HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-01-04; Planning Commission; Resolution 3707I e 0
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3707
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DESIGN
GUIDELINES FOR VILLAGES "M", "Q", & "R" OF THE
RANCHO CARRILLO MASTER PLAN GENERALLY
LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE
CITY, WEST OF MELROSE DRIVE EXTENSION, EAST
OF EL FUERTE EXTENSION IN THE SOUTHERN
PORTION OF THE RANCHO CARRILLO MASTER PLAN
IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE 18.
CASE NAME: RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGES "M", I
~
"Q", & "R" DESIGN GUIDELINES
CASE NO.: CT 93-04
lo // WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property to wit:
11
12
13
14
Portion of Sections 18 and 19, Township 12
South, Range 3 West, San Bernardino Meridian
Base according to Official Plat thereof, City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California.
15
16
18
Guidelines may be prepared for villages of the master plan; and 17
WHEREAS, the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan establishes that Desig
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Design Guidelines prepared for Villages "M", "Q", & "R" a1
l9 I/ in conformance with the General Plan, Rancho Carrillo Master Plan, and City ordinance
20 I1
21 11 and
22
23
24
Carrillo Master Plan; and
25
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 16th day of Novembe
1994, the 30th day of November, 1994 and on the 4th day of January, 1995 hold a du
26
27
28
WHEREAS, the Design Guidelines implement the intent of the Ranch
noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimo~
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered ;
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 IF
factors relating to the Village "M", "Q", & "RI Design Guidelines.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Plannin
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Plannin
Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Village "M", "Q', & "R" Desig
Guidelines, based on the following findings and subject to the following condition:
Findings:
1. The Village "M", "Q, & "R" Design Guidelines are consistent with the General Plar
Rancho Carrillo Master Plan and all applicable City ordinances.
2. The Village "M", "Q, & "R" Design Guidelines will ensure that quality developmenl
are submitted within these villages by addressing design issues including the unj
mix, plotting of units, setbacks, architecture, garage design, accessory structure!
walls and fences, signage, special park design park district, and second dwellin
units.
3. The Village "M", "Q, & "R" Design Guidelines will ensure that the proposed projet
is compatible with the surrounding and future land uses since the design guideline
specify architectural design, unit mix, and setbacks.
4. The Village "M", "Q, & "R" Design Guidelines provide for specific sensitive desig
criteria within the Special Park Design District consistent with the Master Plan.
Conditions:
1. Elevations and floor plans for Villages "M", "Q, & "R" will be submitted i
compliance with the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan.
2. Elevations, floor plans, and building layouts for Villages "M", "Q, & "R" mu!
comply with the Design Guidelines for these villages pursuant to Exhibit "QQ.
3. The applicant will implement the special Park Design District standards of th
Village "M?', "Q, & "R" Design Guidelines (Exhibit "QQ).
....
....
....
....
I
~ pc RESO No. 3707
2
e *
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
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of tl
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 4th day of Janua~
1995, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Welshons; Commissioners Comgas, Erwj
Monroy, Nielsen, Noble and Savary.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
KIM WEaHONS, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
s
MICHAEL J. HOLZMLLER
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RES0 NO. 3707 3
0 0
Rancho Carrillo Master Plan
Environmental Impad RerJort EXHIBIT I
Mitigation Monitoring and'Repokng Program
- ~
A. Agriculture
Impact. Possible soil contamination from agricuitmd chemicals formerly used or stored on the
/I 1, site.
Mitigation. 1) Submittal of soils report with mitigation recommendations, if necessary, to City
Planning Department ana :7mxy Health Department. 2) Mitigation to be made a condition of
tentative maps approved under the Master Plan. 3) Report on completed remediation to be
submitted to City Planning Department and County Hdth Department upon completion.
Master Plan Implementation. A soils report for the property owned by Continental Homes and
the property being dedicated for park purposes has been received by the Planning Department.
Any mitigation required for soils contamination indicated by this report will be remedied prior
to issuance of a grading permit. Impacts may OCCUT if additional pesticide concentrations and/or
hazardous waste materiais or containers are found during development, in which case the
referenced mitigation would be applicable. Soils reports for other properties within the Master
Plan will be required with the submittal of tentative maps.
Checkpoints. 1) Submittal of each tentative subdivision map under the Master Plan. 2)
Approval of each tentative map under the Master Plan. 3) Completion of construction of each
tentative map subdivision.
Responsible Party. I) City Planning and Engineering Departments.
SuncGons. 1) No tentative maps to be approved without necessary conditions. 2) No find
maps, building or grading permits issued until mediation report submitted.
Impact. Possible conffict between earlier stages of Master Plan development and continued I , *A agricultural use of other portions of the site, including agricllltural chemical use, irrigation
#I runoff, and odor.
Mitigation. Each tentative map must provide a Iist of performance and impact criteria specified
in the EfR, such as access, drainage, and buffering, to ensure the phasing development is
compatible with continued agricultural use.
Master Plan Implementation. There will be no impact if applicant(s) indicates that consistent
with its pracrice since 1991, it intends to abandon farm use.
)
e 0
Checkpoints. 1) Submittal of each tentative subdivision map under the Master Plan. 2)
Approval of each tentative map under the Master Plan. 3) Construction of each tentative map
subdivision.
Responsible Party. 1) City Planning and Engineering Departments.
Sanctions. I> NO tentatiGe maps to be approved without neceSSary conditions. 3) Inspection
of construction by grading inspectors.. No building permits issued until performance criteria are
implemented.
4 ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~
B. Biology
General Note. To ensure the impiementation of alI mitigation for potential impacts to biological
resources, the applicant for each tentative map proposed under the Master Plan shall prior to
approval of each tentative map, as appropriate, show evidence to the City Planning Department
that a qualified consulting biologist has been retained to monitor all Aevant mitigation, assure
compliance with mitigation requirements, supervise implementation of mitigation, and fde a
report on mitigation compliance with the Planning Director upon completion of major
components of biological mitigation requirements.
ii/ !-,
..> Impact. Implementation of the Master PIan will directly impact wetlands on-site and, by
1. 2 “i- construction of a sewer line in the right of way for Carrill0 Way to the west, off-site.
Mitigatbn. The appiicant for the project shall either restore and enhance riparian habitat at an
appropriate area ratio to impacts or shall participate in a city-wide mitigation program through
the City’s Habitat Management Plan. Mitigation sfid be accomplished to the satisfaction of the
City and in accordance with the requirements of Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and
Game Code and Section 404 of the Federal’ Clean Water Act.
Master Plan Implementation. No mitigation required for offsite under sewer alignment
currently proposed by applicant north of Carrill0 Way alignment. Such alignment has no
wetland impacts.
Checkpoints. Approval of the first tentative map or gmding permit affecting wetlands on- or
off-site under the Master Plan.
Responsible Party. City Planning and Engineering Departments, California Department of
Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Sanctions. No grading map uhder the Master Plan.
e e
Impact. If the project. is not reconfigured to substantially avoid popuIations of San Diego
thornmint and thread-leaved brodiaea, development will significantiy impact those species.
Mitigation. To partially mitigate impacts, the mitigbm pians for San Diego thornmint and
thread-leaved brodiaea shall be implemented, modified as specified in the EIR and after reyiew
.,'L and acceptance by CDFG, as conditions of approyal of tentative maps under the Master Plan. 7; l To the maximum extent possible, mitigation shall be accomplished prior to construction resulting
in impacts.
Master PIan Implementation. Villages T and U have been reconfigured to avoid impact to
thornmint. Village G has been reconfigured to minimize impacts to Brodiaea.
Checkpoints. 1) Submittal of tentative maps. 2) Approval of tentative maps. 3) Prior to
construction causing impacts.
Responsible Party. 1) City PIanning and Engineering Departments. 2) City Planning and
Engineering Departments. 3) City Planning and Engineering Departments, consulting biologist.
Sanctions. 1) No approval of tentative maps for Village G without acceptable mitigation
reviewed by CaIifornia Department of Fish and Game.
Impact. Potential for future disturbance of open space areas. -1 Mitigafion. Dedication of an open space easement over natural open space, biological mitigation 7; areas, buffer areas, 'and natudized areas to avoid disturbance of the natural habitats as a
condition of tentative maps.
Checkpoints. 1) Approval of tentative maps.
Responsible Party. 1) City Planning' and Engineering Departments.
Sanctions. 1) No approval of tentative maps without depiction of acceptable open space
easements and condition to dedicate consewation easements over natural open space.
b
e 0
Impact. Possible predation or disturbance of Womia gnatcatchers or other sensitive wildlife
species by future residents or domestic pets.
Master Plan Implementation. No approval of Tentative Maps for affected Villages without
mitigation condition, if any, required by Caiifomia Department of Fish and Game or U.S.
Department of Fish and Wildlife.
f .'? 7 Mitig&*on. As determined by above referenced agency. (2
Checkpoints. 1) Approval of tentative maps.
Responsible Party. 1) ' City Planning and Engineering Departments.
Sanctions. 1) No Tentative Map approved without-mitigation, if any, imposed by referenced
lead agency set forth as a condition.
-
Impact. Possible invasion of native plant areas by non-native landscaping species.
Mitigatiun. As a component of the landscaping plans for affected Villages, revegetation plan
i for disturbed and mitigation areas shall be prepared by a qualified biologist, and landscaping
plans for tentative maps shall be reviewed by the biologist,
Checkpoints. 1) Approval of tentative maps. 2) Completion of landscaping and revegetation.
Responsible Party. 1) City Planning and Engineering Departments, consulting biologist.
Sanctions. 1) No approval of tentative maps without satisfactory landscaping and re\ ' e, oetation
~ " L. 6
plans.
~ ~ ~~~
Impact. Possible disturbance of native habitat aceas during grading and construction.
,I .q. i Mitigahon. The consulting biologist shall supervise surveying and staking of native habitat areas
\i and monitor grading and construction.
1
ti * 1 .,,, i' ,<' ,.\ :
/> (3 I- C7zeckpoints.
a
1) Approvd of tentative maps. 2) Report by
0
consulting biologist.
Responsible Party. 1) City Planning and.Engineering Departments. 2) Consulting biologist.
Sanctions. 1) No approval of tentative map without proper mitigation condition. 2) No
issuance of building or occupancy permits until consuiting biologist's report is submitted to the
Planning Department.
Impact. Potentially significant noise and activity impacts to Gnatcatcher during grading and
construction.
H ': Mifigation. Due to conflicting biologist's opinions regarding mitigation, final mitigation plan, 6 ' if any, shall be as approved by U.S. Fish and Wildlife andlor California Department of Fish and
Game, as appropriate.
Checkpoints. 1) Approval of tentative maps.
Responsible Party. 1) City Planning and Engineering Departments.
Sanctions. 1) Halt or redirect =-ding or construction in restricted area, if any.
Impact. Possible disturbance of wildlife species by outdoor lighting.
r
f.7 Lj Mitigaz'ion. Outdoor lighting near native habitat areas shouid be shielded and directed away
'ii - ' from conservation easement areas.
Checkpoints. 1) Approval of tentative maps. 2) Grading and improvement plan check. 3)
Construction of improvements near conservation easement areas with report to Planning
Department by consulting biologist.
1
0 9
Responsible Party. 1) City Planning and Enginering ~~ts. 2) Consulting biologist.
Sanctions. 1) No approval of tentative map without mitigation CMtditiOIls. 2) No approval
of grading or improvement plans without proper mitigation specified. 3) No issuance of
building or occupancy pe.nnits without properly accomplished mitigation.
Impact. Potential for impam to off-site sensitive h&iut areas from emsion and sedimentation
from the project.
Mitigation. See hydrology and water quality mitigation.
Checkpoints. See hydrology and water quality mitigation.
Responsible Party. See hydrology and water quality mitigation.
Sanctions. See hydrology and water quality mitigation.
+
C. Culturai Resources
Impact. Possible vandalism due to increased human presence to archaeological site SDI-
12,740B. \ f' , ',
~U Mitigation. The site shall be capped with fabric, soil, and vegetation as a condition of the
tentative map including the site. Work must be supervised by a qualified archaeologist retained
by the tentative map applicant.
Master Plan Implementdon. This site is located on site to be dedicated to City of Carlsbad
for parkland. The capping of this site will be the responsibility of the City of Carlsbad.
Clreckpoints. 1) Submittal of deveiopment plans for park site. 2) Approval of such plans.
3) Report by consulting archeologist submitted to City Planning Department upon completion
of work and prior to commencement of deveiopment of park site.
Responsible Party. 1) Ciq Planning and Engindg Departments. 2) City Planning
Department. 3) Consulting archeologist, City planning and Engineering Departments.
3
e 0
Sanctions. 1) No approval of site development pian without mitigation plan. 2) No ,mding
permits to be issued until mitigation report by consulting archaeologist is submitted to City
Planning Department.
Impact. Direct impacts of development on archaeological site SDI-4691B.
Mitrgatin. A data recovery program a~ specified in the EIR must be required as a condition
of the tentative map including the site. Work must be supervised by a qualified archaeologist
' retained by the tentative map applicant and completed prior to any construction affecting the site.
- :L Master Plan Implementation. Mitigation of this site will not be required unless this area is rl: disturbed by onsite riparian mitigation.
Clzeckpoints. 1) Approval of applicable tentative map. 2) Report by consulting archaeologist
1 submitted to City Planning Department upon cornpietion of work and prior to any grading for
construction affecting the site.
ResponsibZe Party. 1) No approval of tentative map without mitigation pIan. 2) No building
permits to be issued until mitigation report by consulting archaeologist is submitted to City
Planning Department.
~ ~~ ~~ ~~
Impact. Direct impacts of development on archamlogid site SDI-4687.
Mifigahion. Capping of the site as specified in the EXR as a condition of any tentative map
affecting the site. Work must be supervised by a qualified archaeologist retained by the tentative r. ?) map applicant and completed prior to any construction affecting the site.
i.
Checkpoints. 1) Submittal of applicable tentative map. 2) Approval of appiicable tentative
map. 3) Report by consulting archaeologist submitted to City Planning Department upon
completion of work and prior to any grading or construction affecting the site.
Checkpoints. 1) Submittal of applicable tentative map. 2) ApprovaI of applicable tentative
map, 3) Report by consulting archaeologist submitted to City Planning Department upon
completion of work and prior to any grading or construction affecting the site.
RespunsibZe Party. 1) City Planning and Engineering Departments. 2) Consulting
archaeologist.
I
7
Sanctions. 1) Submlttai e of tentative map not complete without c mitigation plan. 2) No
approval of tentative map without mitigation plan. 3) No buiidine -its to be issued until
mitigation report by consulting archaeologist & submitted to City p'i&g Departments.
Impact. Encroachment of proposed development of the Master Plan on the rural, "early
California" setting of the Leo Canillo historic site.
;" !A,
I ,. Mitigm'on. Establishment and implementation of a special design district as required under
Land. Use Compatibility in this mitigation monitoring and reporting program.
Checkpoints. See Land Use Compatibility section.
Responsible Paq. See Land Use Compatibility section.
Sanctions. See Land Use CompatibiIity section.
D. Paleontological Resources
Impact. Potential destruction of significant fossiis, especially in the Santiago and Lusardi
Formation, by grading and construction.
! T) ', Mitigation. Monitoring of grading by a paiemtologist, with recovery and curation of any
significant fossils discovered, as specified in the EIR. Monitoring is to be performed under the
direction of a qualified paleontologist retained by the applicant for each tentative map.
Clzeckpoints. 1) Approval of applicable tentative map. 2) Report by consulting paleontologist
upon completion of grading.
Responsible Pmty. 1) City Planning and Engineering Departments. 2) Consulting
paleontologist.
t
T 0 0
Sanctions. 1) Approval of tentative map not mmpiete without mitigation pian. 2) No building
permits to be issued until mitigation report by consulting paleontologist is submitted to City
Planning Department.
~~ ~~
E. Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact. Major drainage facility design will be required to avoid potentiai adverse effects of
erosion, sedimentation, scouring, and flooding from the developed site.
Mitigah'on. As a condition of approval each tentative map, the applicant shall submit a
hydroiogy analysis addressing required flood attenuation, runoff flow reduction/siItation, and r \ proper sizing of drainage fac&ti&. I5
Master Plan Xmplementation. Applicant may submit one hydrology analysis for the entire
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 effects
of erosion, sedimentation, scouring, and flooding from the developed site.
r' 3 ;.. r- Master Plan Implementation. Applicant may submit one hydrology analysis, for the entire - Master Plan area.
Mitigatiun. The final decision-making body shall approve a Financing Plan addressing the
source and use of funds for the construction of all required drainage facilities prior to recording
the first Final Map or the issuance of the first grading or buiIding permit, .whichever is first.
Checkpoints. Recording of first final map or issuance of first grading or buiiding permit. each
tentative map.
Responsible Party. City Engineering Department.
Sanctions. No recording of find map or issuance of grading or building permit without
Financing Plan guarantee for construction of required drainage facilities.
L ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~
Impact. Potential erosl 9 or flooding damage to structures in Leo caniflo Ranch Park due to e
runoff from the developed site enter& the drainage south of the park.
Mifigafion. An hydrology analysis for the dI.ainage south of the park shall be submitted with
. 3 the applicable tentative map or prior to issuance of advanced grading permit for Melrose -> Avenue, and an appropriate drainage system shall be required prior to the issuance of the first
grading permit affecting the area and constructed concurrent with the grading of the affected E. ,
area.
CJmJqoints. 1) Approval of applicable tentative maps. 2) Issuane of first grading permit.
Responsible Party. 1) Engineering Department. 2) Engineering Department.
Sanctions. 1) No approval of tentative map without proper drainage system shown. 2) NO
issuance of building permits until drarnage system implemented.
, I
.
0 0
Hydrobgy and Waer Qualip 10
Impact. Installation of the proposed stwm drain berween Villages R and T in Open Space Area 13
wouid disturb sensitive biological resources in the open space area.
Mifigation. The Storm drain shalI be docared to run SOUQ from Vilage Q to connect to a storm
drain in either El Fuerte Street or Chodim Strea.
&\ F Muster Plan Implementutz'on. This stm drain has been relocated into areas &at will be graded as a
part of the development of Villages Q and R wherever possible to avoid sensitive habitat.
Checkpoints. 1) Submittai of tentative map for Villages Q and R including the storm drain. 2)
Approval of Village Q and R tentative map. 3) Completion of storm drain construction.
Responsible Parties. 1) City Engineering Depamnent, 2) City Engineering Department. 3) City
Engineering Department.
Sanctions. 1) Submittal of tentative map not compieze witho.ut 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 storm drain properiy constructed.
Impact. Potential for increased on-site erosion and increased sedimentation downstream when ground
surface is disturbed during grading and constNAio~l,
Mitigah'on. An Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan must be prepared for each development ,' i. .,)
<-- submittal, approved by the City Engineer, and impiekented during consuuaion.
?" ' Checkpoints. Approval of any ,ding or improvement plan in the Master Plan area.
Responsible Parties. 'City Engineering Department.
Sanctions. No approval of any gradmg permits without Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan
approved by the City Engineer.
Impact. Potential impacts of urban polIutants from the developed site affection water quality in
Batiquitos Lagoon.
~ C Miligafion. Discharge of runoff from deveioped areas into namaliied chameis and public education
\v, information distributed to property owners.
Master Plan Implementation. A detailed Hydrological Study must be approved prior to issuance of a
grading permit for the grading necessary to construct the Circulation ESement Roadways.
Checkpoints. 1) Approval of appIicable tentative maps. 2) Completion of construction of drainage
channels. 3) Close of escrow to property owners.
-
b 0 e
Hydrubgy and Warm Qdiv 1 1
Responsible Parties. 1) City Engineering Deparanem. 2) City Engineering Depanment.
3) Developers
Sonctiuw. 1) No approval of renative maps without proper design of mff drainage facilities. 2)
No issuance of building permits unless runoff drainage facilities properly constraaed.
-
Impact. Potential for grease, oil, and other traffic-related pollutants from paved surfaces to reach
Batiquitos Lagoon in runoff. ..
Mitigation. Best management practices shall be employed to prevent urban poIIutants from entering
Citywaterways in compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System municipal E-, ’ 1 stormwater permitting yuirements.
Checkpoints. Approval of any grading or improvement plan in the Master PIan area.
Responsible Parties. City Engineering Department.
Sanctions. No approval of any grading permits without Erosion and Sedimentation Control PIm
approved by the City Engineer.
F. Geology and Soils
Impact. Geologic conditions potentially unsuitable for development on the site without remediation
incfude soils unsuitable for load-bearing or with adme settlement potential, old landslide areas and
claystone beds, and high-groundwater in alluvial soils.
Mitigafion. Remedial grading will be needed to establish firm footings for structures and fills and to
correct adverse settlement and alluvial soils over shatlow groundwater. A soils engineer and
engineering geologist shall be retained by ea& temative map applicant to review detaiIed grading
plans, prepare a detailed soil and geologic investigation, monitor construction, and assure compliance
with the Master Plan geologic investigation aod the Cii Grading Ordinance.
Checkpoints. 1) Submittal of each tentative map. 2) Approval of each tentative map and issuance of
grading permit. 3) Completion of construction.
Responsible Parties. 1) City En,@eering Department. 2) City En-eeering Department. 3)
Consulting soils en,heer and engineering geoIogist, City Engineer.
Sanctions. 1) Tentative map submittal not complete without detailed soil and geologic investigation
2) No tentative map approval without soil and geologic investigation and appropriate conditions. 3)
No issuance of buiIding permits without evidence of proper mitigation.
1 i,
‘r
J 0 e
Air Qua@ 12
G. Air QuaIity .
Impud. Potential for significant direct impacts to regional air quaiity due to increases in pollutant
emissions caused by project traffic.
Mz3iguiion. Implementation of Master man measures inciuding bke lana and pedestrian trails, and
ii ‘\ requirement for applicants for future tentaive maps to work with North County Transit District to ‘ . provide bus routes and stops as appropriate,
Checkpoints. I) Submittal of tentative maps. 2) ApprovaI of tentative maps.
Responsible Parties. 1) City Planning and Engineering Departments. 2) City Planning and
Engineering Departments.
Sanctions. 1) Subrninal of tentative maps not complete without appropriate mitigation measures. 2)
No approval of tentative maps without application conditions.
H. Land Use
Impact. Development of the Master Plan would encroacfi on the “early California” setting of Carrillo
Ranch Park, including the elimination of the northern entry to the ranch compound.
Mitigation. A Special Park Design District shail be established for development surrounding the park,
inciuding special controls on setbacks, landscaping, and arcbitecruraf details and an entry through the
park through Village S. The design district standards will be included in the Master Plan and
subsequent tentative maps will be evduated for conformance by the Planning Commission.
Checkpoints. 1) Approvd of the Master Plan. 2) Approval of tentative maps that include part of
the design district.
Responsible Partiks. 1) City Planning Department. 2) Ci Planning Department.
Sanctions. I) No approvai of the Master Plan without establishment of a park design district and
deveiopment standards. 2) No approval of tentative maps conmining part of the design district
without setting forth district development standards.
p, \
Impact. The City of Carfsbad has no review authority over Village S, which is in the park design
district, if it is deveioped as a school site by the San Marcos Unified School District.
’r
1;
b 0 4
Land Use 13
Mitigation. Agreement with the schoot district on design standards is encouraged, but cannot be
enforced by the PIanning Commission. Whout review of ail devetopmem within the design district,
it is not within the power of the Lead Agency to assure that possible impacts are mitigated or avoided.
q Checkpdints. No Lead Agency checkpoiits without agreemem with the schooi district. \i >.x
Responsible Parties. Responsibility for mitigation is within the ;iuthority of auother jurisdiction and
not the City of Carisbad.
Sanctions. None available to the City of Carisbad under present circumsw.
Impad. Dedication of the open space link at the southwest corner of tb;e property, where the link
crosses from one zone to an adjacem ownership, is not assured under the proposed Master Plan.
Mitigation. Assure continuance of the open space link as part of &e Master Plan.
4.7 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. I) Approval of Master Plan. 2) Approval of tentative map including Village T.
Responsible Parries. Planning Deparmrem.
Sanctions. No approval of Master Pian without open space link.
Impact. 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 \ Zone 18 Locai Facilities Management Plan.
1 '; '1 \: Mitigafiun. Agreement with the Sau Marcos Unified SchooI District as part of Master Plan approval.
Checkpoints. Approval of Master Plan.
Responsible Parties. Planning De.partmeat.
Sanctions. No approval of Master Plan without agreement with the school district that compiies with
the Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan.
1
..
e 0 e
t
Visual AesIhefics/Grading 14
I. Visual AestheticsiGmding
Impact. Grading proposed by the Master Plan requires t7ndings justifying grading volumes to be \ approved by the Planning Director and City Engineer according to the Hillside Development Ordinance. T.. ~
Mitigaton. Approval of findings for the proposed grading 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.
~ ~"
Impact. Proposed grading for the Master Plan would exceed Hillside Deveiopment Ordinance
allowances for slope height and encroachment into 40 percent dopes without specified findings by the
decision making body. - /' L Mitigation. Approval of findings for the proposed grading concurrent with approval of the Master J Plan.
Checkpoints. Approval of the Master Plan.
Responsible Patties. Decision making Body.
Sanctions. No approval of the Master Plan without the required fmditlgs.
Impact. Potential impacts of Master Plan development on the visually sensitive CarriIlo Ranch Park
site, including Villages S, 0, and Q.
Mitigation. Applicable tentative maps to indicate an acceptable detailed landscape plan to reduce
/' - /? potentiai impacts. Implement Special Park Design District recommended in EIR Land Use section.
\.
Checkpoints. 1) Submittal of applicable tentative maps. 2) Approval of applicable tentative maps.
Responsible Parties. 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 withoq appropriate detailed landscape plan.
.
4
9 0 0
t
Yd Actlhetks/Grading 15
Impact. Potentially significant impact of recreational vehicie storage in Open Space Area 13 on views
from existing residences,
Mitigation. Detailed landscape plan as part of tentative map for Vilagts Q and R to effectiveiy 7, [\ screen views of recreational vehicle storage.
/
Checkpoints. 1) Submittal of tentative map induding recreational vehide storage. 2) Approval of
tentative map including recreational. vebicie storage.
Responsible Parties. 1) City Planning Department. 2) City Planning Dqarrment.
Sanctions. 1) Submittal of tentative map not compiete without appropriate landscaping plan. 2) No
approval of tentative map without appropriate landscaping plan.
Impact. Potential significant visual impact of noise Ganiers over six fea in height.
Mitigation. Detailed landscaping plan for tentative maps to provide adequate cover, texture, and
variation of vegetation to screen wails. < /2 '' Checkpoints. 1) Submittal of any tentative map showing noise barriers over six feet in height. 2)
Approval of any tentative map showing noise barriers over six feet in height.
Responsible Patties. 1) City Planning and Eqgeering Departments. 2) City Planning and
Engineering Departments.
Sanctions. 1) Subrnih of applicable tentative maps not complete without appropriate landscaping
pian. 2) No approvd of applicable tentative maps without appropriate landscaping plan.
J. Cimulation
Impad. The intersection of Palomat Airport Road and El Camino Real is projected to have a level of
service F in the year 2000 afternoon peak hour. No additional improvements to this intersection are
g currently proposed in the LFMP. -4,- ,\ .J Mifigaton. The City will continue to monitor traffic to determine conformance with LFMP standard
and to identify and implement improvements necessary to meet the standard.
Checkpoints. Construction of improvements.
Responsible Pam'es. City Engineering Department.. 'r
c
*
t 0 0 ..
Vrd AesrhericdGrading 16
Sandom. No issuance of buiIding permits if Growth Management standards for traffic levels of
service are not met.
~ ~~~
Impacrs. Spacing of the first intersection on ~a~omar ~irpoa RO~ is 200 feet closer than city
standards allow.
Mifigaton. Tentative maps shall comply with City road alipent and intersection spacing standards
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Master Plan Implementation. The location shown on the proposed Master Plan has not been revised
and has been approved by the City Engineer.
Checkpoints. . Approval of tentative maps.
Responsible Parties. City Engineering Department.
Sanctions. No approval of tentative maps that do not comply with City road aiignment and
intersection spacing to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
5, 'L
Impact. As proposed, development of the Master Ran would require traffic signals at Palomar
Airport Road/access road to Village E and at Melrose Averme/entrances to ViIIages H, 0, and L. < 3 Mitigaton. Condition tentative maps to construct the necessary signais and improvements, or
"2' determine the need for signals in traffic studies for tentative maps.
Checkpoints. 1) submittal of applicable tentative maps. 2) ApprovaI of applicable tentative maps.
Responsible Parties. 1) City Engineering Department. 2) City Engineering Department.
Sanctions. 1) No approval of tentative maps without applicable conditions.
Impad. Certain revisions of the internal circulation system described in the EIR may be preferable for environmental or circulatory reasons. /c \i J* Mitigation. Traffic studies for applicable tentative maps s&U determine in consultation with City staff
whether specified changes in the circulation pattern &odd be implemented as conditions of appiicable
tentative maps.
Master PZan Implementrrtion. Revisions to the Master Plan Circulation and proposed tentative maps
have aiready been made to address the recommendations of the EIR and approved by the City
Engineer.
*
L
r.
e
Checkpoints. 1) Appnwai of tentative maps.
0
Circuhion 17
Responsible Pa&. I) City Planning and Engineering Depments. 2) City Planning and
Engineering Departments.
. . Sanctionc. I) No approval of tentative maps withopt applicable coliditions.
IL Noise
Impact. Certain areas adjacent to major roads in tbe Master Plan area could experience future traffc
noise in excess of the City standards of 60 dBA CNEL.
Mitigation. Tentative maps shall show appropriate mise barrim as specified in the EIR or to City
standards to attenuate noise. If grading shown in the Master Plan for development in areas of
City Engineer and a new acoustical study shall be paformed and appmpriate mitigation implemented
if indicated. Tentative maps applicants shall have the option of requesting a reduction in height of
barriers over six feet to no less than six feet to reduce visuai impacts per City policy.
Checkpoin#s. 1) Approval of tentative maps. 2) lpspection of constmcted improvements.
Responsible Pan+ies. 1) City Planning and Engin- Deparmms. 2) City Engineering
Department.
Sanctions. 1) No approval without proper barriers as a condition. 2) No issuance of subsequent
permits.
\c - \ . excessive unattenuated noise is modified by tentative maps, the modifidons shall be reviewed by the
Impact. Second floors of some residential units adjacent to Circulation Element roadways coutd
experience interior noise levels in excess of the 45 dBA CNEL standard.
3 Mitigation. Proposed tentative maps shall be shown to have designs for multi-story residences next to \c /" Circulation Element roadways which would achieve interior noise levels of 45 dBA CNEL or less for second or higher stories. Acoustical studies to &--e compfiance may be required by the City
Engineer.
Checkpoints. 1) Approval of tentative maps. 2) Inspection of amtmct& improvements.
Responsible Pa*& 1) City Planning and Engine Dqartmems. 2) Building Department.
Sanctions. 1) No approval without proper barriers as a condition. 2) No issuance of subsequent
permits. 1
*'
L
0 0
Public FuriliriLF and Services 18
L. Public Facilities and Services
Impact. There is a potential for the LFMP performance standard fbr park facilities to be exceeded
4.
/, , i depending on the timing of development and the status of other futmx @and in City Park District
Mitigation. Prior to the recordation of any finai map miex the Master Plan, sufficient parkland shall
be dedicated within Zone 18.
Checkpoints. Recordation of first find map under the hhsm Plan
Responsible Parties. City Planning, Engineering, and Parks and Recreation Departments.
Sanctions. No recordation of final map without dedicatiou of saffieent parkland within Park District
4.
Impact. The LFMP performance standard nzquires that a school site in Zone 18 be deeded to the San
Marcos Unified Schooi dismct (SMUSD) and tfiat a financing pian be approved by the SMUSD prior
to recordation of any final map or issuance of any grading or Mding permit in Zone 18.
/7 1 1 p Mitigation. CompIiance with the Zone 18 requimneat.
Checkpoints. 1) Recordation of the first final map under the Master Ran. 2) Issuance of any
grading or building permit in the Master Plan area.
Responsibie Parties. City Planning And En-heering Departments.
Sanctions. No Final map recorded without LFMP requirement being met.
Impad. Sewage generation could exceed treatment capacity if resicid devdopment occurs in the
Master Plan area after 2005.
.? Mitigation. Impiemeat measures specified in the LFMP for any tenrathe maps causing the pot&
i impact to be reaiized.
Checkpoints. 1) Submittal of tentative maps after 2005. 2) Approvai of tentative maps submitted
after 2005.
Responsible Parties. 1) City Tlanning and Engineering Departments. 2) City Planning and
Engineering Depamnents.
L/ .
n. 0. Q
8
-< Public Faci&ies and srrvinr 19
Sanctions. No approval of tentative maps after 2005 u+tbut ~ldtions repiring conformance with
LFMP requirements.
M. Mid Waste Disposal
Impad. Depending on regional planning for the arplasion of landfill capacity, there is a potential for
soiid waste generated from the Master Plan area to ex& c@ad capacity.
\, Mitigation. Applicants for tentative maps proposed in the Master Plan area shalI demonstrate that i$\ . 1 means of feasible soIid waste disposal are available.
Checkpoints. 1) Approval of tentative maps for the Master Plan area.
Responsible Parties. 1) City Planning and Engineering Departments.
Sanctions. 1) No approval of tentative maps without demnstr&on of existing disposal capacity.
-3