Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-01-04; Planning Commission; Resolution 3676& " *- 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 I1 0 0 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3676 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND DESIGN GUIDELINES TO DEVELOP 51 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE CITY, WEST OF MELROSE DRIVE EXTENSION AND SOUTH OF POINSETTIA LANE EXTENSION, IN THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE RANCHO CARRILLO MASTER PLAN, IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE 18. CASE NAME: RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE "0" CASE NO: PUD 93-07 WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property to wit: Portion of Section 24, Township 12 south, range 4 west, and a portion of Sections 18 and 19, Township 12 south, range 3 west, San Bernardino Meridian, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commi: WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as providc 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 16th day of P 1994, the 30th day of November, 1994 and on the 4th day of January, 1995 hc noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission cons factors relating to the Planned Unit Development. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the ~ Commission as follows: A) That the above recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Cc recommends APPROVAL of the Village "0" Design Guidelines (Er on file in the Planning Department. .IC- & -” 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 , 1 I * 0 on file in the Planning Department. C) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Ca recommends APPROVAL of PUD 93-07 based on the following fin subject to the following conditions: Findings: 1. The granting of this permit will not adversely affect and will be consiz Chapter 21.45 of Title 21, the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan, the General all applicable adopted plans of the City and other governmental ag demonstrated by the project’s consistency with all provisions of these doc 2. The proposed single family residences at the site location are necessary and to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the long-term gen being of the neighborhood and the community because the area is desig residential low medium and residential medium high uses in the General development is necessary to continue the balance of land uses in the Cig 3. Such single family residential use will not be detrimental to the health, general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious tc or improvements in the vicinity since the project meets all required City and ordinances, all public facilities and services shall be provided and setbacks and buffers from the proposed nearby community park, multi] residential and single family residential uses and Melrose Drive h incorporated into the project design. 4. The proposed planned development will meet all of the minimum de\ standards and design criteria set forth in Section 21.45.090 and 21.45.0 Carlsbad Municipal Code, and will be designed in accordance with the contained in the Design Guidelines Manual as demonstrated by features SI 60 foot wide public streets, adequate guest and recreational vehicle parki spacious and accessible common recreation area. 5. The proposed project is designed to be sensitive to and blend in with t€ topography of the site by providing a variety of setbacks, varying orientations, and landscaping to screen structures as well as enhance sloF 6. The proposed project maintains and enhances natural resources on the sit the preservation of over 1.6 acres of coastal sage and chaparral habitat 01 7. The proposed project’s design and density of the developed portion of th be compatible with proposed surrounding development and would not disharmonious or disruptive element to the neighborhood because the single family residential units at a low-medium density range are simila; proposed in neighboring areas such as that proposed in Villages “M”, iiQ ~ PC RES0 NO. 3676 -2- LC. 6 “.I 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 0 0 and the proposed residential uses will be designed compatible with th Ranch Community Park to the north. 8. The proposed project’s circulation system is designed to be efficient integrated with the project and does not dominate the project as demon st^ conformity to all City standards and the development standards of th Development Ordinance as shown on the site plan exhibits. PlanninP Conditions: 1. Approval is granted for PUD 93-07, as shown on Exhibits “A” - “J”, dated ! 7, 1994, (except that within 60 days of final approval of this project, E Architectural Data Sheet, shall be revised to reflect all applicable requi~ the approved Village “0” Design guidelines) incorporated by reference a in the Planning Department. Development shall occur substantially as shc otherwise noted in these conditions. 2. Approval of PUD 93-07 is granted subject to the approval of CT 93-08 an 01. PUD 93-07 is approved subject to all conditions of approval of CT 9: 91-17, EIR 91-04 and SDP 94-01, Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3 3503, and 3682, incorporated herein by reference and on file in the Department. 3. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all sections of tl Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time o permit issuance. 4. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation required by th Local Facilities Management Plan approved by the City Council on Marc1 incorporated herein and on file in the Planning Department and a amendments to the Plan made prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. Elevations, floor plans and building layouts shall be submitted in compl the delayed architectural review standards established in the Carrillo Ran Plan, and shall comply with the Village “0” Design Guidelines as Attachment “P”. After reviewing these plans and determining that tl conformance with the approved Village “0” Design Guidelines, staff shall E floor plans and architecture to the Planning Commission pursuant to ti described in Title 21.45.160. 6. Prior to occupancy of the first unit within Village “O”, the eastern 28 ac 52 shall be developed as a recreatiodopen space area with amenities as o the Village “0” Design Guidelines (Attachment “P”). This shall include del of the community trail linkage through Lot 52. Open Space Lot 52, as dc Exhibits “C” - “D”, shall be retained as permanent open space as del easement as required pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 2 PC RES0 NO. 3676 -3- -I- o I1 0 0 ... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 southern portion of Lot 52 shall be maintained in a natural state by the T Homeowner‘s Association. Disturbance of natural habitat shall be avoid 7. The floor plans and elevations submitted during the Delayed Architectu~ process shall implement the special Park Design District standards as a the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan and the Village “0” Design Guidelines (A I‘”’) . 8. The floor plans submitted during the Delayed Architectural Review pro indicate compliance with Planned Development Ordinance storage req pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.45.090(1). 9. Prior to final map, the applicant shall submit for review and appro\ Planning Director, an agreement which will establish the timing and E construction for the Recreational Vehicle storage facility. Prior to occupa first unit within Village “0”, at minimum, 1,020 square feet of recreatior storage space shall be provided on Lot 104 of Village “Q”, unless i temporary recreational vehicle storage facility has been approved by the Director. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meetir Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 4th day c 1995, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Welshons; Commissioners Compas Monroy, Nielsen, Noble and Savary. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. KIM WhLSHONS, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSI ATTEST: PLANNING DIRECTOR PC RES0 NO. 3676 -4- ~ " b 0 0 -. Rancho Carrillo Master Plan Environmental hpad Report EXH8U Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Proglrm -. A. Agriculture Impact. Possible soil contamination from agridtml chemicals formerly used or stored on tl j', i. site. Mitigariun. 1) Submittal of soils report with mitigation recommendations, if necessary, to Ci Planning Department ana 7~ar.ry Health Department. 2) Mitigation to be made a condition I tentative maps approved under the Master Plan. 3) Report on completed remediation to 1 submitted to City Planning Department and County Health Department upon completion. Muster Plan Implementation. A soils report for the property owned by Continental Homes ar the property being dedicated for park purposes has been received by the Planning Departmer Any mitigation required for soils contamination indicated by this report will be remedied pri, Eo issuance of a grading permit. Impacts may OCCUT if additional pesticide concentrations and/ hazardous waste materials or containers axe found during development, in which case tl referenced mitigation would be applicable. Soils reports for other propemes within the Mast Plan will be required with the submittal of tentative maps. Checkpoints. 1) Submittal of each tentative subdivision map under the Master Plan. Approval of each tentative map under the Master Plan. 3) Completion of construction of ea tentative map subdivision. Responsible Party. 1) City Planning and Engineering Departments. Sanctions. 1) No tentative maps to be approved without necessary conditions. 2) No fir maps, building or grading permits issued until remediation report submitted. Impact. Possible conflict between eariier stagts of Master Ph development and continu 1 , 'J agricultural use of other portions of the site, induding agridtural chemical use, irrigati t. runoff, and odor. Mitigation. Each tentative map must provide a list of performance and impact criteria specif in the EIR, such as access, drainage, and buffering, to ensure the phasing development compatible with continued agricultural use. Muster Phn Implementation. There will be no impact if applicant(s) indicates that consist1 with its practice since 1991, it intends to abandon farm use. 1 " b 0 0 -. Checkpoints. 1) Submittal of each tentative subdivision map under the Mater plan. : Approval of each tentative map under the Master Ph. 3) Consauction Of each tentative ITJZ subdivision. - Responsible Party. 1) City Planning and Engineering Departments. Sanctions. 1) No tentative maps to be ;ippIoved without nezessaq conditions. 3) hspect~c of construction by grading inspectors. NO building permits issued until performance criteria a implemented. B. BioIogy Gene& Note. To ensure the implementation of alI mitigation for potential impacts to biologic resources, the applicant for each tentative map proposed under the Master Plan shall prior approval of each tentative map, as appropriate, show evidence to the City Planning Departme that a qualified consulting biologist has been retained to monitor all relevant mitigation, assu compliance with mitigation requirements, supervise implementation of mitigation, and file report on mitigation compliance with the Planning Director upon completion of maj components of bioiogical mitigation requirements. ii/ \ .- Impact. Implementation of the Master PIan will directly impact wetlands on-site and, 1. ' wi- construction of a sewer line in the right of way for ~arri~o way to the west, off-site. Mitigation. The applicant for the project shall either restore and enhance riparian habitat at appropriate area ratio to impacts or hall participate in a city-wide mitigation program throu the City's Habitat Management Plan. Mitigation shall be accomplished to the satisfaction oft City and in accordance with the requirements of Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish a Game Code and Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act. Master Plan Implementation. No mitigation quired for offsite under sewer alignmt currently proposed by applicant north of carrill0 Way alignment. Such alignment has wetland impacts. Checkpoints. Approval of the fust tentative map or grading permit affecting wetlands on- off-site under the Master Plan. Responsible Party. City Planning and Engineering Departments, California Department Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Sanctions. No grading map mder the Master Plan. 4 e 0 -. Impact. Ifrhe project is not reconfigured to subsmdy avoid populations of San Dit thornmint and thread-leaved brodiaea, development will significantiy impact those species. Mitigution. To partially mitigate impacts, the mitigation plans for San Diego thornmint 2 thread-leaved brodiaea, shall be implemented, modified as speclfitd in the EIR and after revi and acceptance by CDFG, as conditions of approval of tentative maps under the Master Pk To the maximum extent possible, mitigation hall be accomplished prior to construction resulti in impacts. Master Plan Implementation. Villages T and U have been reconfigured to avoid impact thornmint. Village G has been reconfigured to minimize impacts t~ Brodiaea. Checkpoints. 1) Submittal of tentative maps. 2) Approval of tentative maps. 3) Prior construction causing impacts. Responsible Paq. 1) City Planning and Engineering Departments. 2) City Planning a Engineering Departments. 3) City Planning and Engineering Departments, consuiting biologi Sunctions. 1) No approval of tentative maps for Vilage G without acceptable mitigab reviewed by California Department of Fish and Game. 7. *"?/ ~~ Impact. Potential for future disturbance of open space areas. 7- -1 kfifigution. Dedication of an open space easement over natural open space, biological mitigati 1 /' areas, buffer areas, -and natudized areas to avoid disturbance of the natural habitats as condition of tentative maps. Checkpoinfs. 1) Approval of tentative maps. Responsible Party. 1) City Planning' and Engineering Departmats. Sanctiuns. 1) No approval of tentative maps without depiction of acceptable open spz easements and condition to dedicate consemtion easements over naturai open space. I 0 0 .- I Impact. Possible predation or disturbance of California gnatcatchers or other sensitive wild1 species by future residents or domestic pes. Master Phn Implementrrtion. NO appd of Tentative ~aps for affe~ted Villages ithc mitigation condition, if any, required by California Department of Fish and Game or U. Department of Fish and Wildlife. -. r r-, ,' j 1 Mitigation. As determined by above referenccd agency. (2 Checkpoints. 1) Approval of tentative maps, Responsibk Party. 1) City Planning and Enginening Departments. Sanctions. 1) No Tentative Map approved without mitigation, if any, imposed by referenc lead agency set forth as a condition. Impact. Possible invasion of native plant areas by non-native landscaping species. Mitigation. As a component of the landscaping plans for affected Villages, revegetation pi; plans for tentative maps shall be reviewed by the biologist. Checkpinis. 1) Approval of tentative maps. 2) Cornpietion of landscaping and revegetatic Responsible Party. 1) City Planning and Engineaing Departments, consulting biologist. i for disturbed and mitigation areas shall be prcpered by a quaiifid biologist, and landqil I -,- k G Sanctions. 1) No approval of tentative maps witbout satisfactory landscaping and revegetatic plans. Impact. Possible disturbance of native habitat accas during grading and construction. ,i . .n. lj and monitor emding and construction. I Aiitigation. The consulting biologist shall supervise surveying and staking of native habitat are 1 ,I I1 L ,? 1 i' z *.' : e 0 (3 ' ',- " . aleckpoints. 1) Approval of tentative maps. 2) Report by consulting biologist. Responsible Party. 1) City Planning and Engineering Deparunents. 2) Consulting biologist Sanctions. 6 No approval of tentative map without proper mitigarion condition. 2) r\ issuance of building or occupancy permits until consulting biologist's report is submitted to tI Planning Department. ~ ~___ ~ -~~~ Impact. Potentially significant noise and activity impacts to Gnatcatcher during grading ar construction. - cI Mitigation. Due to conflicting biologist's opinions regarding mitigation, final mitigation pia c ' if any, shall be as approved by U.S. Fish and Witdlife andor California Department of Fish a~ Game, as appropriate. Checkpoints. 1) Approval of tentative maps. Responsible Party. I) City Planning and Engineering Departments. Sanctions. 1) Halt or redirect grading or construction in restricted area, if any. Impact. Possible disturbance of wildlife species by outdoor lighting. .7 q .I-. 0 Mitigation. Outdoor lighting near native habitat areas should be shielded and directed aw: {I from conservation easement areas. Checkpoints. 1) Approval of tentative maps. 2) Grading and improvement plan checks. Construction of improvements near conservaticm easement areas with report to Planni: Department by consulting biologist. \ " ._ I e 0 -. Responsible Party. 1) City Planning and Engineering Dwts. 2) Consulting biologis Sanctions. 1) No appval of tentative map without mitigaton conditions. 2) No appro1 of grading o_ll improvement pians without proper mitigation specikd. 3) NO issuance building or occupancy permits without properly accompiished mitigation. Impact. Potentid for imp- to off-site sensitive habitat area^ from erosion and sedimenQtic from the project. Mitigm'on. See hydrology and water quality mitigation. Checkpoints. See hydrology and water quality mitigation. ResponsibZe Party. See hydrology and water quality mitigation. Sanctions. See hydrology and water quality mitigation. C. Cultural Resources Impact. 'Possible vandalism due to increased human presence to archaeological site SI 12,740B. \ i' ~ " Mitigazion. The site shall be capped with fabric, soil, and vegetation as a condition of 1 tentative map including the site. Work must be supenti& by a qualified archaeologist retain by the tentative map applicant. Master Plan Implementation. This site is located on site to be dedicated to City of Carisb for parkland. The capping of this site will be the responsibiiity of the City of Carlsbad. C7leckpoints. 1) Submittal of development plans for park site. 2) Approval of such pia 3) Report by consulting archaeologist submitted to City Planning Department upon completi of work and prior to commencement of devetopment of park site. Responsible Paq. 1) City Planning and Engincuing Departments. 2) City Planni Department. 3) Consuiting archaeologist, City planning and Engineering Departments. ) " .. 0 0 0 x* Sanctions. 1) No approval of site development pian without mitigation plan. 2) No gradir permits to be issued until mitigation report by consuiting archaeologist is submitted to Ci Planning Department. - Impact. Direct impacts of development on archaeological site SDI4691B. Mitigaziun. A data recovery program as specified in the EIR must be required as a conditic of the tentative map including the site. Work must be supervised by a qualified archaeologi retained by the tentative map applicant and completed prior to any construction affecting the sit - ('1 Master Plan Implementcrtion. Mitigation of this site win not be required unless this area (-: disturbed by onsite riparian mitigation. Checkpoints. 1) Approval of applicable tentative map. 2) Report by consulting archaeologi . submitted to City Planning Department upon completion of work and prior to any grading fc construction affecting the site. Responsible Party. 1) No approval of tentative map without mitigation plan. 2) No buildi~ permits to be issued until mitigation report by consuiting archaeologist is submitted to Cj Planning Department. Impact. Direct impacts of development on archaeological site SDI-4687. Mih'gation. Capping of the site as specified in the E3R as a condition of any tentative m affecting the site. Work must be supervised by a qualified archaeologist retained by the tentati map applicant and completed prior to any construction affecting the site. Checkpoints. 1) Submittal of appiicable tentative map. 2) Approval of applicable tentati map. 3) Report by consulting archaeologist submitred to City Planning Department up completion of work and prior to any gxading or construction affecting the site. Checkpoints. 1) Submittal of applicable tentative map. 2) Approval of applicable tentati map. 3) Report by consulting archaeologist submitted to City Planning Department up Completion of work and prior to any grading or construction affecting the site. Responsible Party. 1) City Planning and Engineering Departments. 2) Consulti archaeologist. r ,f2) x. . \I -~ ..) & 0 0 " Sanctions. 1) Submittal of tentarive map not complee without mitigation pian. 2) b approval of tentative map without mitigation plan. 3) No building Fits to be issued un: mitigation report by consulting archaeologist is srrbmittd to City planning Departments. Impact. Encroachment of proposed development of the Master Plan on the rural, "ear CaIifornia" setting of the Leo Carrill0 historic site. Miligm*on. Establishment and implementation of a speciai design district as required und, Land. Use Compatibility in this mitigation monitoring and reporting program. " I !i C~zeckpoints. See Land Use Compatibility sectioa. Responsible Party. See Land Use Compatibility section. Sanctions. See Land Use Compatibility section. D. Paleontologic31 Resources Impact. Potential destruction of significant fds, especially in the Santiago and Lusar Formation, by grading and construction. 'I, ' Mitigation. Monitoring of grading by a palezmtologist, with recovery and cumtion of a! significant fossils discovered, as specified in the ER Monitoring is to be performed under t. direction of a qualified paleontologist retained by the applicant for each tentative map. Clzeckpoinfs. 1) Approval of applicable tentative map. 2) Report by consulting paleontolog: upon completion of grading. Responsible Palty. 1) City Planning and Engineering Departments. 2) Consulti paleontologist. I r 0 0 " - Sanctions. 1) Approval of tentative m;rp not complete without mitigahon pian. 2) NO buildil permits to be issued until mitigation report by consulting paleontologst is submitted to Ci Planning Department. - E. Hydrology and Water Quality Impact. Major drainage facility design WiH be required to avoid potential adverse effects erosion, sedimentation, scouring, and flooding from the developed site: Mitigm-on. As a condition of approval each tentative map, the applicant shaU submit hydrology analysis addressing required flood attenuation, runoff flow reduction/siltation, a r \ proper sizing of drainage facilities. L Master Pbn Implementation. Applicant may submit one hydrology analysis for the enti Master Plan area. Checkpoints. 1) Approval of each tentative map. Responsible Party. 1) City Engineering Department. 2) City Engineering Department. Sanctions. 1) Tentative Map condition of approval. Impact. Major drainage facilities will have to be constructed to avoid potential adverse effer of erosion, sedimentation, scouring, and flooding from the developed site. r-7 .., L- Master PIan Zmple~enmioa. Applicant may submit one hydrology analysis for the entj /- Master Plan area. Mitigation. The find decision-making body shail approve a Financing Plan addressing t! source and use of funds for the construction of all required drainage facilities prior to recordil the first Final Map or the issuance of the first grading or building permit, whichever is first Checkpoints. Recording of first final map or issuance of first grading or building permit. ea tentative map. Responsible Party. City Engineering Department. Sanctions. No recording of final map or issuance of "ding or building permit without Financing Plan guarantee for construction of required drainage facilities. 1 " ._- 0 0 Impact. Potential erosive or flooding damage to structures in Leo carrill0 Ranch Park due tc 4- runoff from the developed site en- the dramage south of tbe pdr. Mitigation. An hydrology analysis for tht me south of tbt park sbail be submitted wid . 7 the applicable tentative map or prior to issuance of advaaeed gnding pennit for Melrov grading permit affecting the area and constructed cOncummt with the grading of the affectex I: ' " Avenue, and Xri appropriate drainage system shall be required prior to tht issuance of the f5-s area. Checkpoints. 1) Approval of applicable tentative maps. 2) Issuance of fist grading permit Responsible Party. 1) Engineering Department. 2) Engineering Department. Sanctions. 1) No approval of tentative map without proper drainage system shown. 2) N. issuance of building permits until dramage system implemented. 'L " r 0 0 ..J . Ifydrology and Water Qualie Impact. Insaltation of the proposed storm drain between Villages R ami T in Open Space Area 13 would disturb sensitive biological resoufces in the open space area Mitigation. The storm drain shaU be relocated to run south from Village Q to connect to a storm drain in either El Fuerte Street or C'horiiu~ Strea. E L\ hher Plan Implementation. nis s#~m drain has been rdocated imo areas that will be graded a pan of the development of Villages Q and R wherever possible to avoid sensitive habitat. Checkpoints. 1) Submittal of tentative map for Villages Q and R inchding the storm drain. 2) Approval of Village Q and R tentative map. 3) Completion of storm drain construction. Responsible Parties. 1) City Engineering Department. 2) City Engineering Department. 3) Ci. Engineering Department. Sanctions. 1) Submittal of tentative map not complete without showing storm drain in proper location. 2) No approval of tentative map without storm drain shown in proper location. 3) No issuance of building permits for tentative map until stom drain propedy consnucted. Impact. Potential for increased on-site erosion and increased sedimentation downstrean when gro surface is disturbed during grading and constNdiOa Mitigation. An Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan must be prepared for ach development '--: Submittal, approved by the City Engineer, and implemented during consuuaion. ( .I " ' Checkpoints. Approval of any e"radiag or improvement plan in the Master Plan area. Responsible Parties. City Engineering Department. Sanctions. No approval of any grading permits without Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan approved by the City Engineer. Impact. Potential impacts of urban pollutants from the developed site affection water quality in Batiquitos Lagoon. / I Mitigation. Discharge of runoff €iom developed areas into naturalized channeis and public ducat \;. information distributed to property ownas. Muster Pfan Impiemcntufion. A detailed Hydrological Study must be approved prior to issuance 1 grading permit for the grading neceSSacy to construct the Circulation Element Roadways. Checkpoints. 1) Approval of applicable tentative maps. 2) Completion of construction of draina; channels. 3) Close of escrow to p~opacy ownen. " '_ ~ e 0 " Hrdrorogp d Wmer Quolir?, Responsible Parries. 1) City Enginewing Deparmrerrt 2) City Engineering Deparcmm. 3) Developers Sanctions. 1) No approval of tentative maps without proper design of mff dramage facilities. 2) No issuance of building permits unless runoff drainage facilities properly constmad. Impact. Potential for grease, oil, and other traffic- poHutants from paved surfaces to reach Batiquitos Lagoon in runoff. .. Mitigution. Best management practices shall be empioyed to prevent urban pollutants from entering City waterways in compliance with National Pollutam: Discharge Elimination System municipal fj .. 1 I stormwater permining quiremenu. Checkpoints. Approval of any grading or improvemem plan in the Master Plan area. Responsible Parties. City Engineering Deparmrem. Suncfions. No approval of any grading permits without Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan approved by the City Engineer. F. Geology and Soils Impacr. Geologic conditions potentially unsuitable for development on the site without remediation include soils unsuitable for load-bearing or with adverse settlement potential, old landslide areas an. claystone beds, and high-groundwater in alluvial soils. It Mitigation. Remedial grading will be needed to establish firm footings for muures and fills and tl wrrect adverse settlement and alluvial soils over shallow groundwater. A soils engineer and engineering geologist shall be retained by each temarive map applicant to review detailed grading plans, prepare a derailed soil and geologic investig;aion, monitor construaion, and assure cornplianc with the Master Plan geologic investigation and the Ci Gradiig Ordinance. Checkpoints. 1) Submittal of each tentative map. 2) Approval of each tentative map and issuance grading permit. 3) Completion of construction. Responsible Parties. 1) City En,oine&ng Dq- 2) City Engineering Department. 3) Consulting soils engineer and engineering gedogist, City Engineer. Sancrions. 1) Tentative map submittal not complete without detailed soii aad geologic investigatiox 2) No tentative map approval without soil ad geologic investigation and appropriate conditions. 3 No issuance of buiIding permits without evidence of proper mitigation. 1 e 0 d* Air Qualiry G'. Air Quality . Impact. Potential for significant direct impacts to regional air quality due to increases in pollutant emissions caused by project traffic. Mitigation. Implementation of Master Ran measures induding bike lanes and pedestrian trails, and P '\ requirement for applicants for future tentative maps to work with No& County Transit District to ' . provide bus routes and stops as appropriate. Cheekpoi&. 1) Submittal of tentative maps. 2) Approval of tentative maps. Responsible Purties. 1) City Planning and Engineering Departments. 2) City Planning and Engineering Departments. Sanctions. 1) Submittal of tentative maps not complete without appropriate mitigation measures. : No approval of tentative maps without application conditions. H. Land Use Impad. Development of the Master Plan would encroach on the 'eariy California" setting of Carri Ranch Park, 'including the elimination of the northern entry to the ranch compound. Mitigalion. A Special Park Design District shall be established for development surrounding the p: p\ ' including special conmls on setbacks, landscaping, and architectural details and an entry through tt park through Village S. The design disaia standards will be included in the Master PIan and subsequent tentative maps will be waiuated for conformance by the Planning Commission. Checkpoints. 1) Approval of the Master Plaa 2) Approval of tentative maps that include part of the design district. Responsibk Pu-. 1) City Planning Department. 2) Ci PIanning Department. Sanctions. 1) No approval of the Master Plan without establishment of a park design district and development standards. 2) No approval of tentative maps containing part of the design district without setting fonh disaict developmen standards. Impad. The City of Carlsbad has no review authority over Village S, which is in the park design district, if it is developed as a school site by the San Marcos Unified School District. \ -. 0 0 -.? 7 Lond Use Mitigation. Agreement with the school district on design smiards is encouraged, but mot be enforced by the Planning Commission. Witfiout review of all ddopman within the design distrin it is not within the power of the Lead Agency to assure that posslble impacts are mitigated or avoide t ,: Checkpoints. No Lead Agency checlrpoints without agreement with the school district. \A .,.' Responsible Parties. Responsibiiity for mitigahn is within the authority of another jurisdiction ant not the City of Carisbad. Sanaionr. None available to the City of Carfsbad under present ciraxmstances. Impact. Dedication of the open space lii at the sourhwcst corner of the property, where the link crosses from one zone to an adjacent ownership, is not assured under the proposed Master Plan. Mitigation. Assure continuance of the open space link as part of the Master Plan. I? t! ,. Master Plan Implementation. Carisbad's Open Space Advisory approved the open space link proposed by the Master Plan at their February 1993 meeting. Checkpoints. 1) Approval of Master Plan. 2) Approval of tentative map inchding Village T. Responsible Parties. Planning Department. Soncttons. No approval of Master PIan without open space link. Impad. Applicants for the Master Plan must obtain a letter from the San Marcos Unified School District accepting the site proposed by appiicants as possible school site area in compliance with the i Zone 18 Local Facilities Management b. ?- 'i Mitigation. Agreement with the San MHWS Unified School District as part of Master Plan approvi Ckckpoints. Approval of Master Plan. Responsible Parties. Planning Departmuk Sanriions. No approval of Master Plan without agreemem with the school district that complies wi the Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan. -l ...I 0 e -9 ‘ Viud AlsrhericslGrading ” I. Visual Aes the tics/Gmding Impact. Grading proposed by the Master Plan requires findii justifying “ding volumes to be ,’ \ approved by the Planning Direaor and City Engineer according to the Hillside Development Ordinar Mitigation. Approval of findings for the proposed gradiig voiumes prior to approval of the Master Plan. Checkpoints. Approval of Master Plan. Responsible Parties. Planning Director and City Engineer. Sanctions. No approval of the Master Plan without the required findings. l. ’ Impact. Proposed grading for the Master Plan would exceed Hillside Development Ordinance allowances for slope height and encroachment into 40 percent dopes without specified findings by th decision making body. /j, . 2” Miligation. Approval of findings for the proposed grading concurrent with approval of the Master Plan. Checkpoints. Approval of the Master Plan. Responsible Parties. Decision making Body. Sanctions. No approval of the Master Plan without the required tindibgs. ”\ - q ~ -~ Impact. Potential impacts of Master Plan development on the visuaily sensitive Carrillo Ranch Park site, including Villages S, 0, ad Q. Mitigation. Applicable tentative maps to indicate an accqtable detailed landscape plan to reduce potential impacts. Implemmt specral Park Design District recommended in EIR Land Use section. Checkpoints. 1) Submittal of applicable tentative maps. 2) Approval of applicable tentative maps, Responsible Pam‘es. 1) City Planning Department. 2) City Planning Department. Sanctions. 1) Tentative map submittal not complete without detailed landscape pian. 2) No approval of tentative map withq appropriate detailed landscape plan. T. 0 e ._. 0 viarpl AeszheIiu/Grding - Impact. Potentially significant impact of reueational vehide storage in Open Space kea 13 on vie from existing residences, Mitigufion. Detailed landscape plan as part of tentathe map for Villages Q and R to effectively e/ I\ screen views of recreational vdide storage. \ / Checkpoints. 1) Submittal of tentative mag including reendod vehide storage. 2) Approval 01 tentative map including recreationai vehicle storage. Responsible Parties. 1) City Planning Department, 2) City Planning Department. Sanctions. 1) Submittal of tentative map MH amplee without appropriate landscaping plan. 2) t approval of tentative map without appropriate landscaping plan. Impact. Potential significant visual impact of mise Wers wer six fea in height. Mifigation. Detailed landscaping plan for temiPtve maps to provide adepuate cover, texture, and variation of vegetation to screen walls. < ,i ’ Checkpoints. 1) Submittal of my tentative map showing wise barriers over six feet in height. 2) Approval of any tentative map showing noise banias met six feeg in hdght. Responsible Parries. 1) City Planning and Ergeeuing Departments. 2) City Planning and Engineering Departments. Suncfions. 1) Submittal of appiicabte tentative maps not complete witbout appropriate landscaping plan. 2) No approval of applicable tentative maps without appropriate landscaping plan. J. Cirtulation Impact. The intersection of Palomar Airport Road and El Camin0 Real is projected to have a leve service F in the year 2000 aftemon peak hour. No additiod improvanu~o to this intersection a .A,. \ - currently proposed in the LFMP. 9 Mitigufz’on. The City will continue to monitor traflic to determine conformance with LFh4P standa and to identify and implement improvements aecessq to meez the stamid. Checkpoints. Consauction of improvements. Responsible Parties. City Engkegring Deparunent.. II *- I e 0 <% f VK~ Acrrheria/Grading Sundions. Ne issuance of building permits if Growth Mmaggent standards for traffic levels of service are not met. Impacts. Spacing of the first intersection on Palomar Ai Road is 200 feet closer than City standards allow. Mitigation. Tentative maps shall comply with City mad alignment and intersection spacing standarc to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 5 'l" Master PZun ZmpZemenftion. The location shown on the proposed Master Plan has not been revisr and has been approved by the City Engineer. Checkpoints. Approval of tentative maps. Responsible Parties. City Engineering Department. Sunctions. No approval of tentative maps that do not comply with City road alignment and intersection spacing to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Impact. As proposed, development of the Master Plan waaid require traffic signals at Palomar Airport Road/access road to Village E and at Meirose Avcnae/ent.rances to Villages H, 0, and L. ,'< 5 Mitigution. Condition tentative maps to construct the necessary signais and improvements, or 2, determine the need for signals in traffic studies fos tcrrmtive maps. Checkpoints. 1) submittal of applicable tentative maps. 2) Approval of applicable tentative maps Responsible Parties. 1) City Engineering Department. 2) City Engineering Department. Sanctions. 1) No approval of tentative maps without applicable conditions. /' '. d '\ Impad. Certain revisions of the internal circulation system described in the EIR may be preferablf for environmental or circuiatory reasons. Mitigation. Traffic studies for applicable tentative maps shall detmnine in consultation with City ! whether specified changes in the circulation panern shouid be implemented as conditions of applica tentative maps. q Muster Plan ZmpZmetation. Revisions to the Master Plan Ciation and proposed tentative ma] have already been made to addnss the recommendations of the EIR and approved by the City Engineer. " 0 e d. Circulmion Checkpoints." 1.) Approval of temative maps. Respodie Patits. I) City Planning and Engineuing Depart~~~S. 2) at)' planning and Engineering Departments. Sanctions. 1) No approval of tentative maps witht applicable cooditioos. J K Noise Impact. Certain areas adjacent to major roads in t& Master Plan area dd experience future aafl noise in excess of the City standards of 60 dBA CNEL. Mitigaton. Tentative maps shall show appropriate mise barria as specified in the EIR or to City standards to anenuate noise. If grading shown in dre Master Plan for development in areas of \c. ' excessive unattenuated noise is modified by tentztive maps, the modifications shall be reviewed by 1 City Engineer and a new acoustical study shall be perfwmed and appropripe mitigation implemente if indicated. Tentative maps applicants shall have Ebe option of requestins a reduction in height Of barriers over six feet to no less than six feet to reQre visuai impacts per City policy. Checkpoints. 1) Approval of tentative maps. 2) bspcdon of comtmcted improvements. Responsible Pam*es. 1) City Planning and Engineaing Deparanma. 2) City Engineering Department. Sanctions. 1) No approval without proper barriers as a condition. 2) No issuance of subsequent permits. Impoct. Second floors of some residentid units adjlceat to Cdation Element roadways could experience intesior noise IN& in excess of the 45 dBA CNEL standad Y- .I' - 3 Mitigation. Proposed tdve maps shall be showo to have designs for multi-story residences next Circulation Element roadways wbich would dim Wor mise I& of 45 dBA CNEL or less f second or higher stories. Acoustical studies to dermmme coqbuce mty be required by the CiQ Engineer. Checkpoints. 1) Approval of tentative maps. 2) Impemon of cummu& improvements. Responsible Patties. 1) City Planning and Engindng Departmenn. 2) Building Department. Sanctions. 1) No approval without proper barria as a cortditioa 2) NO issuance of subsequent permits. \ ll? 0 s* - Public FaciW and Sem~ces L. Public Facilities and Services ~~ 1. i Impact. There is a potential for the LFMP pafonnance smdard for park faciiities to be exceeded depending on the timing of development and the status of other hare parkland in City Park Disaia 4. Mitigution. Prior to the recordation of any hi map lmier the Masvr Plan, sufficient parkland sl be dedicated within Zone 18. Checkpoints. Recordation of first final map der the Master Plan Responsible Parties. City Planning, Engineaing, lad Parks and Remation Departments. Sanctions. No recordation of final map withoat dedication of saffiaem parkland within Park Disaj 4. -~ Impact. The LFMP performance standard nquirrs that a s&wl site in Zone 18 be deeded to the S Marcos Unified School disma (SMUSD) and thp a fbancmg pian be approved by the SMUSD pri to recordation of any final map or issuance of any grading or building permit in Zone 18. rl 1 L, Mih'gaton. Compliance with the Zone 18 reqinmat Checkpoints. 1) Recordation of the first fd map under the Maner Plan. 2) Issuance of any grading or building permit in the Master Plan area. Responsible Parties. City Planning And En,gheaing Departmeas, Sanctiuns. No Final map recorded without LFMP nquiremmt being ma. Impact. Sewage generation could exceed tream\em capacity if residential development occurs in the Master Plan area afk 2005. .? Mirigation. Implement measures specified in the LFMP for any tentative maps causing the potentia i impact to be realized. I/ . Checkpoints. 1) SubmittaI of tentative maps after ZOOS. 2) Approval of tentative maps submitted after 2005. Respodk Pu-. 1) City rlanning and Engineering Deputmems. 2) City Planning and Engineering Departments. LL' ' a * e LI bv 0 pvbticFaciiitiaandscrvim Sandionr. No approval of tentative maps after 2005 rirhOut cod!iom reqairing conformance wit LFMP requirements. - 31 M. Solid Waste Disposal Impact. Depending on regional planning for tbe expmsh of lmarm apacity, there is a poteotial solid waste generated from the Master Plan area to ezc& disposJ capady. \, Mitigation. Applicants for tentative maps proposed m rhe Master Plan area shall demonstrate that $J\. ' means of feasible solid waste disposal are available. Checkpoints. 1) Approval of tentative maps for the hhster Plan ares. Responsible Parties. 1) City Planning and Enginezing Departmas. Sanctions. 1) No approval of tentative maps withop dmr>nsaarion of existing disposal capacity. 1