The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1999-05-05; Planning Commission; Resolution 4531I *. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 I1 0 0 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4531 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO SUBDIVIDE PROPERTY INTO 32 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF BLACK RAIL ROAD AND NORTH OF AVIARA PARKWAY IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 20. CASE NAME: CARNATION PROPERTY CASE NO. : ZC 98-1 ILCPA 98-08/CT 98-18/CDP 98- 85/HDP 98-20 WHEREAS, Spectrum Communities, L.L.C., “Developer”, has filed i application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Carnation Pr 12 “Owner”, described as 13 I 14 15 The southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of section 22, township 12 south, range 4 west, San Bernardino Base and meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. 16 I/ (“the Property”); and 17 11 WHEREAS, a CEQA document was prepared in conjunction with said pr l8 11 and 19 20 21 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 5th day of May, 199! duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 22 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all tc 23 24 and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by s considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered a1 25 /I relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 26 II I/ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the 1 27 28 Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. e (I e 0 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 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission hereby APPROVES the Mitigated Negative Declara Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, according to Exhi dated March 12,1999, and “PII” dated March 8,1999, attached hereto a part hereof, based on the following findings: FindinEs: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed and c( the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts therein identifie’ project and said comments thereon, and the Mitigation Monitoring and 1 Program, on file in the Panning Department, prior to APPROVING the projec on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, the Planning Commission finds that tl substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the envirom hereby APPROVES the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitc Reporting Program. 2. The Planning does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration and h Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared in accordance with reqt of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Envir Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad. 3. The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration ref independent judgement of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad. Conditions: 1. The project is subject to the mitigation measures listed in the Environmenta Assessment Part I1 for the Carnation Property project dated March 8,1999, developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of the project M Monitoring and Reporting Program. ... ... ... ... ... ... ~ ... PC RES0 NO. 4531 -2- " 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 e 0 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of May 1999 following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners Compas, L'Heure Nielsen, Segall, Trigas, and Welshons NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 4531 -3- .- e 0 - City of Carlsbac MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project AddresdLocation: West of Black Rail Court south of Poinsettia Lane. Project Description: Subdivision of 32 single family residential lots on 10 acres. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described proje pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act ar the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, Mitigated Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact ( the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file the Planning Department. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in tl Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from tl public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 2 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Christer Westman in tl Planning Department at (760) 438-1 161, extension 4448. DATED: MARCH 12,1999 CASE NO: CT 98-18/CDP 98-85/HDP 98-20ILCPA 98-08/ZC 98-1 1 CASE NAME: CARNATION PROPERTY PUBLISH DATE: MARCH 12,1999 2075 La Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 (760) 438-1 161 FAX (760) 438-08s e e .- ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CT 98-18/CDP 98-85/HDP 98-20LCPA 98-08iZC 98- DATE: February 23.19’ BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Carnation Property 2. APPLICANT: SDectrum Communities L.L.C. 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 15375 Barnacle Parkway. Suite B-2 Irvine. California 926 1 8 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: December 11.1998 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Subdivision of 32 single family residential lots on 10 acres SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this projec involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impa Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 0 Land Use and Planning [XI TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services 0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems 0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics 0 Water W Hazards Cultural Resources Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 03/28/96 ._ 0 0 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on t environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [x] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on t environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigati, measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATE NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earli document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigatil measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An EIR required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on tl environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potential significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier E11 including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed projec Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. //"b\fp&< *, f kb;&,& $&dq 2 du be d I [Lf-pj PEmer Signature " Date 3-"- y7 Date I I 2 Rev. 03128196 .- 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the C; conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significz effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the followi pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and hum factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negati 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 a adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following eac question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced informatic sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that t: potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopt1 general standards and policies. 0 “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporatic of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and tl. City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce tl. effect to a less than significant level. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that 2 effect is significant. Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significar effect on the environment, but fl potentially significant effects (a) have been analyze adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative .Declaration pursuant to applicabl standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigate Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed up0 the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to c supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the pric environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no addition; environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily require to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier E11 pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement c Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence thi the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. 3 Rev. 03/28/96 .- 0 0 0 If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing I EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, a] those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In tf case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporate may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. e An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and includi: but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect h not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, a1 the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less th; significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact h not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not redul the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is n possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significa effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end oft form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attentic should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determint significant. 4 Rev. 03128196 _- e 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impac Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): (EIR 90-03) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (EIR 90-03) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (EIR 90-03) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (EIR 90-03) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (EIR 90-03) 0 0 0 [x] 0 0 0 [x] 0 0 om 0 0 0 [x] 0 0 0 [XI 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (EIR 90-03) 0 o w b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an 0 0 0 IXI undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (EIR 90-03) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (EIR 90-03) 0 0 0 El 111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (EIR 90-03, Preliminary geotechnical report prepared by GeoSoils, Inc dated December 1998) b) Seismic ground shaking? (EIR 90-03, Preliminary geotechnical report prepared by GeoSoils, Inc dated December 1998) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (EIR 90-03, Preliminary geotechnical report prepared by GeoSoils, Inc dated December 1998) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (EIR 90-03) e) Landslides or mudflows? (EIR 90-03, Preliminary geotechnical report prepared by GeoSoils, Inc dated December 1998) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (EIR 90-03, Preliminary geotechnical report prepared by GeoSoils, Inc dated December 1998) g) Subsidence of the land? (EIR 90-03, Preliminary geotechnical report prepared by GeoSoils, Inc dated December 1998) h) Expansive soils? (EIR 90-03, Preliminary geotechnical report prepared by GeoSoils, Inc dated December 1998) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El m [x] [XI [x] [x] [x] IXI 5 Rev. 03/28/96 .- e 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact i) Unique geologic or physical features? (EIR 90-03, Preliminary geotechnical report prepared by GeoSoils, Inc dated December 1998) IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff! (EIR 90-03, hydrology study prepared by Hunsaker and Associates dated December 1998) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (EIR 90-03, hydrology study prepared by Hunsaker and Associates dated December 1998) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (EIR 90-03, hydrology study prepared by Hunsaker and Associates dated December 1998) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (EIR 90-03, hydrology study prepared by Hunsaker and Associates dated December 1998) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (EIR 90-03, hydrology study prepared by Hunsaker and Associates dated December 1998) 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? (EIR 90-03, hydrology study prepared by Hunsaker and Associates dated December 1998) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (EIR 90-03, hydrology study prepared by Hunsaker and Associates dated December 1998) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (EIR 90-03, hydrology study prepared by Hunsaker and Associates dated December 1998) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (EIR 90-03, hydrology study prepared by Hunsaker and Associates dated December 1998) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (EIR b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (EIR 90- 90-03, MEIR 93-01 ) 03, MEIR 93-01) 0 0 0 0 0 0 I7 0 0 0 IXI 0 Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 cl 0 0 0 cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Impal IXI [XI w IXI w w El [x1 IXI IXI 0 [XI 6 Rev. 03/28/96 .- 0 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (EIR 90-03, MEIR d) Create objectionable odors? (EIR 90-03, MEIR 93- 0 0 93-01) 01) VI. TRANSPORTATIONiCIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (EIR b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (EIR 90-03, MEIR 93- c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (EIR 90-03, MEIR 93-01) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (EIR 90- 03, MEIR 93-01) 90-03, MEIR 93-01) 01) uses? (EIR 90-03, MEIR 93-01) (EIR 90-03, MEIR 93-01) (EIR 90-03, MEIR 93-01) 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? (EIR 90-03, Dudek and Associates dated December 1999) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (EIR 90-03, Dudek and Associates dated December 1999) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (EIR 90-03, Dudek and Associates dated December 1999) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (EIR 90-03, Dudek and Associates dated December 1999) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (EIR 90- 03, Dudek and Associates dated December 1999) Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 Ixl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VIII. ENERGY AND MTNERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and (EIR 90-03) 0 0 0 inefficient manner? (EIR 90-03) 0 cl 0 No Impal [x] [XI 0 [XI El rn [XI w [XI IXI [x] IXI [XI El w Ixl 7 Rev. 03/28/96 .- 0 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impac Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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? (EIR 90- 0 0 o w 03) 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)? (EIR b) Possible interference with an emergency response c) The creation of any health hazard or potential d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, 90-03) plan or emergency evacuation plan? (EIR 90-03) health hazards? (EIR 90-03) health hazards? (EIR 90-03) grass, or trees? (EIR 90-03) 0 0 0 0 0 0 w 0 0 la 0 [XI 0 [XI cl 0 0 w X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (EIR 90-03) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (EIR 0 0 0 [XI 90-03) cl 0 O w 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? (EIR 90-03) b) Police protection? (EIR 90-03) 0 w 0 0 [XI c) Schools? (EIR 90-03) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 0 0 0 [XI ~ ~~ (EIR 90-03) 0 0 0 IXI e) Other governmental services? (EIR 90-03) 0 cl o w 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? (EIR 90-03) b) Communications systems? (EIR 90-03) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution d) Sewer or septic tanks? (EIR 90-03) e) Storm water drainage? (EIR 90-03) f) Solid waste disposal? (EIR 90-03) g) Local or regional water supplies? (EIR 90-03) facilities? (EIR 90-03) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o w O w 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 [XI 8 Rev. 03/28/96 a& 0 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (EIR b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? (EIR 90-03) 90-03) 0 (EIR 90-03) 0 0 XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (EIR 90-03) b) Disturb archaeological resources? (EIR 90-03) c) Affect historical resources? (EIR 90-03) 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 (EIR 90-03) potential impact area? (EIR 90-03) Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impac Mitigation Incorporated Unless Impact [XI 0 0 [XI 0 O w 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 w CI [XI 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 w XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (EIR parks or other recreational facilities? (EIR 90-03) 0 0 [XI 90-03) 0 0 0 El XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 0 0 0 [XI 0 w 0 0 0 0 0 1xI XVII. EAIUIER ANALYSES. The Certified EIR 90-03 for Zone 20 was used as a reference in the analysis of this project. t copy can be found on file with the Carlsbad Planning Department. 9 Rev. 03128196 .- 0 0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AIR OUALITY: The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updatc 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle mil traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reacti. organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are tl major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since tl San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considere cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in tl 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 varie; of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisiol for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measurc to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demar Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including ma: transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and : participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable an appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into th design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project j located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marke “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, th preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by Cit Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for a quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequer projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, n further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at th Planning Department. CIRCULATION: The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the update 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequat to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severe1 impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. Thes generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsba Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersection 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, numerou 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 tc develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulatio~ strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate o 10 Rev. 03128196 * e e Sate Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have eith been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approva Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of tl failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefol the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because tl recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, include a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement ( Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulatic impacts is required. HAZARDS: There are potential environmental issues regarding the property. These issues include tl potential for restricted agricultural chemical residues to be encountered within the near-surfac soils onsite from the use of the property for floriculture. It is likely that significantly hii residue concentrations would not be detected onsite unless agricultural chemicals were store onsite or were accidentally spilled, improperly applied, or illegally disposed of onsite. Althoug a majority of currently banned pesticides have not been used for at least 20 years, there remains potential for historical farming operations to have utilized currently restricted agricultur; chemicals onsite. This application may have resulted in some chemical residue contamination I the subject property. Under normal conditions, most pesticidedherbicides currently used i California degrade, and are not overly persistent in nature. There are, however, certain restricte agricultural chemicals that were commonly used over 20 years ago throughout California that a1 known to be a persistent substance in nature. The overall potential for significant agricultural hazardous materialdwaste and/or petroleul contamination onsite is low to moderate; however, the uncertainty of potential environment2 concerns cannot be eliminated and mitigation measures are listed as follows: 1. A detailed agricultural chemical residue survey with recommended remediation shall b completed and comments received from the County of San Diego Environmental Healt Services prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 2. All trash and debris within the property shall be disposed of offsite, in accordance wit current local, state and federal disposal regulations. Any buried traswdebris encountere during grading of the site shall be evaluated by an experienced environmental consultant an shall be treated per the consultant’s recommendation prior to removal of the material. 3. An asbestos survey of the onsite buildings shall be performed and any applicable remediatio~ completed prior to their demolition. 11 Rev. 03/28/96 & +' e 0 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AN CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. -3-2- qq 12 Rev. 03/28/96 b - I_ . T e 00 00 Q, ? 3 Y \ 0 co 6, 9 n n F cp n In co Q, d 2 T- eb Q) I- o c/j ar: W m r 3 Z W LL =! >b e a n E C 0 tu .- CI f 2 %! 0 w 2 F 0 0 nf n a a a ? .r c\1 0. - .- L a w t- 3 d > 0 ar: a a a sz> .P -id € mcQ =ma, m €3 2 9 .2 Q L.?S 22% % €5 .p g '5 a0E: .E 0) a, sz E LE2 ,o c '5 og. TE2 100 gz .E agg UJ? E go., 'E .- u 3 0 *G - me ESb 00-5 .- a, 7 uEm 3E a 0 d b O3 EL4 $ 8E .- c 82 2 0, 8.E %E:ri u).Fmq 2 zp- $% sz a, .- c 0,a .- cvJ* $ 2 - a'= u) OL. *Y K 000 rn a, .- K k; $72 0 .- rn 3 .- .= co a,-UT31c\I E $2 K ~2 QS 0 Eo .=moa, .= u) a,0 EZUO - mQ0 2 nu) rEd$ a,_c 2 E$g3 cs3$ porn .5Ema, c c a,lx a, g E.2 .z a, ([lv II: r,oz 2s E", g.& om .- sa, a's C E - 0-0 00 - .a, :e 03 r 0-EE aK FnSm e 7 C * ! - .I < a I 0 I r 4 ! 0 c * 0 c c E 6 5 S II C c + 0 f E - E 7 - E z . I 0 R ._ - - - E 5 2: .E .; .- g Ljr U sc m y. oz iiin 5 Bf II -a WI-