Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-07-17; Planning Commission; Resolution 52261 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5226 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO ALLOW A FIVE LOT SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 625 TAMARACK AVENUE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASE NAME: TAMARACK FIVE SUBDIVISION CASE NO.: CT 01-17KDP 01-48 WHEREAS, Newport Hills, Inc., “Developer”/“Owner” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as: A portion of Tract 232 of Thum Lands in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1681, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, December 9,1915. (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of July, 2002, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby ADOPTS the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program according to Exhibit “ND” 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 dated June 14, 2002 and “PII” dated May 23,2002, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findings: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: A. B. C. D. It has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project, and any comments thereon prior to APPROVING the project; and The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th day of July, 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, White, and Whitton NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Segall ABSTAIN: None CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HODMILMR Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5226 -2- - City of Carlsbad MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project AddressLocation: 625 Tamarack Avenue Project Description: 5 lot standard single-family infill residential subdivision located in the R-1 zone, Mello I1 Local Coastal Program area, and Local Facilities Management Zone 1. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4622. DATED: JUNE 14,2002 CASE NO: CT 01-l7ICDP 01-48 CASE NAME: TAMARACK FIVE SUBDIVISION PUBLISH DATE: JUNE 14,2002 Planning Director 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us a9 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CT 01-17 DATE: May 23,2002 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Tamarack Five Subdivision 2. APPLICANT: Newport Hills. Inc. 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 20151 S. W. Birch St., Suite 150, Nemort Beach, CA 92660 4. DATE EL4 FORM PART I SUBMITTED: December 19,2001 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Five lot standard single family infill subdivision located west of 1-5 and south of Tamarack Avenue in the Mello I1 segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program. 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. 0 Land Use and Planning TransportatiodCirculation Public Services 0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems 0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics 0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources Air Quality Noise 0 Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 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 MITIGATED 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. A 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 - pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier , including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. 2 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 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but 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. 3 Rev. 03/28/94 e 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. 8 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations’’ for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 4 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) (#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major i&astructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable 5.5-6) housing? (#l:PgS 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) 111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than No Significant Impact Impact om OH 05 05 expose people to potential impacts involving: Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#1 :Pgs Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs 0 0 om " 0 0 om 0 0 05 5.1-1 - 5.1.15; #2) 0 0 om 5.1-15) 0 0 om El om 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) Subsidence ofthe land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 0 0 ON 0 0 om 5.1-15) 0 0 05 IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2- Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 0 0 OH Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 0 0 OH 1 1) surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved 0 0 om 5 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2- i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs body? (#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1) (#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 11) 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than No Significant Impact Impact V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3- 0. 0 Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) IXI 0 1 - 5.3-12) - 5.3-12) 0 0 OIxl 0 0 om 0 0 OBI VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? fj Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - proposal result in: 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) (#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) (#1 :PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) (#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) (#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) 5.7.22) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ixl IXI Ixl Ixl IXI [XI in impacts to: 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) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? ~~ 0 CI OH (#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) 0 0 OH 6 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incoruorated Less Than Significant impact No Impact c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 (#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) - 5.4-24) 0 0 0 0 0 0 IXI 0 0 IXI 0 Ixl VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13- c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents ofthe State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & proposal? (#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 1 - 5.13-9) 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 0 0 0 0 IXI IXI 17 0 0 0 0 IXI IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, 5.10.1-5) hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5; #3) grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 0 0 0 IXI 0 X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9- b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9- 15) 1 - 5.9-15; #4) 0 0 0 0 0 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? () e) Other governmental services? (#1 :Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 XILUTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: 7 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & b) Communications systems? () c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7) e) Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8) 0 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 - 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) o 0 17 0 facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) 5.12.3-7) 0 0 0 0 ow OH 0 0 XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.1 1-1 - 5.11-5) 5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5) 5.11-1 - 5.1 1-5) 0 0 0 0 0 0 XW. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8- b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8- c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs 5.8- e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the 10) 10) 1 - 5.8-10) potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) om oIxI 0 0 0 0 0 DIXI om 0 0 XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 - b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-7) 5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7) 0 0 0 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 prehstory? 0 0 8 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 fkture projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 n[xI 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 fiom 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. 9 Rev. 03/28/96 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Environmental Setting The relatively flat site is one of several remaining undeveloped parcels located south of Tamarack Avenue between 1-5 and Carlsbad Boulevard. The site has been used for agricultural purposes and consists of furrowed rows from previous and current plantings. A single-story frame and stucco residence and a converted garage/office are present in the southerly portion of the site. Portland cement concrete walks are located around the residence. A small wood frame flower shack is located on-site along Tamarack Avenue. Several medium-size trees, small palms, hit trees, grape vines, tomato plants and other planted crops are present within the property. I. Land Use The proposed density of 3.5 ddacre is consistent with the applicable Residential Low Medium (FUM) density General Plan land use designation (0-4 ddacre) which would allow for the development of a maximum of 4 lots using the Growth Management growth control point of 3.2 ddacre. However, the subdivision is located in LFMP Zone 1 where project density may exceed the growth control point if the applicable zoning would allow a higher yield and additional public facilities are in place to satisfy the additional demand. IV. Air Quality In 1994 the City prepared and certified an EIR which analyzed the impacts which will result from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concludes that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts in the form of increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan build-out, a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master ER. 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 10 Rev. 03/28/96 air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MER This document is available at the Planning Department. VI. Circulation In 1994 the City prepared and certified a Master EIR which analyzed the impacts which would result from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concluded that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate build-out traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at build-out. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan build-out, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 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 build-out of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Ovemding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MER This document is available at the Planning Department. A MEIR may not be used to review projects if it was certified more than five years prior to the filing of an application for a later project. The City is currently reviewing the 1994 MEIR to determine whether it is still adequate to review subsequent projects. Although the MEIR was certified more than five years ago, the City’s preliminary review of its adequacy finds that no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MEIR was certified. The only potential changed circumstance, the intersection failure at Palomar Airport Rd. and El Camino Real, is in the process of being mitigated to below a level of significance. Additionally, there is no new available information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the MEIR was certified. Therefore, the MEIR remains adequate to review later projects. IX. Hazards Since the site has been utilized for agricultural production for many years, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was performed by Ninyo and Moore to identify and assess the 11 Rev. 03/28/96 presence or likely presence of any hazardous substance on the property under conditions that indicate an existing release, past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances into structures on a property or into the ground. The assessment revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the property. X. Noise An acoustical analysis performed for the project by Investigative Science and Engineering, Inc. revealed that exterior noise levels on Lot 1 closest to Tamarack Avenue would exceed the City’s 60 dBA CNEL noise level standard for residential development. The proposed mitigation is a minimum 5’ high masonry noise wall around the perimeter of Lot 1. The project proposes to construct a 6’ high masonry wall along the rear and side yard property lines that will mitigate the noise level fi-om 62.8 to 59.9 dba CNEL. Additionally, interior noise mitigation (i.e., specialized door and window treatments) would be required for all second story areas of Lot #1 per CCR Title 24. Prior to issuance of building permits for the project, an interior noise analysis compliant with City standards will be required to demonstrate that the proposed design would limit interior noise to the City’s 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. EARLIER ANALYSES USED The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008, (760) 602-4600. 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department. 2. “Geotechnical Exploration Report and Grading Plan Review”, prepared by Associated Soils Engineering, Inc. dated December 13, 2001. 3. “Phase I Environmental Site Assessment - 625 Tamarack Avenue, Carlsbad, California”, prepared by Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants, dated February 12,2002. 4. “Manning Homes Development Acoustical Analysis”, prepared by Investigative Science and Engineering, Inc., dated December 11,2001. 12 Rev. 03/28/96 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) 1. A minimum 5’ high masonry wall shall be constructed around the entire eastern (rear) property line and northern property line to a point 20’ east of the front property line of Lot 1 as shown on the tentative map prior to occupancy of any residential unit. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit for Lot 1, an interior noise analysis compliant with City standards will be required to demonstrate that the proposed design would limit interior noise to the City’s 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) 13 Rev. 03/28/96 JUN-07-2032 FRI 03 : 13 PM CITY OF CARLSBAD FAX NO. 760 602 8559 P, i6 €0 3Wd Rev. 03/28/36 00060ziZ6P6 PZ :L1: 2002/8T/90 1 PROJECT NAME: Tamarack Five Subdivision FILE NUMBERS: CT 01 -17/CDP 01 -48 APPROVAL DATE: Julv 17,2002 CONMTIONAL NEG. DEC.: June 14,2002 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). Mitigation Measure Noise: 1. A minimum 5’ high masonry wall shall be constructed around the entire eastern {rear) property line and northern property line to a point 20’ east of the front property line of Lot 1 as shown on the tentative map prior to occupancy of any residential unit. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit for Lot I, an interior noise analysis compliant with City standards will be required to demonstrate that the proposed design would limit interior noise to the City’s 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. Monitoring TvDe Monitoring Department Shown on Plans Verified Remarks Exdanation of Headinas: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. information. 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, Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other this column will be initialed and dated. RD - Appendix P.