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.