Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 99-52; I-5 Water Pipe Undercrossing; Coastal Development Permit (CDP) (7)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CDP 99-52 DATE: November 1, 1999 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: 1-5 Water Pipeline Undercrossing 2. 3. 4. 5. APPLICANT: Carlsbad Municipal Water District ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5950 El Camino Real. Carlsbad. CA DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: September 17. 1999 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of a underground water pipeline. (A more detailed description is provided in the Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Section) 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 J Population and Housing | I Transportation/Circulation | | Public Services Biological Resources | | Utilities & Service Systems Geological Problems Water | Air Quality Energy & Mineral Resources | | Aesthetics Cultural Resources Recreation Hazards /\ Noise I | Mandatory Findings of Significance Rev. 03/28/96 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) | I I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. n n 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 Environmental Impact Report/Mitigated Negative Declaration 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 Environmental Impact Report pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Environmental Impact Report, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. Planar Signature Date 11 Planning Directo 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 #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 Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact D IEI EI EI II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local I I population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or I I 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 I I housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) '—' El El 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? (#l: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? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) h) Expansive soils? (# 1 :Pgs 5.1 -1 - 5.1 -15) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) a n •a n EI El El n n El El 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- 11) 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 n 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 Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporatedn n 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? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) n 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) n n n n 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) 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) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D 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 ElEI 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)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? (#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:Pgs 5.12.1-1-5.12.8-7) e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) D ElEl X El 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) 7 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). b) Communications systems? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) 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? (#1 :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) 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 lighter glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 -5.11-5) Pot Sig Ir entially Potentially Less Than nificant Significant Significant npact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated D I 11 H No Impac KX XX KK D D D Kl X XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8- b) 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) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) 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) D D 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? D D 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 No Significant Impact 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. 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 involves a request by the CMWD for a CDP to allow the installation of an potable water pipeline. The pipeline would complete a important link in the water delivery system and connect two existing water pipeline stubs. The pipeline will span a distance of approximately 780 feet and be entirely underground. The two existing stubs are located on either side of the 1-5 Freeway, approximately 400 feet north of the Batiquitos Lagoon shoreline. The stub on the west side of the Freeway is located in "Area C" of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan area. Area C is currently undeveloped but is being prepared for a 85 unit residential development previously approved under CT 98-06. Surrounding uses are either vacant with pending residential, or developed residential. The nearest developed homesites are approximately 180 feet from the connection/construction site. The stub on the east side of the Freeway is in a developed area of the Aviara community. Specifically, the connection would occur in an graded and landscaped, open space lot which is situated in between the Lagoon and the single family neighborhood known as Azure Cove. The connection/construction site is in very close proximity to homesites and would be immediately adjacent to the home located at 880 Piovana Court. This site is the primary construction staging area for the project. Installation of the underground water pipeline is proposed to be conducted via a directional drilling method, which eliminates the need for open trenching. Use of this method will enable the installation to occur under the Freeway with no disruption to traffic flow. The method is also considered to be, in some respects, environmentally friendly since it involves little disruption to topography and surface vegetation. For logistical purposes the drilling activity, the primary construction staging area, will occur on the east side of the Freeway. Construction staging will necessitate the temporary removal of a relatively immature street tree and other introduced landscape materials. The tree will be re-planted, and other shrub and ground cover materials will be replaced, after the project has been completed. A subgrade utility vault, with a surface area of 48 square feet, is also proposed and will be installed adjacent to the pipeline connection in the open space area. Pipeline and vault installations would occur in existing easements when outside of the Freeway right of way. Installation under the Freeway (in the right of way), will require an encroachment permit from Caltrans. 11 Rev. 03/28/96 II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS B. Environmental Impact Discussion Land Use and Planning a) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. b) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. c) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. d) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. e) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. Population and Housing a) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. b) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. c) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. Geologic Problems a) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. b) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. c) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. d) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. e) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. f) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. g) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion, h) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion, i) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. Water a) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. b) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. c) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. d) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. e) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. f) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. g) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion, h) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion, i) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. Air Quality a) 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 12 Rev. 03/28/96 emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or 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 "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. b) No Impact c) No Impact d) No Impact Transportation/Circulation a) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.. b) No Impact, see referenced sources for discussion. c) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. d) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. e) No Impact, see referenced sources for discussion f) No Impact, see referenced sources for discussion Biological a) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion b) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. c) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. d) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. e) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. Energy and Mineral Resources a) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. b) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. c) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. 13 Rev. 03/28/96 Hazards a) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. b) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. c) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. d) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. e) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. Noise a) As indicated in the project description section, the primary construction staging area is on the east side of the Freeway and in close proximity to residential uses. The CMWD has indicated that given the topography of the project site and the technological requirements of the directional drilling construction technique, staging is necessary on the east side of the Freeway. Construction will occur over a six week period. Residential uses are expected to be temporarily impacted by noise associated with construction activity. The CMWD is proposing to mitigate the temporary noise impacts by limiting construction hours and installing a "noise blanket". Hours of construction activity would be consistent with to those prescribed in the City Municipal Code. Construction activity would be limited to between the hour of 7 AM and dusk, Monday through Friday. No construction activity would be permitted on Saturday or Sunday. Additionally the CMWD is proposing the installation of a noise blanket to minimize the impacts to the immediately adjacent homesite. The "blanket" is actually a specially designed noise attenuation wall temporarily installed between the noise source and the homes. The wall is 16 feet tall and 80 feet long. According to data provided by the CMWD, the anticipated noise level, with the proposed mitigation, can be brought down to 60 dB (decibels). Staff believes that although the noise would be considered annoying by most people, a 60 dB level is not considered severe. (To assist in illustrating dB, consider the following scenario based on standards from the Noise Element of the City General Plan. An individual standing adjacent to the 1-5 Freeway, at the same grade of the road and with no noise attenuating devices such as landscaping, freestanding masonry block walls, or the exterior wall of a residence, the experienced noise level would be 75 dB). b) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. Public Services a) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. b) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. c) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. d) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. e) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. Utilities and Service Systems a) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. b) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. c) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. d) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. e) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. f) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. 14 Rev. 03/28/96 g) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. Aesthetics a) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. b) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. c) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. Cultural Resources a) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. b) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. c) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. d) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. e) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. Recreation a) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. b) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. 15 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 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92009, (760)438-1161, extension 4515. 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. 16 Rev. 03/28/96 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES OF APPLICABLE) 1. Hours of construction shall be limited to between the hours of 7 AM and dusk Monday through Friday. No construction activity is permitted on Saturday and Sunday. 2. A noise attenuation wall shall be installed and maintained between the construction staging area on the east side of the Freeway and the developed residential home during construction. ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM OF APPLICABLE) 17 Rev. 03/28/96 t ' ' < 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. Date Signature 18 Rev. 03/28/96 1 PROJECT NAME: 1-5 Freeway Water Pipeline Undercrossinq FILE NUMBERS: CUP 99-52 APPROVAL DATE: December 15. 1999 CONDITIONAL NEG. DEC.: The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). mz joOz ^m Mitigation Measure Hours of construction shall be limited to between the hours of 7 AM and dusk Monday through Friday. No construction activity is permitted on Saturday and Sunday. A noise attenuation wall shall be installed and maintained between the construction staging area on the east side of the Freeway and the developed residential home during construction. Monitoring Type On going. On going Monitoring Department Carlsbad Municipal Water District Carlsbad Municipal Water District Shown on Plans No Yes Verified Implementatio n Remarks 32zo On:mo (D O Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information. RD - Appendix P.