy and Mineral Resources
The site contains no identified natural resources and will not conflict with any energy
conservation plans. There are no known mineral resources on the site.
9. Hazards
Eventual development of the site with single-family residences is not likely to result in the risk of
accidental explosion or release of hazardous, substances or other potential health hazard. There
will be no interference with emergency response or evacuation plans as the site will be developed
in accordance with all applicable City regulations, including placement of the structures on the
site and public improvement requirements (streets, drainage facilities, etc.). Therefore, the
proposed development of the site will not result in creation of any hazards.
10. Noise
The future development of the site with single-family residences is not anticipated to result in
increasing noise levels or exposure of people to severe noise levels. When construction is
proposed, there will be temporary increases in noise as building occurs. However, these
activities will be regulated by the City's construction activity regulations and will be temporary
in nature and not severe.
11. Public Services
The eventual development of the subject site will not result in a need for new or altered
government services beyond what was already anticipated by the City's General Plan. The
project will be conditioned to comply with all applicable requirements of the Local Facilities
Management Plan for Zone 1 to ensure that all necessary facilities are provided prior to or
concurrent with development.
12. Utilities and Services Systems
The eventual development of the subject site will not result in a need for new systems or supplies
or substantial alterations. The site is an in-fill site readily serviced by existing systems. The
project will be conditioned to comply with all applicable requirements of the Local Facilities
Management Plan for Zone 1 to ensure that all necessary facilities/systems are provided prior to
12 Rev. 03/28/96
or concurrent with development.
13. Aesthetics
The proposed development will not result in any potentially significant aesthetic impacts. Future
development of single-family residences on the site will be required to comply with all
applicable City regulations for such development, including yard setbacks, height limitations,
and separation between structures. Lighting for such structures would be minimal. The site is an
in-fill site not adjacent to nor containing any scenic highway or vista.
14. Cultural Resources
No cultural resources (paleontological, archaeological, or historical) have been identified on the
project site. The site also does not serve as a site for religious or sacred uses. Therefore, there
will be no impact to cultural resources.
15. Recreational
The project will not affect existing recreational opportunities as it does not currently serve as a
recreation site. The single-family homes to be developed in the future will provide yards for
recreational uses and will be conditioned to comply with the requirements of the Local Facilities
Management Plan for Zone 1 for park and recreation facilities.
B. Environmental Impact Discussion
5. Air Quality
In 1994 the City prepared and certified an EIR which analyzed the impacts which will result
from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concludes that
continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have
cumulative significant impacts in the form of 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 build-out
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 build-out, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked
13 Rev. 03/28/96
"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 projects covered
by the General Plan's Final Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MEIR This
document is available at the Planning Department.
6. Transportation/Circulation
In 1994 the City prepared and certified a Master EIR which analyzed the impacts which would
result from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concluded
that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will result in
increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate build-out
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 build-out.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan build-out,
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 adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or
State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to
control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either
been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at build-out of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of
Overriding Considerations" applies to all projects covered by the General Plan's Master EIR.
This project is within the scope of that MEIR. This document is available at the Planning
Department.
A MEIR may not be used to review projects if it was certified more than five years prior to the
filing of an application for a later project. The City is currently reviewing the 1994 MEIR to
determine whether it is still adequate to review subsequent projects. Although the MEIR was
certified more than five years ago, the City's preliminary review of its adequacy finds that no
substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MEIR was
certified. The only potential changed circumstance, the intersection failure at Palomar Airport
Road and El Camino Real, is in the process of being mitigated to below a level of significance.
Additionally, there is no new available information, which was not known and could not have
been known at the time the MEIR was certified. Therefore, the MEIR remains adequate to
review later projects.
14 Rev. 03/28/96
III. EARLIER ANALYSES 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)602-4621.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
2. Negative Declaration for Magnolia Subdivision (CT 97-23/SDP 97-26), dated April 6,
1998, and Environmental Impact Assessment Part II, dated March 30, 1998, City of
Carlsbad Planning Department.
15 Rev. 03/28/96
SITE
MAGNOLIA SUBDIVISION
CT 97-23x1/SDP 97-26x1
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT)
CASE NO:
DATE RECEIVED: 12,
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Magnolia Subdivision
(To be completed by staff)
2. APPLICANT: Michael D. O'Gara
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: p-°- Box 1633
Carlsbad, CA 92018 (760) 434-7563
4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: a nine lot single family subdivision at the north-
west corner of Magnolia Avenue and Adams Street in LFMZ 1.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
Please check any of the environmental factors listed below that would be potentially affected by this
project. This would be any environmental factor that has at least one impact checked "Potentially
Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" in the checklist
on the following pages.
| | Land Use and Planning
[~~| Population and Housing
| | Geological Problems
| | Water
| | Air Quality
RECEIVED
DEC 1 9 1997
| | Transportation/Circulation | [ Public Services
| | Biological Resources | [ Utilities & Service Systems
| | Energy & Mineral Resources | | Aesthetics
| | Hazards | [ Cultural Resources
Noise Recreation
,_,| ] Mandatory Findings of Significance
U- \044-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): ( )
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)? ( )
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? ( )
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ( )
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? ( )
b) Seismic ground shaking? ( )
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
e) Landslides or mudflows? ( )
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
g) Subsidence of the land? ( )
h) Expansive soils? ( )
i) Unique geologic or physical features?
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? ( )
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? ( )
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
D
D
D
n
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
No
Impact
H
B
H
H
B
Ci
a
Q
LI
[H
H
3
Q
B
Q
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? ( )
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body?( )
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? ( )
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? ( )
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
( )
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( )
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
Potentially Less Than
Significant Significan
Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
D D
q
n
n
nn
n
n
n
nn
No
Impact
[xj
fxl
an
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? ( )
d) Create objectionable odors? ( )
n n n
n
n
n
n
n
"D
n
n
n
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
( )
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? ( )
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?
n
n
n
n
n
n
D
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
LXJ
x
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
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? ( )
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
( )
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ( )
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
( )
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
Potentially Less Than
Significant Significan
Unless t-Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
No
Impact
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
( )
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? ( )
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? ( )
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
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)? ( )
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? ( )
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? ( )
Exposure of people to existing sources of potentiald)
e)
health hazards? ( )
Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? ( )
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D m
D H
D H
D H
D H
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?D
D
D D
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? ( )
b) Police protection? ( )
c) Schools? ( )
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services? ( )
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? ( )
b) Communications systems? ( )
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? ( )
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( )
e) Storm water drainage? ( )
f) Solid waste disposal? ( )
g) Local or regional water supplies? ( )
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway?
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect?
c) Create light or glare? ( )
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( )
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( )
c) Affect historical resources? ( )
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? ( )
XV.RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
DnnD
n
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
n
n
nnnn
n
n
nnnn
n
n
Less Than No
Significan Impact
t Impact
n
D
D
Dnn
n
n
n
n
n
n
[xj
[xH
_xj
~xl
a
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than No
Significan Impact
t Impact
D
D D D E
D D E
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
Rev. 03/28/96