HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-12-14; City Council; Resolution 99-529I w 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
RESOLUTION NO. 99-529
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO GRADE AND SUBDIVIDE
4.93 ACRES INTO 12 LOTS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED NORTH OF MAGNOLIA AVENUE AND WEST OF
VALLEY STREET IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE
1
CASE NAME: MAGNOLIA GARDENS
CASE NO.: CT 98-1 2/SDP 98-22
~
8
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Gloria Aguilera G 9
WHEREAS, Pacific Scene Financial, LLC, “Developer”, has filed a ve
lo “Owner”, described as
11
12
13
That portion of Tract 245 of Thum Lands, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map
thereof No. 1681, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San
Diego County, December 9, 191 5
~
14
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring 15
(“the Property”); and
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, 2o
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testir 19
noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 18
WHEREAS, the City Council did on the 14th day of December 1999, hold a 17
Reporting Program was prepared in conjunction with said project; and 16
21 I/ considering any written comments received, the City Council considered all factors relatir
22
23
24
25
26
27
the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council as folk
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the City Council he
approves the Mitigated Negative Declaration according to Exhibit “ND” dated September
1999, and “PII” dated September 3, 1999, attached hereto and made a part hereof, base
the following findings:
28 I/ Findinqs:
1. The City Council of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
\
1 W
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaratio
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comn
thereon prior to recommending approval of the project; and
b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidc
and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
C. it reflects the independent judgment of the City Council of the City of Carl!
and
d. based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evic
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Conditions:
1. The Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of the Magnolia Gal
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
“NOTICE TO APPLICANT”
“The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governt
Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the C
Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper se
judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court no later than the ninetieth day followir
date on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the del
becomes final a request for the record of proceedings accompanied by the required depc
an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of preparation of such record, the time 1
which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not latter than the thirtieth day follc
the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his attl
of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the procee
shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carl
California 92008.”
. . ..
....
. . ..
....
....
....
. . ..
. . ..
....
....
-2-
I , e a
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 City Cc
of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 14th day of December 1999, by the folk
vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Hall; : Finnila, Kulchin
NOES: None
U' -
A.TiEST:
f
ALMA L. kAdwKRA@, City Clerk
KAREN R. KUNDTZ, Assistant City Clerk
(SEAL)
-3-
W e
- City of Carlsbad
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddressLocation: North of Magnolia Avenue and west of Valley Street
Project Description: A Tentative Tract Map to create 12 lots greater than 7,500 square
feet in area for single family detached residences and a Site
Development Plan for two second dwelling units to satisfy
requirements of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance on a 4.93 acre
site. The entire site would be graded and 1,500 cubic yards of soil
exported from the property. A public street is proposed 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 (EM 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 OCCUT, 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 file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Mitigated 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 20
days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Don Neu in the Planning
Department at (760) 438-1 161, extension 4446.
DATED: September 13, 1999
CASE NO: CT 98-12/SDP 98-22
CASE NAME: Magnolia Gardens
PUBLISH DATE: September 13,1999
Planning Director
r I I n, TI.\ . .. 20y5‘Es Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 - (760) 438-1 161-
w 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CT 98-12/SDP 98-22
DATE: SeDtember 3. 1999
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Mamolia Gardens
2. APPLICANT: Pacific Scene Financial. LLC - Attn: Dennis M. FerdiP
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2505 Conmess Street. Suite 200. San
Diego, CA 921 10: (619) 299-5112
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: August 25,1998
.5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 12 lot tentative subdivision map proposing single family home
lots greater than 7,500 square feet in area with two second dwelling units to comply with the
requirements of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance proposed for a 4.93 acre site located north
of Magnolia Avenue and west of Valley Street. The entire site is proposed to be graded and
1,500 cubic yards of soil exported from the property. A public street is proposed that would
provide a connection between Magnolia Avenue and Valley Street. The site is currently covered
with agricultural greenhouses used for growing flowers.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this 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 H TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services
Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems ,
c] Geological Problems n Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics
t
[7 Water
Ix] Air. Quality
H Hazards Cultural Resources
Noise u Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96 <
w
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
e
- u I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
p3 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.
- u 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 (MER 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.
L7L 9-7-79
Planner Signature Date
? -
L q17h7 DirectoN Sigidture Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
w m
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 (EX), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
e A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an infomation 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.
0 “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.
e “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.
e “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
e Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but &l 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).
0 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.
0 A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
m m
a 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 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
w
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?
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
(#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 -
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
5.5-6)
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
111. GEOLOGIC PRQBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
b) Seismic ground shaking? ((#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
((#l:PgS 5.1-1 - 5.1.15)
5.1-15)
5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
g) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
. 5.1-15)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff! (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
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)
11)
5
w
Potentially
Significant Impact
0
0
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
0
0
0 0
0 0
0
0 0 0 0
0
'U 0 0
0 El
0
0 0
0
Less Than No
Significant Impact Impact
ON
OH
.o N
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH OH UH
ON
OH UIXI
ON ON ON
OH
OH
OH
Rev. 03/28/96
w
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 0
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
body? ((#l:,PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) El
((#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 0
11)
otherwise available for public water supplies? ((#l:Pgs 0
5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
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- IXI
1 - 5.3-12)
- 5.3-12) 0 b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
d) Create objectionable odors? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
any change in climate? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) 0
VI. TRANSPORTATIONICIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
f) Conflicts kith adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -
5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
5.7.22)
IXI
0
0
0
cl
cl
0
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
in impacts to:
.(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, 0
animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
(#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) 0
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) 0
6
w
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation Incoruorated 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
cl
17
0
0
0
0
0
17
Less Than No
Significant Impact Impact
UIXI om
OM
0' [XI
DM
OH
0 c1
0- El
0 E3
OEl
0 c1
0 E3
0 E3
0 ' El
OH
0 E3
0 E3
0 E3
cl E3
17 E3
Rev. 03128196
w w
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Impact
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration comdors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1
(#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
- 5.4-24)
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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral '
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5
(#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
1 - 5.13-9)
& 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
5.10.1-5)
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9-
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9- 15)
1 - 5.9-15)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered govemment
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? (#l,
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
5.12.8-7)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17 17 0
0
XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
"proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 0 0 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
-7
Less Than No
Significant ' Impact
Impact
0 E3
Eg
E3
Eg
0 Eg
0 E3
I3 E3
0 Eg
0 [I
I3 Eg
0 E4
0 E3
0
0
Ea Ea Eg E3 n Ea
Ea
Rev. 03/28/96
w w
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation Incorporated
b) Communications systems? (#l; pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
e) Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
f, Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
17 0 0 El
0. CIN 0 0 0K.l 0 olz
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) 0 0 0 El
5.12.3-7) 0, 0 0 El
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs 5.1 1-1
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
- 5.11-5) 0 0 0 El
5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5) 0 0 0 153
0 El
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
10) 0 0 cl E3
1 0) 0 0 0 E3
0 0 0 El
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs 0 olz
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) o cl 0 El 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 - 0 0 olz
5.12.8-7)
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7) 17 0 0 Kl b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#1 :Pgs
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the 0 0 OH
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?
8 Rev. 03/28/96
w
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?
9
w
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation Incomorated Ix1 0 0 c1
17 €4 17 c1
Rev. 03/28/96
m 0
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis of ths proposed single family residential project has been completed through
the General Plan Update (GPA 94-01) and related Master Environmental Impact Report (MIEIR
93-01) . The MEIR is cited as source #1 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 MER and no new or additional mitigation measures
or alternatives are required. This project is, therefore, within the scope of the prior MEIR and
no new environmental document nor Public Resources Code 21081 findings are required. All
feasible mitigation measures identified in MER 93-01 which are appropriate to this project
have been incorporated into this project.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
w w
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Magnolia Gardens project is a proposal to demolish the existing greenhouses on a 4.93 acre
site and construct a 12 lot single family detached residential project with two second dwelling
units. A public street is proposed that will make a connection between Magnolia Avenue and
Valley Street. One of the existing parcels comprising the project site contains panhandle access
to Highland Drive. The project includes retaining this existing panhandle access to provide
access to one lot. The project site is located north of Magnolia Avenue and west of Valley Street
within Local Facilities Management Zone 1. Grading for the project includes 13,500 cubic pds
of cut, 12,000 cubic yards of fill and the export of 1,500 cubic yards of dirt. The project sit:e is
designated as RLM (Residential Low-Medium Density) on the General Plan Land Use Map. 'The
zoning for the site is R-1 (Single Family Residential) which has a minimum lot area of 7,500
square feet. The proposed street design provides for access to adjacent property to the north and
south of the project site should it ever be further developed in the future with single farnily
residences. Plans for a second dwelling unit are included with the project. A second dwelling
unit is proposed for two lots to satisfy the requirements of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in
additional to payment of an in-lieu fee to satis@ the requirement for the fiactional unit resulting
from the 15 percent calculation.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
w W
11. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
B. Environmental Impact Discussion
V. a) 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.
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) provisilons
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 m.ass
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
“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 EJR 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) TransportatiodCirculation
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. 03/28/96
W W
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 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 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
Ovemding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General’ Plan’s
Master EIR, including ths project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation
impacts is required.
The City has received its annual Growth Management Traffic Monitoring Report. The Report
has recorded an unanticipated intersection “level of service” (LOS) failure at Palomar Airport
Road (PAR) and El Camino Real (ECR) during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. This
potentially creates a changed circumstance negating reliance on previous environmental
documentation. Pursuant to $15162 of the CEQA Guidelines a lead agency must prepare a
“Subsequent” environmental documentation if substantial evidence (i.e., the recorded
intersection failure) determines that a changed circumstance exists. However, case law has
interpreted this section of the CEQA Guidelines to not require the preparation of a “Subsequent
EIR” if mitigation measures are adopted which reduce the identified impacts to a level of
insignificance.
A mitigation measure has been identified which, if implemented, will bring the peak hours LOS
into the acceptable range. The mitigation measure involves construction of two dual right turn
lanes-northbound to eastbound and westbound to northbound. This project has been
conditioned to pay its fair share of the intersection “short-term improvements,” thereby
guaranteeing mitigation to a level of insignificance.
..
1. The Developer shall pay their fair share for the “short-term improvements” to the El
Camino ReaV Palomar Airport Road intersection prior to approval of the final map or the
issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first. The amount shall be determined by
the methodology ultimately selected by Council, including but not limited to, an increase .
. in the city-wide traffic impact fee; an increased or new Zone 1 LFMP fee;
the creation of a fee or assessment district; or incorporation into a Mello-Roos taxing
district.
IX. d) Hazards
Master Environmental Impact Report 93-01 prepared for the General Plan Update requires the
following mitigation measure for proposed residential development 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 which
have been used to grow flowers. Therefore, the following mitigation measure shall be
implemented to reduce impacts related to hazardous materials‘ to less than significant:
1. Prior to the approval of the Final Map or issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs
first, a detailed soils testing and analysis report shall be prepared by a registered soils
13 Rev. 03/28/96
w w
engineer, and submitted to the Carlsbad Planning Department and County Health
Department for review and approval. This report shall evaluate the potential for soil
contamination due to historic use, handling, or storage of agricultural chemicals restricted
by the San Diego County Department of Health Services. The report shall also identify a
range of possible mitigation measures to remediate any significant public health impacts
if hazardous chemicals are detected at concentrations in the soil which would have a
significantly adverse effect on human health. The Developer shall implement one or
more of the mitigation measures identified in the report prior to the issuance of building
permits should mitigation be necessary so as to reduce the impact below a level of
significance.
14 Rev. 03/28/96
w
111. EARLIER ANALYSES USED
w
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92009,
(760) 438-1161, extension 4471.
1. Final Master Environmental ImDact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MER 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
15 Rev. 03/28/96
w W
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES
1. The Developer shall pay their fair share for the “short-term improvements” to the El
Camino Real/ Palomar Airport Road intersection prior to approval of the final map or the
issuance of a grading permit, whchever occurs first. The amount shall be determined by
the methodology ultimately selected by Council, including but not limited to, an increase
in the city-wide traffic impact fee; an increased or new Zone 1 LFMP fee;
the creation of a fee or assessment &strict; or incorporation into ‘a Mello-Roos taxing
district.
2. Prior to the approval of the Final Map or issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs
first, a detailed soils testing and analysis report shall be prepared by $a registered soils
engineer, and submitted to City and County Health Departments for review and approval.
This report shall evaluate the potential for soil contamination due to historic use,
handling, or storage of agricultural chemicals restricted by the San Diego County
Department of Health Services. The report shall also identifj a range of possible
mitigation measures to remediate any significant public health impacts if hazardous
chemicals are detected at concentrations in the soil which would have a significantly
adverse effect on human health. The Developer shall implement one or more of the
mitigation measures identified in the report prior to the issuance of building permits
should mitigation be necessary so as to reduce the impact below a level of significance.
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
16 Rev. 03/28/96
- W
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
pL 4q fir Uk’ Date -. Signature c
17 Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL MI~ATION MONITORING CHECKLI~PAGE I OF 2 .
7
(v
03 Q)
9
n n 2
7 I
(v
03
Q) t- o
irj fY W m E 3 z
W 1 LL
v) c a F G .- - rn
0 c 0 2
iLi I a Z
I- o Y 0 cr: n
.. 0'
a
cj
W
w Z 5 0 t
Z n
0 0
t- w
8 3 0 fY n a Q
$2%2-
.e- € aca
.e VJ a, €$Z
.g .o Q
& .r -
b2a,
.- .L-r $ f!! $ €5
" K '3 20
moE .E .g a, 5.- E LE2 e 5 '5
::2 2bm
asg
v)z E s O^rn
5 a, .e c Kc) 0 .F a, 0 ms
+ mE
.- a 7 WE, Z€ m 0 u- b O$2 Ea 6 8€ .E $ a, aGp z 2 .- 3-zzA v).Pmq 5.GSZ :5 sz
€9St
*=moa, 0 €5
m 00 .- ms -s$ $z + Ka,
- coo0 ,m Qv) $2 8
pg5
uo
uo
3Q
Kmv)
+
Q.= v)
-0-
Q+ .G Q+ L
+x c 000
'E u x
zz v)
On5 + a,b t-
am
CU-UCU
=a, a.2
KI0
I= C a,E .sEma,
a, g E.2 - m-5 t Il .- K K.9 x 3 a,z& G-CJ.PO - .a, c a3
$ :.E=
2a,v)m
2% E;
I-os5
5 rn
E
tY ,a
S 0 I .- "
;E li: .= 0): s E 0s
'5 .G p
g+ g
n 2
a, o,o m2 g~.gn~- . 5 .s C*>.2Z LE b%+S 2IILL-c p&L8 g5--l.zs -o-%,, u73 2- c gz5 p C m mw.2 sF a," p Q) .s
v) €2&g€g a, $4 2 a,z2e 0 2- $?+E28 35 .- CON a, v) Q3,o .k ,o .G r 0 25- - g 2.. UOLUC =E;? tn --v)m QO Q) 3.g & O= lU hEOm$.GQa,o,H a,@ 8 gQ)E €5 E &v) ap g = Q) o=rS!n m ma a
U uJ v, &a a, e-% 5 ".E C 5 k.E 55 LE m m m.= - 0 E'coamv) ...as $ ES Q%L-.% t g E+- > pgzuzs g
i""cr m mmY&.E&:
E.
.k c v)
v)o
0
Et: .- s 2 &.eg p$z F 2 5 a,bb,o 0 t .- .-
Q) C K.= 0 0s
a, m7f a, +a,L
=A UomQ g:, 0 €g g.-c ET a, QF E*=
7
I' I]
-0-
+ a,; t a,'
- E!
.- E"; ,
5: 2- I
2 .I
51
g.! Ev 1 :SI
In>
e,.'
v)i
z m, m- 1 .mu 1 c c ; E:{
zg! Eg j
C2 1 .- 2=;
II .- ; C!
f gi
El 1 Eq E.9!
OS7
E;
>: z e,
- 2 3 0 r m p. m
0) t
.-
.- - 5 .- c ?
L e
e a,
v) S 0 P u)
-
??
>; 0 C a, $2
E: 2 &
.= 8 - m-
--=E!
6.E e, I m go '
0 -. I
0 'p 0) 3 f=mol
PCII f
% g 0:
.L
- ut-H [:.:I g e, I1 'E i
% ENVIRONMENTAL M~ATION MONITORING CHECKLI~ PAGE 2 OF 2
@
v) 5 2 2
IUI I I II
K 0 .- zsi c
c Ea bE >u
E -
S h 3m
cn zii
aE .- sa p
.- sg -iE 6 gs rg
t
a
i; , , 1 ~ 1 s+ g 2
-
2 3 u) m Q) B
S 0
m a
.- c, .- .- I
.cI
5 zc L-S.E= L. hS Q) Q)k% 'Ur'iSrs Q) 0 a,- 0 on- mz
Qo 2.G a, (uo m1.0'- L !=$I L a,suzz 8 2% g 2 L.v, s -*u.o, a E (u$
Q) m Q),x?i r,L 02 bm3
x$$gs="~,~ .E$xmO €2 2 =*x= != LS.Z-0
3 221 2 s s3 a, 0 E Q).G L L.0 (u m u 3z 5- Q- a0 6 L # 22 gs EX ms
a, 3z gu S,-mCu,n .- (u v) 3 Q) 2z 0 S-=.E (u (u -E E ex $1 r(J 3, E a,= os +Em.EcGQ) 0 &.G m SB~O= Q) - .- gCJz3 v, g.)
g.Eil, x Q) (IJ- 53r.o 3" Q) Q)= 3 a, m-
(u mu PUS a, Z-s.,UL v) (u
,o gu a, 3 E .- s ci-z.ZJg2 c >.E- OD
.L - rn-hp.~o (u"k
LEG m an 2 8aza 0 mT o m+5 :E.E
2 na, ('c v, G~ 2 25 v) Tz a, Qo - 0x5
.ErsooQc .. a,Q)
a, 0
Q)sm 0
gx gc 0 gz 5 c-6- am K
.-
- f2z 223 .E * Am+ $5 2;- 2.z
a, m2 g.2 v)- g (u 0mQ)F Q)L g $= CD gs." a, 5E;sa 2 €23G*ZF Q)E "-JG 0 a,D 5
& (ua mt: E Q) m a, m mp :.SEpg5
9 03 (uo-g$zzE * C 0 mu- .- mo
Q!! v)U L 2s.g o 2.g "'pmf;p
QDaEaS Lz a58 8% ='E5 22 z 2 g $
a, Qa CD% g 0 - D (u Q)a-!=cz
.- 0 3 --x m
L v, 21 K $g!= 6 a, 2 QXN C c a, z-gg
Q)L+ K (0 o.EC a,"2f
I
~
,
rl )I cu
-0-
d a
8 a
- E
.- e
K a
0 a
v) m .!= e! 3 v) m a,
Ed gg .= m mu .mu
Em
a2
.e K
Ku
rm
II .- 3 :z
.- " E! s3 q
$2 E8 g .co 05 a E z >
- ;ii 3 $
a m 01 c .- = K
8
E!
P
n
L
- a
v) K 0 P v) e! s: 0 C a m .- $2 - 50 3g Ea iizg
c dm E.G g 2 &a I 5 II
0; %g$ .- 6 .$E
CI 0 n .E - UF2 lo g a, II .E 8