HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 97-13; Carlsbad Oaks North; Tentative Map (CT) (14)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: SP-2I1/CT97-13/HDP97-10/SUP97-07/GPA97-05/ZCA97-05
DATE: June 9. 1998
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CASE NAME: Carlsbad Oaks North
APPLICANT: Techbuilt Construction Corporation
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 3557 Kenyon Street San Diego. CA.
92110. (619)233-1663
DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: July 10. 1997
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Specific Plan. General Plan Amendment Zone Change. Tentative
Map. Hillside Development Permit and Special Use Permit to develop a 414 acre planned
industrial park to the north of Palomar Airport Road at the future intersection of Faraday Avenue
and El Fuerte Street. The project will consist of 23 industrial lots ranging in size from 3.9 acres
to 22.9 acres, 200.7 acres of open space, the extension of Faraday Avenue from its eastern
terminus within the City of Vista to Orion Way near the Carlsbad Safety Center and the off-site
construction of a gravity sewer line (south Agua Hedionda trunkline).
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
Population and Housing
Geological Problems
Water
Air Quality
£<] Transportation/Circulation | | Public Services
[X] Biological Resources £<] Utilities & Service Systems
| | Energy & Mineral Resources [xl Aesthetics
[Xl Hazards ^ Cultural Resources
^ Noise | | Recreation
[X] Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
| | I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
| | I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
|^| I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
| | I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An EIR/Neg Dec
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
| | I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR/Neg Dec, pursuant
to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
EIR/Neg Dec, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
Planner Sigrfafurtr Date
Planning Director's Signature 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.'1 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).
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)?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
D
D
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
D
D
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local I—I
population projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly i—i
or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable [—I
housing?
D
D
D
D
D
D
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (#1: pgs. 9-11)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#1: pgs. 9-11)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(#l:pg. 11)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#1: pgs. 12-13)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
g) Subsidence of the land?
h) Expansive soils? (#1; pg 14)
i) Unique geologic or physical features?
n
n
nn
n
nnEI
n
nnn
nnn
nn
nnn
n
n
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?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)?
D
n n n
n
5 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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
n
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
D
D
D
D
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#2:Pgs
5.3-1-5.3-12)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#2:Pgs
5.3-1-5.3-12)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? ((#2:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-
12)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#2:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-
12)
D
D
D
D
D
D D
D IEI
D IEI
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#2:
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)? ((#2: Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7-
22))
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses? (#2: Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7-22)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#2: Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7-22)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
((#2: Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7-22)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (#2: Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7-22)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#2: Pgs
5.7-1 - 5.7-22)
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D D
D
D
D
D
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES,
result in impacts to:
Would the proposal
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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?
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?
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless 'Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
KI n n n
a a a EE a a a
IEI a a
aa
a
aa
a a
a
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?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards?
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees?
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
a
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
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) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services?
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
Dn
n
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
D
D
D
D D
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?
nnnn
n
n
nnn
Dn
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
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 belov 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
D
D
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?
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
D
D D D
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
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING
a.)This project will convert 1.9 acres of General Plan Open Space to Planned Industrial and 67.5
acres of Planned Industrially designated property to Open Space. The application includes a
General Plan Amendment for this purpose. The property is currently zoned Planned Community
(primarily a residential zone) and is proposed to be rezoned to PM (Planned Industrial) to enable
the development of the project and ensure compatibility with the PI General Plan designation.
b) The project will need to be designed to be consistent with the City's Habitat Management
Plan.
c) This industrial project is located immediately adjacent to existing single residences to the east
in the City of Vista and the Dawson Los Monos Canyon Reserve to the north. Implementation of
this planned industrial project could result in significant nuisance impacts (traffic, manufacturing
and warehouse operations related noise, light and glare, aesthetic and air emissions) to the single
family residences and direct or indirect biological impacts to the Dawson Los Monos Canyon
Reserve.
d) There are no agricultural resources (soils) or operations on or adjacent to the project site.
e) The property is designated for Planned Industrial development and is surrounded by
industrial uses to the south and industrially designated property to the west. The
development of the property with industrial uses including the extension of Faraday Avenue
from Melrose Avenue through to El Camino Real will however disrupt the existing single
family residential neighborhood to the east of the property.
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING
a) The development of 198.6 acres of Planned Industrial uses upon the subject property is well
below the Planned Industrial development projected (276.7 acres) in the Zone 16 Local
Facilities Management Plan. Additionally, this non-residential project will not vary from or
effect population projections.
c) The subject property has an industrial designation and there are no dwelling units on the
property which will be displaced.
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS
c) and e) Alluvial soils underlie most of the main canyon bottom and the numerous hillside
drainages on the site. These alluvial soils have a potential for liquefaction and should therefore
be excavated and recompacted. The north facing hillsides within the southern portion of the site
may be underlain by ancient landslides. The construction of extensive slope buttress fills will be
required in cut slopes and beneath fill slopes in this area. (Woodward-Clyde, June 1990)
10 Rev. 03/28/96
IV. WATER
a) and b) Implementation of this project will increase the potential for the flooding of Agua
Hedionda Creek at the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park. This potential flooding impact can
however be adequately mitigated through the construction of a floodwater detention basin along
Agua Hedionda Creek (Howard Chang, April 1997).
c) Implementation of this project could result in significant water quality impacts associated
with the runoff of urban pollutants and erosion of soils into a tributary drainage of Agua
Hedionda Creek, which runs east to west through the center of the property.
V. 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) 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.
VI. CIRCULATION:
a) Implementation of this project could result in significant traffic impacts at a number of
intersections (El Fuerte, Businesspark Ave., and El Camino Real) along Palomar Airport Road.
Mitigation of Level of Service (LOS) traffic impacts will require the construction of Faraday
Avenue westward to El Camino Real and eastward to the City of Vista.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
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 1)
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 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
Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation
impacts is required.
e) This project will be conditioned to dedicate a trail easement for Trail Segment #26. If the City
does not accept dedication, the trail shall be constructed by the developer.
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a) - complementation of this project will result in significant biological impacts to: 38.9 acres of
Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS), 162.5 acres of Southern Mixed Chaparral (SMC), 1.9 acres of Coast
Live Oak Woodland, .5 acre of Valley Needlegrass Grassland, .5 acre of Southern Willow Scrub,
.7 acre of Cismontane Alkali Marsh (CAM), California adolphia (38 individuals), Summer-holly,
San Diego golden-stars, and Ashy spike-moss. The subject property also functions as important
sub-regional wildlife corridor along Agua Hedionda Creek and it's tributary which flows east to
west through the site. Implementation of this project could have an adverse, significant impact
on this habitat linkage (Dudek and Associates, December 1997).
The off-site construction of Faraday Avenue to El Camino Real will result in significant impacts
to: 2.7 acres CSS, 1.6 acres SMC, 2.8 acres of Scrub Oak Chaparral (Nuttall's scrub oak), 1.1
acres of Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest, .01 acre CAM, .04 acre Disturbed Wetland,
California adolphia, summer-holly and southwestern spiny rush (Dudek and Associates,
November 1997).
12 Rev. 03/28/96
Biological impacts associated with the off-site construction of the South Agua Hedionda Sewer
pipeline and indirect biological impacts to the Los Monos Canyon Reserve should also be
evaluated.
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
a) - c) This project does not conflict with any adopted energy conservation plans nor use non-
renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. The property does not contain any
known mineral resources that would be of future value to the region or residents of the US.
IX. HAZARDS
a and c) This project could result in significant hazard impacts to the adjacent residential use to
the east associated with the accidental release of hazardous chemicals from industrial uses that
are proposed on adjacent lots 1,15 and 16.
e) The subject property is surrounded by flammable vegetation (native habitat). Development of
this project shall require the implementation of a fire suppression landscape plan to mitigate
potential wildfire impacts.
X. NOISE
a) The proposed location of manufacturing or warehouse uses upon lots 1, 15 and 16 that are
adjacent to the existing single family residences to the east could result in significant noise
nuisance impacts to the residences. Traffic noise impacts will occur to the residences to the east
of the project site associated with the additional traffic generated upon Faraday Avenue which
will be extended eastward to Melrose Avenue and westward to El Camino Real.
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) - e) No significant public service impacts are anticipated.
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
d) Implementation of this project shall require the construction of major sewer infrastructure
including the off-site South Agua Hedionda Sewer trunkline.
XIII. AESTHETICS
b) Mass grading of this undulating hillside property to create large non-residential pads and tall
manufactured slopes (up to 60 feet in height) will result in significant topographic and visual
impacts.
c) This project will create light and glare impacts to the adjacent residents to the east and the
existing wildlife within the Dawson Los Monos Canyon Reserve to the north.
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES
13 Rev. 03/28/96
a) - b) A previous cultural resource survey of the subject property (R. Carrico, 1973) identified
several significant archaeological sites which require further analysis and mitigation.
XV. RECREATIONAL
a) - b) This project shall be required to dedicate an easement for and construct City Trail
Segment No. 26. Otherwise, no impact to recreational opportunities is anticipated.
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
b) This project will result in cumulatively significant regional air quality and traffic impacts in
association with the build out of the City of Carlsbad and other surrounding jurisdictions.
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE^)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE^)
14 Rev. 03/28/96
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
15 Rev. 03/28/96