HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-12-13; Planning Commission; Resolution 38550 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
~
I
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3855
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF A PROGRAM
FOR THE GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN ON 281.2
ACRES OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LA COSTA AVENUE AND EL
CAMINO REAL IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 23.
CASE NAME: GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
CASE NO: EIR 93-02
WHEREAS, Carlsbad Partners Limited has filed a verified applical
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, FINAL EIR 93-02,
certain property, to wit:
A portion of Section 2. Township 13 South, Range 4 West; and E
portion of Section 35, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, Sar
Bevino Meridian, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State o!
California
with the City of Carlsbad, which has been referred to the Planning Commission; a
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for approval of thc
Valley Master Plan as is more fully described in the Final Program Environmental
Report as the Reduced Project Alternative, EIR 93-02 as provided in Chapter 19.02
Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 19th of January,
2nd day of February, 1994, and the 13th day of December, 1995, hold a duly noticel
hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, a Reduced Project Alternative has been proposed by the a]
which reduces the project’s proposed commercial square footage by half to 300,00(
feet and increases the residential portion to 55.8 acres; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all te
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission consic
factors relating to the project; and
I I
e 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the P
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That the Program Environmental Impact Report EIR 93-02 will be a1
to include the comments and documents of those testifymg at thc
hearing and responses thereto hereby found to be in good faith and
by incorporating a copy of the minutes of said public hearings into the
C) That the Program Environmental Impact Report EIR 93-02 as so a:
and evaluated is recommended for acceptance and certification as t
Program Environmental Impact Report and that the final 1
Environmental Impact Report as recommended is adequate and F
reasonable information on the project and all reasonable and
alternatives thereto, including no project.
D) That among the alternatives evaluated, it is recommended that the E
Project Alternative which incorporates mitigation measures as discussec
be approved for implementation.
E) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Corn
RECOMMENDS CERTIFICATION of the Final Program Enviro~
Impact Report, EIR 93-02, APPROVAL of the Candidate Findings
("CEQA Findings") Dated December 13, 1995, and attached hereto
Exhibit "A" and incorporated by this reference; and APPROVAL
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("Program") Dated Dt
13, 1995, attached hereto marked Exhibit "B" and incorporated
reference; and based on the following findings and subject to the fc
conditions.
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission does hereby find that Final Program EIR 93-
CEQA Findings, and the Program have been prepared in accordam
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR Gui
and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Carlsbad.
2. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyz
considered Final Program EIR 93-02, the environmental impacts therein id
for this project; the Candidate Findings of Fact ("Findings" or "CEQA Fir
attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and the Mitigation Monitoring and Re
Program ("Program") attached hereto as Exhibit "B", which is incorporated hc
this reference, prior to recommending approval of the project.
....
PC RES0 NO. 3855 -2-
0 0
1 3. The Planning Commission finds that Final Program EIR 93-02 refle
2 independent judgment of the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission.
3 4. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval, accept as :
4 incorporate as if set forth in full herein, and make each and every one of the
contained in the "Candidate Findings of Fact'' Exhibit"A".
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
5. As is more fully identified and set forth in Final Program EIR 93-02 anc
Candidate Findings of Fact, the Planning Commission hereby finds and reco~
that the City Council find pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21(
CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that the mitigation measures described as
in the above referenced documents, are feasible, and will become binding u
entity assigned thereby to implement same.
6. As is also noted in the above referenced environmental documents describe
above finding number.4, some of the alternatives to the project which were id
as potentially feasible in Final Program EIR 94-01 are found not to be feasib
they could not meet both the objectives of the project and avoid the id
significant environmental effects through implementation of feasible mi
measures for the reasons set forth in said Candidate Findings of Fact.
7. As required by the Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the P
Commission hereby recommends adoption of the Mitigation Monitorj
Reporting Program ("Program") (Exhibit "B"). The Planning Commission
finds that the Program is designed to ensure that during project implementa
developer and any other responsible parties implement the project compone
comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified in the Candidate Fin1
Fact and the Program.
18 )I 8. The Record of Proceedings for this project consists of the following:
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
a) The Draft and Final Program EIR for the Project, including appendi
technical reports, comments and response to comments;
b) All reports, applications, memoranda, maps, letters and other p
documents prepared by the planning consultant, the project Applic.
environmental consultant, and the City of Carlsbad that are bef
decisionmakers as determined by the City Clerk;
c) All documents submitted by members of the public and public age1
connection with the EIR on the project;
d) Minutes and verbatim transcripts of all workshops, public meetin
public hearings; and
e) Matters of common knowledge to the City of Carlsbad which they c(
including but not limited to, the Carlsbad General Plan, Carlsbad
PC RES0 NO. 3855 -3-
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
I
I
0 e
Ordinance, and Local Facilities Management Plan, which may be fo1
City Hall located at 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive and the Comr
Development Ofice located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive in the custody
City Clerk and Director of Planning.
Conditions:
1. Refer to Exhibit "B", Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, 1
mitigation measures and monitoring programs applicable to development
Green Valley Master Plan Project.
2. The attached errata sheet dated December 13, 1995 shall be incorporated il
Final Program Environmental Impact Report.
3. Within 30 days of a California Coastal Commission approval of the proji-
applicant shall provide an agreement to the satisfaction of the City Attorney
City Manager that the applicant will indemnify and hold harmless the City
officers, employees, and agents from any and all costs of defense includi
judgements, attorney fees, costs and expenses arising out of an action attach
adequacy of the environmental documents pertaining to this project.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a special meeting
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 13th day of De
1995, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Welshons, Commissioners Compas, 1
Nielsen, Noble and Savary
NOES: Commissioner Erwin
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
I I
KIM'WELSHONS, Chairperson
CARLSBADPLANNINGCOMh 1 AlTEST
I
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 3855 -4-
I I 0 0 EXHIE
December 13,
FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
City of Carlsbad Planning Department
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, California 92009-9859
December 6, 1995
r
GREEN VALLEY MASTER @ c AN e
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEM FINDINGS OF FACT
Section Paqe
............................................ 1 . INTRODUCTION 1
....................................... II . PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1
111 . PROGRAMEIR .............................................. 5
IV . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 6
V . TERMINOLOGY/THE PURPOSE OF FINDINGS UNDER CEQA 7
VI . LEGAL EFFECT OF FINDINGS ................................... 8
VI1 . MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM 8
VIII . IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE INSIGNIFICANT 9
IX . DIRECT SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 9
....................................
.............
............................
......................
...........
A .
B .
C .
D .
E .
F .
G .
H .
I .
J .
K .
L .
LandUse ............................................. 10
Visual Quality/Landform Alteration ........................... 10
Agriculture ............................................ 11
Biological Resources ..................................... 12
Cultural Resources ...................................... 15
Paleontological Resources ................................. 16
Geology Soils .......................................... 16
HydrologyNater Quality .................................. 18
Circulation ............................................ 19
Noise ............................................... 2.
AirQuality ............................................ 2E
Public Facilities and Services ............................... 2E
December 1995 Table of Content:
Page
1 ”
GREEN VALLEY MASTER (II I AN 0
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
~~~ ~
X . CUMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 29
A .
B .
C .
D .
E .
F .
G .
H .
I .
J .
K .
L .
LandUse ............................................. 29
Visual QualitylLandform Alteration ........................... 29
Agriculture ............................................ 30
Biological Resources ..................................... 30
Cultural Resources ...................................... 32
Paleontological Resources ................................. 33
Geology Soils .......................................... 33
HydrologyNater Quality .................................. 34
Circulation ............................................ 35
Noise ............................................... 37
AirQuality ............................................ 39
Public Facilities and Services ............................... 41
............... XI . FEASIBILITY OF POTENTIAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 41
December 1995 Table of Content
Page
I
L GREEN VALLEY MAsTEFRAN 0
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
BEFORE THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
RE: GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. INTRODUCTION
The Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FPDEIR) prepared on this project addressed
the potential environmental effects of developing 281.2 acres of land and associated
supporting public facilities and infrastructure. The Green Valley Master Plan submitted by
Carlsbad Partners, Ltd. contained both a land use plan and policy language to guide the long-
term development of approximately 86.4 acres. The Master Plan, also referred to as the
Reduced Project Alternative, proposes residential and commercial development. Additionally
the applicant’s preferred project involves designation of approximately 194.8 acres as natural
or revegetated open space.
In addition to the Green Valley Reduce Project Alternative the FPDEIR evaluated four
alternatives to the proposed project. These included the No Project Alternative, the
development using the combination of three land uses allowed under existing General Plan
Designations, an Environmentally Preferred Alternative, and an Off-Site Project Alternative.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Green Valley Master area contains a total of 281.2 acres. The purpose of the Greer
Valley Master Plan is to provide a comprehensive set of guidelines, regulations, anc
implementation programs for guiding and ensuring the orderly development of the property ir
accordance with the City’s General Plan. The Master Plan defines the allowable type anc
intensity of land use, provides detailed development and design standards and criteria, anc
describes the method by which the Green Valley Master Plan will be implemented.
City Council adoption of the Master Plan will establish the zoning and development standard:
for this property. The Green Valley Master Plan will ensure that the subject property i
developed in full accordance with the City of Carlsbad General Plan, Local Coastal Program
Zone 23 Local Facilities Management Plan, Noise Policy (Noise 171, Open Space ani
Conservation Resource Management Pian, El Camino Real Corridor Standards and Carlsbac
Habitat Management Plan.
December 1995 Page
1
GREEN VALLEY MASTER e 1 AN e
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
The proposed land uses for the Master Plan are residential, community commercial, and open
space. These are described as follows:
Planning Area 7 - Encinitas Creek Conservation and Buffer Corridor
Encinitas Creek traverses the project site in a south to north direction and is adjacent to El
Camino Real. This corridor, approximately 400 to 600 feet wide (including proposed
revegetation areas) and 5900 feet long is comprised largely of riparian woodland. This area
is an important biological area not only for the plant communities associated with the habitat,
but also for the birds and wildlife which live in such an environment. As such, it is necessary
to maintain this habitat in permanent open space and to ensure that the area is not
significantly impacted by any development which occurs in the vicinity. Therefore, the entire
existing riparian woodland area has been placed in an open space easement.
The Encinitas Creek Conservation and Buffer Corridor, Planning Area 1, contains approximately
79 gross acres. Two roadways over the creek provide access to the project site. These
crossing points are at Levante Street and the future Calle Barcelona, located approximately 0.5
miles and 0.9 miles, respectively, south of La Costa Avenue. There will be as little
disturbance as possible from this construction and, to mitigate for the loss of habitat,
appropriate adjacent area will be planted with new native vegetation in accordance with the
requirements of the Local Coastal Program.
In addition to preserving sensitive biological resources, the Encinitas Creek Conservation and
Buffer Corridor acts as a visual buffer between El Camino Real and planned on-site
development to the west of Encinitas Creek in Planning Areas 2 and 3. It enables the site to
retain much of its present character when viewed from El Camino Real.
Planning Area 2 - Retail Cenier
The approximately 18.3-NDA (Net Development Acres) Planning Area 2 is located in the south
part of the disturbed portion of Green Valley, west of Planning Area 1. The planning are?
extends from the residential area north of Calle Barcelona to the southerly property boundary.
Planning Area 2 consists of a retail center. A total of up to 294,000 square feet 01
commercial development may be allowed in Planning Area 2, subject to approval of a Precise
Development Plan or PUD by the City Council.
Planning Area 3 - Single-Family Residential
The approximately 55.8-NDA Planning Area 3 is located in the central-northern disturbec
portion of Green Valley. A total of up to 400 single-fami1y.dwelling units, 15% of which mus
December 1995 Page ,
L GREEN VALLEY M.AsTA!AN e
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FA CT
be made available to low income households (Chapter 21.85 Carlsbad Municipal Code), may
be approved in this area subject to a Site Development Plan or PUD. The single-family
residential may be comprised of detached units, townhomes, garden or patio homes.
Planning Area 4 - Upland Bluff Area
Planning Area 4 includes the hillside area on the western side of the property that is
characterized by relatively steep slopes. This area contains approximately 1 24.1 acres. The
highest elevations are on the western boundary, with slopes descending to the east. The bluff
area, containing several slopes greater than 25% and a few slopes greater ,than 40%, is
generally overlain by southern maritime chaparral, a vegetation community which is declining
in the area primarily due to development. Southern maritime chaparral is considered an
important plant community on-site in that it is the habitat for sensitive plant species. The
upland bluff sensitive habitat area has been permanently preserved with an open space
easement and acts as a dramatic backdrop to retail and residential development in Planning
Areas 2 and 3. The Upland Bluff Area is a potential mitigation area under the provisions of
Carlsbad ordinances related to the approval of such mitigation areas.
Planning Area 5 - Convenience Commercial
The approximately 1.7-NDA Planning Area 5 is located at the corner of El Camirlo Real and La
Costa Avenue. It is currently the site of the building known locally as the "Red Barn." A
maximum of 6,000 square feet of commercial development may be allowed in Planning Area
5, subject to approval of a Site Development Plan. The permitted land uses are limited to an
art store, gallery, bank/savings and loan, florist, offices or restaurant.
The discretionary actions taken by the decisionmakers in approving this Project are:
1. Master Plan, MP 92-01. The Green Valley property is zoned Plannee
Community (P-C) (Chapter 21.38). According to the Zoning Ordinance, "Thf
Planned Community Zone is applied to properties in excess of 100 acres ir
Carlsbad to ensure for the orderly, coordinated development of the site througt
coordinated planning between the City and applicant." The Planned Communit)
Zone requires the approval of a master plan prior to the approval ,of any permit:
for development.
2. Environmental Impact Report, EIR 93-02 - The Environmental llmpact Repor
(EIR), as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), identifie:
all issues of environmental concern as a result of the proposed on-sit(
development. After a thorough analysis of each issue, the levlel of impact i:
~~~~ ~ ~_____ ~~ ~~
December 1995 Page I
r GREEN VALLEY MASTER. e AN e
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
assessed. If an issue is determined to be significant, appropriate mitigation
measures and monitoring programs are established.
3. Local Facilities Management Plan - In 1986 the City of Carlsbad initiated a
growth management program which defined 25 Local Facilities Management
Plan (LFMP) zones. Each zone corresponds to a specific geographic area within
the Carlsbad community. A LFMP plan must be prepared for each zone prior to
development. Green Valley is designated by the growth management plan as
LFMP Zone 23, which is located in the Southwest Quadrant of the City. This
zone plan has been created in accordance with the City of Carlsbad Growth
Management Program to address the adequacy of existing and projected
project-related public facilities. This analysis includes the zone’s relationship
with the eleven identified public facilities: City administration facilities, library,
wastewater treatment capacity, parks, drainage, circulation, fire, open space,
schools, sewer collection system, and water distribution system.
4. Master Tentative Tract Map, CT 92-08 -The subdivision provides for the initial
development of the backbone infrastructure, grading, and environmental
protection measures on a tract of land in the central portion of the property. CT
92-08 is intended to be followed by individual tract maps, Planned Unit
Developments or Site Development Plans for the development of Planning Areas
2, 3 and 5.
5. Special Use Permit, SUP 92-05 - This permit was required for work within the
Encinitas Creek 1 OO-year floodplain which is located in a Special Flood Hazard
Area as indicated on the Carlsbad Zoning Map. Work within the floodplain
consists of the construction of two access roads; Levante Street and Calle
Barcelona. Development within the Special Flood Hazard Zone is subject to all
regulations of the Floodplain Management Regulations, Chapter 21 .l 10 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code.
6. Hillside Development Permit, HDP 92-1 5 - A Hillside Development Permit i:
required prior to development of all property with a slope of fifteen percent o
greater and an elevation differential greater than fifteen feet pursuant to Chapte:
21.95 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. These conditions exist in Green Valle:
and a Hillside Development Permit was therefore required.
~~~~
December 1995 Page A
I GREEN VALLEY MASTEaAN 0
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
Subsequent discretionary approvals that will be required prior to development in the Master
Plan area will include one or more of the following:
e
0
e
e
e
e
e
e
Site Development Plan
Coastal Development Permit
Non-Residential Planned Development
Conditional Use Permit
Tentative Map
Planned Unit Development
Special Use Permit
Local Coastal Program Amendment
111. PROGRAM EIR
A Program EIR is an EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be
characterized as "one large project" and are related either: (1 ) geographically; (2) as logical
parts in the chain of contemplated actions; (3) in connection with the issuance of rules,
regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program; or
(4) as individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory
authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar
ways (CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Reg. § 151 68, subd. (a).)
Use of a Program EIR can provide the following advantages. The Program EIR can: (1:
provide an occasion for a more exhaustive consideration of effects and alternatives than would
be practical in an EIR on an individual action; (2) ensure consideration of cumulative impacts
that might be slighted in a case-by-case analysis; (3) avoid duplicate reconsideration of basic
policy considerations; and (4) allow the Lead Agency to consider broad policy alternatives anc
program-wide mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility tc
deal with basic problems of cumulative impacts; and (5) allow reduction in paperwork. (CEQP
Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Reg. § 151 68, subd. (b).)
"Use of the program EIR also enables the Lead Agency to characterize the overall program as
the Project being approved at that time. Following this approach when individual activitie2
within the program are proposed, the agency would be required to examine the individua
activities whether their effects were fully analyzed in the Program EIR. If the activities woulc
have no effects beyond those analyzed in the Program EIR, the agency could assert that tht
activities are merely part of the program which had been approved earlier, and no furthe
CEQA compliance would be required. This approach offers many possibilities for agencies tc
~~~ ~
December 1995 Page :
r
GREEN VALLEY MASTER q I AN e
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
reduce their costs of CEQA compliance and still achieve high levels of environmental
protection." (CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Reg., discussion following § 151 68).
The CEQA Guidelines provide that the "degree of specificity required in an EIR will correspond
to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity." (Guidelines Section 1 5 146).
IV. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
For the purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth below, the administrative record of the
City Council decision on the environmental analysis of this Project shall consist of the
foliowing:
e The Draft and Final Program EIR for the Project, including appendices and
technical reports;
e All reports, applications, memoranda, maps, letters and other planning
documents prepared by the Planning Consultant, the Project Applicant, ana
Environmental Consultant, and the City of Carlsbad that are before the
decisionmakers as determined by the City Clerk;
e All documents submitted by members of the public and public agencies ir
connection with the EIR on the Project;
0 Minutes and verbatim transcripts of all workshops, public meetings, and public
hearings held by the City of Carlsbad, or video tapes where transcripts are no1
available or adequate;
e Any documentary or other evidence submitted at workshops, public meetings
and public hearings; and
e Matters of common knowledge to the City of Carlsbad which they consider,
including but not limited to, the following:
- Carlsbad General Plan
Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance
Local Facilities Management Plan
December 1995 Page d
GREEN VALLEY MASTER 9 AN 0
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FA C7
~ ~~
V. TERMINOLOGY/THE PURPOSE OF FINDINGS UNDER CEQA
Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that, for each significant environmental effec:
identified in an EIR for a Project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching
one or more of the three allowable conclusions. The first is that "[clhanges or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantiallv lessen the
significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR." (emphasis added.) The seconc
potential finding is that "[sluch changes or alterations are within the responsibility anc
jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes
have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such othel
agency." The third permissible conclusion is that "[slpecific economic, social or othel
considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in thc
final EIR."
Regarding the first of three potential findings, the CEQA Guidelines do not define the
difference between "avoiding" a significant environmental effect and merely subs tan ti all^
lesseningn such an effect. The meaning of these terms, therefore, must be gleaned from othel
contexts in which they are used. Public Resource Code Section 21081, on which CEQP
Guidelines section 1 509 1 is based, uses the term "mitigate" rather than "substantially lessen.'
The CEQA Guidelines, therefore, equate "mitigating" with "substantially lessening." Such ar
understanding of the statutory term is consistent with Public Resources Code section 21 001
which declares the Legislature's policy disfavoring the approval of projects with significanl
environmental effects where there are feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that coulc
"avoid or substantially lessen" such significant effects.
For purposes of these findings, the term "avoid" shall refer to the ability of one or mor€
mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less-than-sisnificant level
In contrast, the term "substantially lessen" shall refer to the ability of such measurers tc
substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to reduce the effect to a leve
of insignificance. Although CEQA Guidelines section 15091 requires only that approving
agencies specify that a particular significant effect is "avoid[edl a substantially lessen[ed],'
these findings, for purposes of clarity, will specify whether the effect in questions has beer
fully avoided (and thus reduced to a level of insignificance) or has been substantially lessenec
(and thus remains Significant).
The purpose of these findings is to systematically restate the significant effects of the Projec.
on the environment identified in the Final Program EIR, and determine the feasibility 0'
mitigation measures and Project alternatives identified in the Final Program EIR which woulc
avoid or substantially lessen those significant effects. Once the City has adopted sufficien
December I995
~~
Page :
GREEN VALLEY MASTER %N e
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FAC7
~~ ~~
measures to avoid a significant impact,t the City does not need to adopt every mitigatior
measure brought to its attention or identified in the Final Program EIR.
It is the policy of the State of California and the City of Carlsbad to not approve a Project i
there are available feasible mitigation measures or project alternatives which woulc
substantially lessen that Project's significant environmental effects. Only when such
mitigation measures or Project alternatives are found to be infeasible because of specific
economic, social or other conditions set forth in these findings may the City approve a Projecl
in spite of its significant effects.
Another purpose of these findings is to bring focus on Project alternative in the ultimate
decisionmaker's decision whether to approve or disapprove the Project. If, after application
of all feasible mitigation measures to the Project, significant impacts remain, Projecl
alternatives identified in the FPDEIR must be reviewed and determined to be feasible 01
infeasible. The findings set forth the reasons, based on substantial evidence in the record,
that the decisionmakers conclude any such Project alternatives are infeasible (see further
discussion in Feasibility of Alternatives Section).
VI. LEGAL EFFECT OF FINDINGS
To the extent that these findings conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in the
Final EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City of
Carlsbad ("City" or "decisionmakers") hereby finds itself and any other responsible parties,
including the Applicant and its successors in interest (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant"),
to implement those measures. These findings, in other words, are not merely informational
or hortatory, but constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the
City adopts the resolution(s) approving the Reduced Project Alternative.
The adopted mitigation measures are express conditions of approval. Other requirements are
referenced in the mitigation monitoring program adopted concurrently with these findings, and
will be effectuated through the process of implementing the Reduced Project Alternative.
VII. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
As required by Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City of Carlsbad, in adopting
these findings, also adopts a mitigation monitoring and reporting program as prepared by the
environmental consultant under the direction of the City. The program is designed to ensure
that during project implementation, the Applicant and any other responsible parties comply
~~ ~ ~ ~
December 1995 Page 8
GREEN VALLEY MASTER dl AN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FAC7
with the feasible mitigation measures identified below. The program is described in the
document entitled "Green Valley Mitigation Monitoring Program."
VIIP. IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE INSIGNIFICANT
The following summary briefly describes impacts determined to be insignificant in thc
preparation of the EIR.
Section 4.0 of the Green Valley Master Plan Program EIR addresses a total of 12 issues fo
the Green Valley Master Plan project that may cause significant environmental impacts. CEQF
requires that an EIR also identify and briefly explain why various effects of the project wen
found not to be significant, and therefore not discussed in detail in the EIR. Several issue:
were found not to have potentially significant impacts. These are described below.
Light and Glare: The proposed project will incrementally contribute to new light and glare
sources both within the project site and the surrounding area.
Natural Resources: The proposed project will not result in a significant increase in the rate 0'
use of any natural resources or substantially deplete any nonrenewable natural resources.
Risk of Upset of Hazardous Substances: The proposed project will not increase the risk of ar
explosion or the release of hazardous substances into the environment.
Population and Housing: The proposed project will not substantially alter the plannec
distribution or balance of population or housing in the area. The project would provide i
approximately 400 dwelling units, some of which will be made available to lower incomf
households.
Energy: The proposed project will not result in the use of substantial amounts of fuel o
energy, or substantially increase the demand upon existing energy sources.
Human Health: The proposed project would not crease any potential health hazards.
IX. DIRECT SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The Final Program EIR identified a number of direct significant environmental effects (0
"impacts") that the Reduced Project Alternative will cause, all of which can be fully avoidec
through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures.
December 1995 Page 1
GREEN VALLEY MASTER 1c AN e
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
A. LAND USE
Significant Effect
With the reduction of the retail area under the Reduced Project Alternative to accommodate
less than 300,000 square feet, each of the land uses will be in conformance with the General
Plan land use descriptions. However,
1. Development, as proposed, of Planning Area 5 as a commercial site would conflict witt'
some of the primary and secondary priorities of the Open Space Conservation Resource
Management Plan, and development standards of the El Camino Real Scenic Corridor
Overlay.
Finding
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are
required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid the significant environmental effeci
as identified in the Final Program EIR. The following mitigation measures would reduce the
impact to below a level of significance.
1. Designate Planning Area 5 as open space within the Master Plan.
2. A physical and visual buffer should be provided between the commercial PA2
and the residential PA3. The requirement for buffering shall be included in the
Master Plan.
3. As a procedural follow-up recommended in the OSCRMP, all areas designated
as open space in the Master Plan will be designated as such on the General Plan
Land Use Map and Zoning Map. This action, although not mitigation,
strengthens the preservation of lands designated as open space.
B. VISUAL QUALITY/LANDFORM ALTERATION
Significant Effect
1. The change from a semi-natural (agricultural) to a built environment.
2. The creation of two road breaks in an otherwise contiguous riparian corridor.
December 1995 Page lr
GREEN VALLEY MASTER cer AN e
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACl
3. Landform alteration and the creation of manufactured slopes and retaining walls.
4. Intensification of structural development at the southwest corner of El Camino Real anc
La Costa Avenue.
The proposed Master Plan development standards, subject to approval by the City of Carlsbad,
will serve as comprehensive guidelines for the project as a whole. These standards include
the following:
1 . Architectural design standards for scale, massing, rooflines, building color and material
guidelines, landscaping, and location on-site shall be used to create a visual blend with
the bluff topography, existing vegetation, and colors of the native environment.
2. Landscaping and revegetation shall be used to recreate as closely as possible the
continuous visual effect of the riparian corridor.
3. Light overspill shall be minimized through the use of lighting shields, minimum intensity
lighting, and minimization of lighted signage.
4. Where possible, project contrast shall be minimized and regulated along any bluff
silhouette line or adjacent to native vegetation and Encinitas Creek through
landscaping/revegetation and lower pads.
Finding
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are
required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid the significant environmental effect
as identified in the Final Program EIR. The following mitigation measures would reduce the
impact to below a level of significance.
1. If Planning Area 5 is approved for commercial development, it shall be developed
subject to all applicable requirements of the El Camino Real Corridor Standards
including the approval of a Special Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit.
C. AGRICULTURE
Significant Effect
Since there is no prime farmland existing onsite, there are no significant impacts to agriculture.
December 1995 Page 1 I
GREEN VALLEY MASTER 0 I ,AN e
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEa4 FINDINGS OF FACT "
Finding
No mitigation measures are required.
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Significant Effect
1. Approximately 1 .O acres (4.2 percent) of Diegan coastal sage scrub will be directly
impacted by the Reduced Project Alternative. Other potentially occurring sensitive
sage scrub species would also be affected. These direct impacts are mitigated by the
Master Plan which would create 8.01 acres of new coastal sage scrub.
2. Approximately 4.6 acres (14 percent) of southern riparian woodland will be directly
impacted by the Reduced Project Alternative. All of these impacts would occur along
Encinitas Creek from the proposed crossings for access to the site and the widening
of El Camino Real. These impacts are considered potentially significant because of the
sensitivity of this community and species observed in it, such as the least Bell's vireo,
southwestern willow flycatcher, yellow warbler, and yellow-breasted chat. The
proposed Master Plan mitigates these impacts to below a level of significance by
incorporating 1 1.75 acres of riparian restoration and 3.5 acres of riparian enhancement
into the plan, although the preferred mitigation option is avoidance of impacts.
3. Traffic generated noise represents the most significant indirect impact of this project.
The project will increase the amount of area impacted by noise by approximately 2.5
percent in the southern part of the riparian woodland, 3.8 percent in the northern part
of the woodland, and not at all in the central portion (Endo Engineering 1993). The
area of riparian woodland impacted by project generated noise is estimated to total less
than 0.75 acre. This impact is mitigated to a level of insignificance by the 15.25
acres of riparian enhancement proposed by the Master Plan. Because the most
preferred mitigation is avoidance, the No Project Alternative would eliminate the
impacts and no riparian restoration or enhancements would be required.
The following potentially significant biological impacts of the Reduced Project Alternative are
- not mitigated by the proposed restoration and enhancement plans presented in the Master
Plan. However, they can be mitigated by the measures discussed below under Mitigation
Measures.
December 1995 Page 12
GREEN VALLEY MASTER e 1 ,AN e
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Approximately 1 .O acre (1 3 percent) of southern coastal salt marsh will be directly
impacted by the proposed access to the site at Levante Street. This impact is
considered a potentially significant cumulative impact because of the sensitivity of this
community.
2. The project as proposed will reduce wildlife movement through Encinitas Creek with
the placement of the two proposed bridge crossings. This creek is identified as a
wildlife corridor in the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP). The potential impact
to wildlife movement along Encinitas Creek would be considered significant.
Although the open space plan presented in the Master Plan incorporates extensive restoration
of riparian and upland habitats, potentially significant impacts may still occur from
implementation of the project.
Finding
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are
required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid the significant environmental effect
as identified in the Final Program EIR. The following mitigation measures would reduce the
impact to below a level of significance.
1. The effectiveness of the proposed buffer areas between the proposed development and
natural areas shall be increased through the use of barrier plantings such as cacti. The
planting of the buffer areas shall be subject to the review and approval of the resource
agencies.
2. Two acres of southern coastal salt marsh habitat shall be restored on-site. The on-site
location of the restoration shall require approval of the California Department of Fish
and Game and shall be incorporated into the Master Plan Open Space and Biological
Habitat Enhancement Plan.
3. The Proposed Project shall be modified to avoid the 0.6 acres of coastal sage in the
south central portion of the site at the foot of the bluffs in order to alleviate any
impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher occupied habitat and potentially occurring
sensitive plants.
(This measure is not required for the Reduced Project Alternative because it does not
impact the 0.6 acres of coastal sage.)
~~
December 1995 Page 13
L
GREEN VALLEY MASTER 9 LAN e
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEM FINDINGS OF FACT
~~~ ~~ ~~
4. Detailed restoration plans based on the required mitigation ratios and the Open Space
and Habitat Protection and Enhancement Plan outlined in the Master Plan shall be
prepared, reviewed, and approved by the appropriate resource agencies prior to grading
permit.
5. Regarding impacts to wildlife movement along Encinitas Creek; Because the most
preferable mitigation is avoidance, the first approach is to eliminate both the Calle
Barcelona and Levante Street crossings of the creek to reduce impacts to riparian
areadwildlife movement along Encinitas Creek. Elimination of the crossings will also
reduce impacts to southern coastal salt marsh. However, elimination of both crossings
is not feasible based on project circulation and access requirements.
Since eliminating both crossings renders the project infeasible, the elimination of one
crossing is the preferred mitigation. One crossing has the potential to create fewer
impacts than two and the greatest biological benefit would be attained from eliminating
Levante Street. This would create the largest possible block of riparian habitat and also
eliminate direct impacts from the Levante Street crossing which includes disturbance
to 0.4 acres of southern coastal salt marsh.
However, impacts to wildlife movement can also be mitigated through crossing(s)
design. Using either the Otay Ranch Corridor Study (Ogden 1992)’ as a model or
other specifications acceptable to the California Department of Fish and Game,
adequate opportunity for north-south wildlife movement can be created thereby
mitigating impacts to wildlife movement along the Encinitas Creek to a level of less
than significant.
6. Traffic noise and other noise impacts to the riparian corridor are considered to be
mitigated by the proposed restoration plans presented in the Master Plan. Additional
mitigation could further reduce noise impacts in the form of noise attenuation
structures adjacent to the riparian corridor and/or elimination of one of the creek
crossings.
’ Bridges are preferred to culvert underpasses, and the length of the underpass should be no more than
twice its width, a 2 to 1 ratio.
Underpasses should be no less than 12 feet in height from grade to ceiling at any given point.
If the minimum height is 30 feet or greater, deviation from the 2 to 1 ratio may be considered.
~~
December 1995 Page 14
GREEN VALLEY MASTER 1) AN e
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Significant Effect
Implementation of the Proposed Project and the Reduced Project Alternative would result in
a potentially significant impact (i.e., total removal) of the cultural resources at archaeological
site GV-4.
Finding
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are
required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid the significant environmental effect
as identified in the Final Program EIR. The following mitigation measures would reduce the
impact to below a level of significance.
One of the following is required.
1. A minimum area of 26 square meters of GV-4 shall be excavated by hand prior to
grading. Only Stratum II shall be systematically excavated since Stratum I contains
little cultural material and is believed to be imported. Special emphasis shall be placed
upon analyzing the faunal remains since the test results suggest animal bone is among
the most scientifically useful and interesting components of the deposit.
2. A minimum of 52 square meters of GV-4 shall be excavated by controlled mechanical
means similar to those described in Van Horn, Murray, & White 1986; and Van Horn
1988. The other conditions set forth in item (1 ) above would remain the same. The
reason for the larger sample as compared to item (1) above is due to the high cost of
conventional archaeological excavation conducted by hand. Alternately, controlled
mechanized excavation offers the potential for acquisition of a significantly larger
sample for substantially less cost.
Regardless of which of the two methods is chosen, the archaeologist directing the mitigative
work shall have the authority to halt excavations if, in his or her judgment, there is nothing
to be gained by continuing.
December 1995 Page 15
GREEN VALLEY MASTER e AN 0
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
F. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Significant Effect
Although the walkover survey and inspection did not result in the discovery of any fossils
onsite, the subject area may contain paleontological resources from Eocene and Pleistocene
sedimentary units, and Holocene sediments which could be significantly impacted by the
Proposed Project. Careful development of this area may increase our knowledge and
collections of the fossil assemblages and environment of deposition of the rock units in this
area.
Finding
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are
required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid the significant environmental effect
as identified in the Final Program EIR. The following mitigation measures would reduce the
impact to below a level of significance.
1. A paleontological resource monitoring plan shall be developed by a Certified
Paleontologist prior to the initiation of grading operations. This plan should include a
grading observation schedule to be maintained when grading in bedrock units to further
evaluate the fossil resources of the site.
2. Salvage operations shall be initiated and coordinated with the developer if significant
concentrations of fossils are encountered.
G. GEOLOGY/SOILS
Significant Effect
The potentially significant geology/soils impacts associated with the project are as follows:
1. The alluvium and slopewash/colluvium that underlies much of the proposed
development area may be susceptible to liquefaction and/or seismically induced
settlement during significant seismic events.
2. Future development of the site may create conditions where the on-site materials
would be susceptible to slope instabilities. The alluvium and the slopewash/colluvium
underlying the area proposed for development. is compressible and considered
December 1995 Page 16
GREEN VALLEY MASTER 9 AN e
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~
unsuitable, in their present state, for the direct support of structural loads. As much
as 10 inches of settlement may occur where fills of 20 feet in depth are to be placed.
3. Shallow groundwater may impact the stability and working conditions in trench
excavations, drilled pier excavations, or may occur as nuisance water in cutslope
excavations.
4. Expansive soils may be encountered in excavations along the eastern site boundary
where the Delmar Formation underlies the site.
5. The earth materials onsite are generally susceptible to erosion from running water.
Surface runoff has created incised gullies in the loose materials underlying the areas
proposed for development.
Finding
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are
required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid the significant environmental effect
as identified in the Final Program EIR. The following mitigation measures would reduce the
impact to below a level of significance.
1. A comprehensive geotechnical evaluation, including subsurface exploration and
laboratory analysis, shall be performed to address the potential geotechnical impacts
and to provide geotechnical criteria for the design of the proposed improvements. The
evaluation(s) shall include appropriate subsurface explorations, laboratory analysis and
engineering analysis to evaluate liquefaction potential, compressible soils, expansive
soils, slope stability, dewatering parameters, soil corrosivity and other appropriate
geotechnical concerns. From this data, recommendations for earthwork, slope stability,
surface and subsurface drainage, building foundations, retaining walls, pavement
structural sections, and other design considerations shall be formulated.
2. The project grading and foundation plans shall incorporate recommendations provided
in the comprehensive geotechnical evaluation, and be reviewed and approved by the
project geotechnical consultant. Additional mitigation measures will also be given at
the time of the grading plan review if necessary.
3. The project grading and foundation plans shall incorporate recommendations provided
in the comprehensive geotechnical evaluation, and be reviewed and approved by the
project geotechnical consultant. All cut and fill slopes shall be observed and inspected
by the project engineering geologist. Geologic inspection of the cut and fill slopes shall
December 7995 Page 17
GREEN VALLEY MASTER e AN e
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEM FINDINGS OF FACT
be performed at the time of grading in order to confirm conditions of stability.
Additional and/or revised mitigation measures may be necessary based upon the
geology of the exposed deposits and should be anticipated.
H. HYDROLOGYWATER QUALITY
Significant Effect
1. The Reduced Project Alternative will increase the 10 year peak runoff on-site less than
the 24 percent anticipated for the originally proposed project due to a reduction in
impermeable area associated with the commercial land area and the lower density
residential development. (No change would result in the peak runoff leaving the site
if the storm drain system is built as proposed; see Mitigation Measures.)
2. The Reduced Project Alternative will result in the covering of less than approximately
30 percent of the site with impermeable structures (buildings and paving). Therefore
fewer airborne pollutants will collect and become concentrated during the long dry
season. The first rain washes these pollutants onto the pavement, which transports
them offsite. Food operations in markets and restaurants can result in further
pollutants leaking from trash enclosures. This site is located directly adjacent to the
biologically-sensitive Encinitas Creek and Batiquitos Lagoon. Without proper mitigation,
the project has the potential to significantly impact these resources.
3. Potentially hazardous agricultural chemicals may be present within soils onsite. These
materials can come into contact with the receiving waters, and have an adverse impact
on the beneficial uses of those waters.
Finding
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are
required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid the significant environmental effect
as identified in the Final Program EIR. The following mitigation measures would reduce the
impact to below a level of significance.
1. Implementation of the Storm Drainage and Desiltation/Depollutant Plan as proposed in
the Master Plan.
2. Upon submittal of the final engineering documents, a comprehensive evaluation of the
proposed storm drain facilities shall be prepared.. The project facilities plans shall
December 1995 Page 18
GREEN VALLEY MASTER c) AN e
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
~~
incorporate recommendations provided in the comprehensive evaluation, and be
reviewed and approved by the project hydrological consultant. Additional mitigation
measures will also be given at the time of the grading pian review if necessary.
3. The depollutant basins shall be designed in accordance with the appropriate standards
detailed in the California Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook [March
1993) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
4. The maintenance program of the sedimentation and depollutant basins shall be
prepared and approved at the final design stage.
5. Proper protection to the creek shall be provided by the use of silt fences and other
approved methods during grading between the desiltation basins and the creek.
6. Drainage facilities must be provided concurrent with development of the area.
7. A Phase I environmental analysis shall be prepared for the site to evaluate the
existence of hazardous/toxic materials onsite, and to make recommendations for any
remediation procedures.
8. No grading shall be performed during the rainy season as determined by the Coastal
Commission.
9. Detention Basin "C" (located on the east side of El Camino Real per Chang Study) shall
be constructed prior to or concurrent with development of the project; or other means
utilized to provide required freeboard at the crossings of Encinitas Creek for the project
access and El Camino Real.
1. CIRCULATION
The traffic study analyzed traffic factors related to the Local Facility Management Plan and the
Green Valley project in Zone 23, as well as, the adjacent Encinitas Ranch project located in
the City of Encinitas, as referenced in Appendix G [Study (8/23/95)1. Existing conditions have
been quantified and projections made for the Years 1998, 2000, and 201 0 (Buildout). The
SANDAG computer model was utilized in peak hour intersection and road segment analyses
to determine future improvement requirements. The originally proposed project access plan
assumes project driveways at Levante Street and Calle Barcelona. Alternatives have been
analyzed showing impacts of a development that could occur under the General Plan and
utilizing various project access alternatives. These alternatives are described in the reports
~~
December 1995 Page 19
GREEN VALLEY MASTER 9 AN e
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
~~ ~~~ ~ ~
entitled "Circulation Facilities, Local Facilities Management Zone 23" and addendum to same,
and are included in Appendix G of the EIR.
In addition, subsequent to the preparation of the traffic study, some analyses were completed
for the Reduced Project Alternative under three potential access configurations. These entire
analyses are contained in Appendix G of the EIR [Study Addendum (8/25/95)] and serve to
document the project related traffic impacts of these development scenarios and any needed
mitigation measures.
Significant Effeci
Existing Conditions
I. Improvements are required at the La Costa Avenue Ramps (Northbound and
Southbound) at the 1-5 interchange. Improvements at this interchange are scheduled
to begin in late 1995 and be completed by Year 1996-1997.
2. Improvements are required at the intersection of El Camino Real with Olivenhain
Road/Leucadia Boulevard. Improvements at this intersection are currently in work.
1998 Impacts
1. La Costa Avenue between 1-5 and El Camino Real will require four lanes. However, it
can be noted that the critical intersections at each end of this section arelwill be
improved to the required geometrics, which should be considered in the overall
evaluation of this issue.
2. The El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue intersection will an added westbound right turn
lane. This improvement may not be required for future conditions.
3. The El Camino ReaVOlivenhain Road-Leucadia Boulevard intersection will require a
northbound through lane.
2000 Impacts
For the Year 2000 conditions, "With" and "Without" the Leucadia Boulevard connection, from
15 to El Camino Real, were analyzed. Calle Barcelona between El Camino Real and Rancho
Santa Fe was not assumed to be constructed. The proposed Green Valley project was
assumed to be completed and Encinitas Ranch is expected to still be at Phase 1.
December 1995 Page 20
GREEN VALLEY MASTER * 1 LAN e
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEOA FINDINGS OF FACT
1. "Without Leucadia Boulevard", an interim impact at El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue
still remains. The project related impact can be mitigated by the added westbound
right turn, but the intersection operations remain at LOS E. In other words, there is still
an impact due to background traffic, but the project related impacts are mitigated.
With the Leucadia Boulevard connection from the 1-5 to El Camino Real assumed in
place, the El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue intersection is no longer over capacity and
the westbound right turn lane is no longer required.
2. Either "With" or "Without" Leucadia Boulevard, from 15 to El Camino Real, the El
Camino ReaVLeucadia-Olivenhain intersection requires improvement under the three
potential alternatives. However, if Alternative 3 ("With" Leucadia) is provided, which
includes no site access at Leucadia Boulevard, then LOS E remains even with the
mitigation at El Camino ReaVLeucadia-Olivenhain.
3. The northbound side of El Camino Real from Leucadia-Olivenhain to Calle Barcelona
needs to be widened from two to three lanes (under the "with" Leucadia Boulevard
connection from 15 to El Camino Real) and only for Alternative 3.
20 10 Impacts
For Buildout conditions, the "With" Leucadia Boulevard connection, from 15 to El Camino Real,
is assumed to be provided and Calle Barcelona, from El Camino Real to Rancho Santa Fe Road,
is expected to be constructed as well. The Green Valley and Encinitas Ranch projects are
assumed to be fully built out.
1. For reduced development Alternatives 1 and 2 no added intersection mitigation is
required. The project access connection configurations serve as mitigation measures
in conjunction with the planned road system. If Alternative 3 is provided then
mitigation measures are required at the El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue intersection.
La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real lntersection
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the
General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. However, the intersection of La Costa
Avenue and El Camino Real will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which
the City has no jurisdictional control. Even with the implementation of roadway
improvements, the intersection is projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management
performance standards at buildout.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~
December 1995 Page 21
. '
GREEN VALLEY MASTER 9 AN e
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout,
numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include
but are not limited to 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 recent certification of the General Plan Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution
No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations'' for circulation impacts
created by projects which are consistent with the General Ptan and cumulatively contribute
to the failure of intersections at buildout, including the La Costa Avenue/El Camino Real
intersection. The Reduced Project Alternative is consistent with the General Plan and is
therefore included within the Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted by the City
Council for the Genera Plan.
To lessen or minimize the impacts specific to the Proposed Project mitigation measures as set
forth in Chapter 4.0 and as supplemented or modified by the Reduced Project Alternative as
set forth in Chapter 5.0 have been recommended.
Finding
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are
required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid the significant environmental effect
as identified in the Final Program EIR. The following mitigation measures would reduce the
impact to below a level of significance.
For the Reduced Project Alternative those mitigation measures identified in the General Plan
Final Master EIR to reduce cumulative circulation impacts shall be incorporated into the Master
Plan.
1998 Mitigation
1. La Costa Avenue between 15 and El Camino Real - Add two (2) additional through
lanes.
2. El Camino ReaVLa Costa Avenue - Add a westbound right.
December 1995 Page 22
I.
GREEN VALLEY MASTER 111 AN 0
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
~ ~~
3. El Camino Real/Olivenhain Road-Leucadia Boulevard -Add a northbound through with
a transition lane north of the intersection.
2000 Mitigation
1. El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue - Add a westbound right. (If Leucadia Boulevard is
connected from 15 to El Camino Real, then this mitigation measure is not required,)
2. El Camino ReaVOlivenhain Road-Leucadia Boulevard -Add a northbound through with
a transition lane north of the intersection, However, under the "with" Leucadia
Boulevard connection, from 15 to El Camino Real, for Alternative 3, the intersection still
operates at an unacceptable level of service. Even though project impacts will be
mitigated with the addition of this traffic lane, the intersection cannot be mitigated to
a level of insignificance for Alternative 3.
3. El Camino Real between Olivenhain Road-Leucadia Boulevard and Calle Barcelona -Add
a northbound travel lane, only for Alternative 3, under the "with" Leucadia Boulevard
connection, from 15 to El Camino Real.
4. Leucadia Boulevard -Connection from 15 to El Camino Real. This connection eliminates
the requirement for mitigation measures at the El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue
intersection.
20 IO Mitiga tion
1. Given the reduced development proposal and the planned future roadway system no
added mitigation measures are required for future conditions under Alternatives 1 and
2. Therefore, providing these reduced alternative access plans will mitigate all impacts
at year 201 0. However if Alternative 3 is provided, the added westbound right at the
El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue intersection is still required.
J. NOISE
Biolouical imDacts associated with noise are found under the section headinq of Biolouical
Resources.
-~
December 1995 Page 23
L
GREEN VALLEY MASTER e 1 LAN e
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
Significant Effect
1 . Construction activities on-site will result in short-term increases in noise levels adjacent
to site access routes and the on-site areas under construction.
2. Project-related traffic noise increases will represent a long-term incremental acoustic
impact in the vicinity and will be audible (greater than 3.0 dBA) along one link (Calle
Barcelona, east of El Camino Real), potentially audible (between 1 .O and 3.0 dBA) on
six links, and inaudible (less than 1 .O dBA) on the twelve remaining roadway links
analyzed in 1995.
3. Under year 2000 conditions, project-related traffic noise will be potentially audible
(between 1 .O and 3.0 dBA) on up to 5 links, and inaudible (less than 1 .O dBA) on the
remaining roadway links analyzed in 1995.
4. Project-related traffic noise increases will represent a long-term incremental acoustic
impact in the vicinity and will be potentially audible (between 1 .O and 3.0 dBA) on six
links, and inaudible (less than 1 .O dBA) on the fifteen remaining roadway links under
year 201 0 conditions.
5. Project impacts will be significant on only one link under one scenario (Calle Barcelona
east of El Camino Real under 1995 conditions).
6. On-site noise impacts may result from ultimate traffic volumes on El Camino Real,
depending upon the sound propagation rate and site design measures incorporated in
the project.
Finding
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are
required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid the significant environmental effect
as identified in the Final Program EIR. The following mitigation measures would reduce the
impact to below a level of significance.
1. During construction activities on-site, the following short-term acoustic mitigation
measures should be implemented:
a Construction activities on-site should take place only during the days and hours
specified by the City of Carlsbad to reduce noise impacts during more sensitive
time periods.
December 1995 Page 24
I
GREEN VALLEY MASTER @ I AN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
e All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, should be equipped with properly
operating and maintained mufflers.
e Stationary equipment should be placed such that emitted noise is directed away
from sensitive noise receivers.
e Stockpiling and vehicle staging areas should be located as far as practical from
sensitive noise receptors.
e Every effort should be made to create the greatest distance between noise
sources and sensitive receptors during construction activities.
2. A noise analysis based upon on-site noise monitoring should be performed adjacent to
the proposed residential areas, prior to construction of the residential uses in order to
determine specific site design measures to be incorporated into the project. Site design
measures to reduce noise at the residential building pads on-site over the long-term
should include:
e Building setbacks and pad elevations can be used in conjunction with acoustic
berm or berm and barrier combinations to reduce intrusive noise levels at those
building sites located within areas with excessive noise exposures adjacent to
master planned roadways on-site prior to the issuance of building permits.
e Multi-story buildings located within ultimate unattenuated noise impact areas
may require architectural treatments such as double glazing on the upper floor
windows, which should be addressed at more detailed levels of planning.
e Any courtyards, plazas and open space areas designed for pedestrian uses
should be shielded from intrusive noise levels by intervening structures
wherever possible.
e Prior to the issuance of building permits, the final lot layout, pad elevations,
building design, acoustic berm or berm and barrier combinations should be
evaluated by an acoustic consultant to insure that proper noise mitigation has
been provided.
e Commercial truck access, parking area design, air conditioning and refrigeration
units, and refuse bin locations should be carefully designed and evaluated at
more detailed levels of planning to minimize the potential for acoustic impacts
to adjacent residential development.
December 1995 Page 25
I
GREEN VALLEY MASTER 9 r AN e
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
~~ ___ ~ ~
K. AIR QUALITY
Significant Effect
1 . The development of the project site will generate exhaust emissions from construction
equipment and the automobiles of the construction crew, as well as fugitive dust
during soil movement.
2. The Reduced Project Alternative would generate carbon monoxide, reactive organic
gases, NOx, particulates, and SOX daily upon build-out in the year 2000 due to the use
of natural gas, electricity and vehicular activity, however, in lesser quantities than the
Project. This conclusion is based on an estimated reduction in project ADT of 8,400
and a reduction in the amount of commercial square footage by 300,000 square feet.
Since the San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions are
considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed
in the General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the
General Plan will result in 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.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the 1994 General Plan Update Final Master EIR.
These include but are not limited to: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements
prior to or concurrent with development, such as improvements to La Costa Avenue and El
Camino Real; 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, such as the inclusion of bus stops and bicycle
and pedestrian trail systems within the project design; 4) promote energy efficient building and
site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The
Reduced Project Alternative will be conditioned to comply with the recommended mitigation
measures as described in the General Plan and in Section 4.1 1 (AIR QUALITY) of this EIR.
Finding
Certification of the 1994 General Plan Update Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council
Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air quality
-
December 1995 Page 26
b
GREEN VALLEY MASTER e AN 0
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects
covered by the General Plan Update Final Master EIR. The Reduced Project Alternative is
consistent with the General Plan and would be considered a later development project covered
by the General Plan Update Final Master EIR and would not require an individual Statement of
Overriding Consideration.
For the Reduced Project Alternative those mitigation measures identified in the General Plan
Final Master EIR to reduce cumulative air quality impacts shall be incorporated into the Master
Plan. Incorporation of those mitigation measures and subsequent implementation of the
measures on an individual development basis will contribute to the greatest extent possible
to the reduction of cumulative air quality impacts.
Although the cumulative long-term impacts can not be fully mitigated, potentially significant
short-term (construction-related) air quality impacts can be mitigated to below a level of
significance by implementing the following measures:
1. Construction operations requiring road closures or other types of traffic impediments
affecting roadways adjacent to the site shall be scheduled for off-peak traffic hours,
2. To reduce the amount of fugitive dust generated during construction activities on-site,
it is possible after clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation activities to:
0 seed and water until ground cover is established;
0 water construction sites and equipment in the morning and evening;
0 time activities to avoid windy periods;
0 conduct street sweeping on local public thoroughfares where silt and sand from
the project site has been deposited by the wind.
3. Adequate watering techniques shall be employed to partially mitigate the impact of
construction-generated dust particulates. Portions of the project site that are
under-going earth moving operations will be watered such that a crust will be formed
on the ground surface (and then be watered again at the end of the day).
4. Any vegetative ground cover to be utilized on-site shall be planted as soon as possible
to reduce the amount of open space subject to wind erosion. Irrigation systems
needed to water these plants shall be installed as soon as possible to maintain the
ground cover.
5. Grading operations shall not be conducted when winds exceed 30 miles per hour.
December 7995 Page 27
>
GREEN VALLEY MASTER 1) LAN 0
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
6. Where possible, diesel-powered construction equipment shall be used rather than
gasoline-powered equipment to affect exhaust emission reductions and evaporative and
crankcase HC emission reductions.
7. Construction equipment using diesel drive internal combustion engines shall use a
diesel fuel with a maximum of 0.05% sulfur and a four degree retard.
8. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize exhaust
emissions.
9. Any construction vehicle access roads where dust is deposited should be cleaned after
each work day.
10. Building construction shall comply with the energy use guidelines in Title 24 of
California Administrative Code.
1 1. Low emission building materials such as preprimed and sanded wood molding and trim
products and preprimed wallboard, should be considered for construction materials
wherever feasible.
'I 2. The use of energy efficient street lighting and parking lot lighting (low pressure sodium
vapor lights) should be considered on-site to reduce emissions at the power plant
serving the site.
L. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
Significant Effect
Overall impacts to public facilities and services have been found not to be significant provided
that all the appropriate agency conditions for development are met, including payment of
public facilities fees.
Finding
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are
required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid the significant environmental effect
as identified in the Final Program EIR. The following mitigation measures would reduce the
impact to below a level of significance.
December 1995 Page 28
GREEN VALLEY MASTER bl AN 0
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEOA FINDINGS OF FACT
1. All the appropriate agency conditions for development shall be met by the Project
Applicant, including payment of public facilities fees.
X. CUMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
A. LAND USE
Significant Effect
Mitigation and adherence to adopted plans will reduce each individual project included within
the cumulative scenario land use impacts to less than significant.
Finding
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are
required in, or incorporated into, the Reduced Project Alternative which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the Final Program EIR.
1. Any future site development permit associated with the master plan shall be reviewed
for consistency with the master plan and related discretionary actions including the
general plan and local coastal plan amendment, local facilities management plan,
special use permit, and hillside development permit. The Planning Department shall
make a determination that the site development plan is consistent with these plans,
prior to approval of the permit.
B. VISUAL QUALITY/LANDFORM ALTERATION
Significant Effect
The cumulative visual quality/landform alteration impact is less than significant.
Finding
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are
required in, or incorporated into, the Reduced Project Alternative which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in this Final Program EIR.
December 1995 Page 29
GREEN VALLEY MASTER e I AN 0
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEOA FINDINGS OF FACT
~
1. If Planning Area 5 is approved for commercial development, it shall be developed
subject to all applicable requirements of the El Camino Real Corridor Standards
including the approval of a Special Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit.
C. AGRICULTURE
Significant Effect
The project contains no prime farmland and therefore the buildout pursuant to Series 8 growth
projections and the Carlsbad General Plan will not result in a significant cumulative decline in
prime agricultural land.
Finding
Pursuant to Section 1 5091 (a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are
required in, or incorporated into, the Reduced Project Alternative which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in this Final Program EIR.
At the time of development and agricultural mitigation fee will be paid pursuant to the Coastal
Act section 301 71.5 (Public Resources Code).
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Significant Effect
The proposed project, in conjunction with cumulative projects, will not result in a significant
impact to biological resources.
Finding
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are
required in, or incorporated into, the Reduced Project Alternative which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in this Final Program EIR.
1. The effectiveness of the proposed buffer areas between the proposed development and
natural areas shall be increased through the use of barrier plantings such as cacti. The
planting of the buffer areas shall be subject to the review and approval of the resource
agencies.
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~
December I995 Page 30
GREEN VALLEY MASTER 9 AN e
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
2. Two acres of southern coastal salt marsh habitat shall be restored on-site. The on-site
location of the restoration shall require approval of the California Department of Fish
and Game and shall be incorporated into the Master Plan Open Space and Biological
Habitat Enhancement Plan.
3. The Proposed Project shall be modified to avoid the 0.6 acres of coastal sage in the
south central portion of the site at the foot of the bluffs in order to alleviate any
impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher occupied habitat and potentially occurring
sensitive plants.
(This measure is not required for the Reduced Project Alternative because it does not
impact the 0.6 acres of coastal sage.)
4. Detailed restoration plans based on the required mitigation ratios and the Open Space
and Habitat Protection and Enhancement Plan outlined in the Master Plan shall be
prepared, reviewed, and approved by the appropriate resource agencies prior to grading
permit.
5. Regarding impacts to wildlife movement along Encinitas Creek; Because the most
preferable mitigation is avoidance, the first approach is to eliminate both the Calle
Barcelona and Levante Street crossings of the creek to reduce impacts to riparian
areadwildlife movement along Encinitas Creek. Elimination of the crossings will also
reduce impacts to southern coastal salt marsh. However, elimination of both crossings
is not feasible based on project circulation and access requirements.
Since eliminating both crossings renders the project infeasible, the elimination of one
crossing is the preferred mitigation. One crossing has the potential to create fewer
impacts than two and the greatest biological benefit would be attained from eliminating
Levante Street. This would create the largest possible block of riparian habitat and also
eliminate direct impacts from the Levante Street crossing which includes disturbance
to 0.4 acres of southern coastal salt marsh.
However, impacts to wildlife movement can also be mitigated through crossing(s)
design. Using either the Otay Ranch Corridor Study (Ogden 1992)’ as a model or
other specifications acceptable to the California Department of Fish and Game,
2 Bridges are preferred to culvert underpasses, and the length of the underpass should be no more than
twice its width, a 2 to 1 ratio.
Underpasses should be no less than 12 feet in height from grade to ceiling at any given point.
If the minimum height is 30 feet or greater, deviation from the 2 to 1 ratio may be considered.
December 1995 Page 31
,
GREEN VALLEY MASTER 4 r AN e
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
adequate opportunity for north-south wildlife movement can be created thereby
mitigating impacts to wildlife movement along the Encinitas Creek to a level of less
than significant.
6. Traffic noise and other noise impacts to the riparian corridor are considered to be
mitigated by the proposed restoration plans presented in the Master Plan. Additional
mitigation could further reduce noise impacts in the form of noise attenuation
structures adjacent to the riparian corridor and/or elimination of one of the creek
crossings.
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Significant Effect
The proposed project, in conjunction with cumulative projects, will not result in significant
cumulative impact to cultural resources.
Finding
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are
required in, or incorporated into, the Reduced Project Alternative which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in this Final Program EIR.
1. A minimum area of 26 square meters of GV-4 shall be excavated by hand prior to
grading. Only Stratum II shall be systematically excavated since Stratum I contains
little cultural material and is believed to be imported. Special emphasis shall be placed
upon analyzing the faunal remains since the test results suggest animal bone is among
the most scientifically useful and interesting components of the deposit.
2. A minimum of 52 square meters of GV-4 shall be excavated by controlled mechanical
means similar to those described in Van Horn, Murray, & White 1986; and Van Horn
1988. The other conditions set forth in item (1 ) above would remain the same. The
reason for the larger sample as compared to item (1) above is due to the high cost of
conventional archaeological excavation conducted by hand. Alternately, controlled
mechanized excavation offers the potential for acquisition of a significantly larger
sample for substantially less cost.
December 7995 Page 32
GREEN VALLEY MASTER 9 &AN a
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
~~
Regardless of which of the two methods is chosen, the archaeologist directing the mitigative
work shall have the authority to halt excavations if, in his or her judgement, there is nothing
to be gained by continuing.
F. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Significant Effect
The proposed project, in conjunction with cumulative projects, will not result in significant
cumulative impact to paleontological resources.
Finding
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are
required in, or incorporated into, the Reduced Project Alternative which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in this Final Program EIR.
1. A paleontological resource monitoring plan shall be developed by a Certified
Paleontologist prior to the initiation of grading operations. This plan should include a
grading observation schedule to be maintained when grading in bedrock units to further
evaluate the fossil resources of the site.
2. Salvage operations shall be initiated and coordinated with the developer if significant
concentrations of fossils are encountered.
G. GEOLOGY/SOILS
Significant Effect
The proposed project, in;$onjunction .. . , with cumulative projects, will not result in significant
cumulative impact to g&&gy/soils. . ;., ..
Finding
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are
required in, or incorporated into, the Reduced Project Alternative which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in this Final Program EIR.
._
December 1995 Page 33
GREEN VALLEY MASTER 9 AN a
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
1. A comprehensive geotechnical evaluation, including subsurface exploration and
laboratory analysis, shall be performed to address the potential geotechnical impacts
and to provide geotechnical criteria for the design of the proposed improvements. The
evaluation(s) shall include appropriate subsurface explorations, laboratory analysis and
engineering analysis to evaluate liquefaction potential, compressible soils, expansive
soils, slope stability, dewatering parameters, soil corrosivity and other appropriate
geotechnical concerns. From this data, recommendations for earthwork, slope stability,
surface and subsurface drainage, building foundations, retaining walls, pavement
structural sections, and other design considerations shall be formulated.
2. The project grading and foundation plans shall incorporate recommendations provided
in the comprehensive geotechnical evaluation, and be reviewed and approved by the
project geotechnical consultant. Additional mitigation measures will also be given at
the time of the grading plan review if necessary.
3. The project grading and foundation plans shall incorporate recommendations provided
in the comprehensive geotechnical evaluation, and be reviewed and approved by the
project geotechnical consultant. All cut and fill slopes shall be observed and inspected
by the project engineering geologist. Geologic inspection of the cut and fill slopes shall
be performed at the time of grading in order to confirm conditions of stability.
Additional and/or revised mitigation measures may be necessary based upon the
geology of the exposed deposits and should be anticipated.
H. HYDROLOGYNVATER QUALITY
Significant Effect
Mitigation measures, including compliance with Regional Water Quality Control Board
regulations and implementation of best management practices, will reduce impacts from
cumulative projects to a level of less than significant.
Finding
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are
required in, or incorporated into, the Reduced Project Alternative which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in this Final Program EIR.
1. Implementation of the Storm Drainage and Desiltation/Depollutant Plan as proposed in
the Master Plan.
December 1995 Page 34
GREEN VALLEY MASTER @ AN e
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEOA FIMDINGS OF FACT
2. Upon submittal of the final engineering documents, a comprehensive evaluation of the
proposed storm drain facilities shall be prepared. The project facilities plans shall
incorporate recommendations provided in the comprehensive evaluation, and be
reviewed and approved by the project hydrological consultant. Additional mitigation
measures will also be given at the time of the grading plan review if necessary.
3. The depollutant basins shall be designed in accordance with the appropriate standards
detailed in the California Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook (March
19931 to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
4. The maintenance program of the sedimentation and depollutant basins shall be
prepared and approved at the final design stage.
5. Proper protection to the creek shall be provided by the use of silt fences and other
approved methods during grading between the desiltation basins and the creek.
6. Drainage facilities must be provided concurrent with development of the area.
7. A Phase I environmental analysis shall be prepared for the site to evaluate the
existence of hazardousltoxic materials onsite, and to make recommendations for any
remediation procedures.
8. No grading shall be performed during the rainy season as determined by the Coastal
Commission.
9. Detention Basin "C" (located on the east side of El Camino Real per Chang Study) shall
be constructed prior to or concurrent with development of the project; or other means
utilized to provide required freeboard at the crossings of Encinitas Creek for the project
access and El Camino Real.
1. CIRCULATION
Significant Effect
The Reduced Project Alternative, in conjunction with cumulative buildout forecasts, will result
in a significant cumulative impact to traffic and circulation. Mitigation measures including
compliance with the Carlsbad Growth Management Program will reduce impacts from
cumulative projects to a level of less than significant.
December 1995 Page 35
GREEN VALLEY MASTER CI AN e
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
Finding
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)( 1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are
required in, or incorporated into, the Reduced Project Alternative which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in this Final Program EIR.
The recent certification of the General Plan Final Master EIR 93-01 , by City Council Resolution
No. 94-246, including a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts
created by projects which are consistent with the General Plan and cumulatively contribute
to the failure of intersections at buildout, including the Las Costa Avenue/El Camino Real
intersection. The Reduced Project Alternative is consistent with the General Plan and is
therefore included within the Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted by the City
Council for the General Plan.
The required street improvements and their phasing, based on ultimate buildout conditions,
are as follows:
1998 Mitigation
1. La Costa Avenue between 15 and El Camino Real - Add two (2) additional through
lanes.
2. El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue - Add a westbound right.
3. El Camino Real/Olivenhain Road-Leucadia Boulevard -Add a northbound through with
a transition lane north of the intersection.
2000 Mitigation
1. El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue - Add a westbound right. (If Leucadia Boulevard is
connected from 15 to El Camino Real, then this mitigation measure is not required.)
2. El Camino ReaVOlivenhain Road-Leucadia Boulevard -Add a northbound through with
a transition lane north of the intersection. However, under the "with" Leucadia
Boulevard connection, from 15 to El Camino Real, for Alternative 3, the intersection still
operates at an unacceptable level of service. Even though project impacts will be
mitigated with the addition of this traffic lane, the intersection cannot be mitigated to
a level of insignificance for Alternative 3.
December 7995 Page 36
GREEN VALLEY MASTER b) AN a
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEOA FINDINGS OF FACT
3. El Camino Real between Olivenhain Road-Leucadia Boulevard and Calle Barcelona -Add
a northbound travel lane, only-for Alternative 3, under the "with" Leucadia Boulevard
connection, from 15 to El Camino Real.
4. Leucadia Boulevard - Connection from 15 to El Camino Real. This connection eliminates
the requirement for mitigation measures at the El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue
intersection.
20 IO Mitiga tion
1. Given the reduced development proposal and the planned future roadway system no
added mitigation measures are required for future conditions under Alternatives 1 and
2. Therefore, providing these reduced alternative access plans will mitigate all impacts
at year 201 0. However if Alternative 3 is provided, the added westbound right at the
El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue intersection is still reqilired.
J. NOISE
Significant Effect
The Reduced Project Alternative will result in an increase in ambient noise levels, which
together with projected Series 8 development, will result in a cumulative impact on noise
levels. Implementing local noise ordinances, constructing buildings according to state
acoustical standards, and proper land use planning can mitigate noise impacts to noise
sensitive land uses and habitat areas to less than significant levels.
Finding
Pursuant to Section 15091 (aI(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are
required in, or incorporated into, the Reduced Project Alternative which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in this Final Program EIR.
1. During construction activities on-site, the following short-term acoustic mitigation
measures should be implemented:
a Construction activities on-site should take place only during the days and hours
specified by the City of Carlsbad to reduce noise impacts during more sensitive
time periods.
December 1995 Page 37
1
GREEN VALLEY MASTER 111 AN 0
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
0 All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, should be equipped with properly
operating and maintained mufflers.
e Stationary equipment should be placed such that emitted noise is directed away
from sensitive noise receivers.
e Stockpiling and vehicle staging areas should be located as far as practical frorr
sensitive noise receptors.
0 Every effort should be made to create the greatest distance between noise
sources and sensitive receptors during construction activities.
2. A noise analysis based upon on-site noise monitoring should be performed adjacent to
the proposed residential areas, prior to construction of the residential uses in order to
determine specific site design measures to be incorporated into the project. Site design
measures to reduce noise at the residential building pads on-site over the long-term
should include:
e Building setbacks and pad elevations can be used in conjunction with acoustic
berm or berm and barrier combinations to reduce intrusive noise levels at those
building sites located within areas with excessive noise exposures adjacent to
master planned roadways on-site prior to the issuance of building permits.
e Multi-story buildings located within ultimate unattenuated noise impact areas
may require architectural treatments such as double glazing on the upper floor
windows, which should be addressed at more detailed levels of planning.
e Any courtyards, plazas and open space areas designed for pedestrian uses
should be shielded from intrusive noise levels by intervening structures
wherever possible.
e Prior to the issuance of building permits, the final lot layout, pad elevations,
building design, acoustic berm or berm and barrier combinations should be
evaluated by an acoustic consultant to insure that proper noise mitigation has
been provided.
0 Commercial truck access, parking area design, air conditioning and refrigeration
units, and refuse bin locations should be carefully designed and evaluated at
more detailed levels of planning to minimize the potential for acoustic impacts
to adjacent residential development.
December 1995 Page 38
8
GREEN VALLEY MASTER 9 LAN 0
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
K. AIR QUALITY
Significant Effect
Implementation of the Reduced Project Alternative will contribute to the emissions in the area.
Cumulative air quality impacts are anticipated to remain significant and unavoidable.
Finding
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are
required in, or incorporated into, the Reduced Project Alternative which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in this Final Program EIR.
Certification of the 1994 General Plan Update Final Master EIR 93-01 by City Council
Resolution No. 94-246 includes a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for air quality
impacts. This "Statement of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects
covered by the General Plan Update Final Master EIR. The Reduced Project Alternative is
consistent with the General Plan and would be considered a later development project covered
by the General Plan Update Final Master EIR and would not require an individual Statement of
Overriding Considerations.
For the Reduced Project Alternative those mitigation measures identified in the General Plan
Final Master EIR to reduce cumulative air quality impacts shall be incorporated into the Master
Plan. Incorporation of those mitigation measures and subsequent implementation of the
measures on an individual development basis will contribute to the greatest extent possible
to the reduction of cumulative air quality impacts.
Although the cumulative long-term impacts can not be fully mitigated, potentially significant
short-term (construction-related) air quality impacts can be mitigated to below a level of
significance by implementing the following measures:
1. Construction operations requiring road closures or other types of traffic impediments
affecting roadways adjacent to the site shall be scheduled for off-peak traffic hours.
2. To reduce the amount of fugitive dust generated during construction activities on-site,
it is possible after clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation activities to:
b seed and water until ground cover is established;
b water construction sites and equipment in the morning and evening;
b time activities to avoid windy periods; .
-~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~
December 1995
~~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~
Page 35
1
GREEN VALLEY MASTER 9 LAN 0
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
e conduct street sweeping on local public thoroughfares where silt and sand from
the project site has been deposited by the wind.
3. Adequate watering techniques shall be employed to partially mitigate the impact of
construction-generated dust particulates. Portions of the project site that are
under-going earth moving operations will be watered such that a crust will be formed
on the ground surface (and then be watered again at the end of the day).
4. Any vegetative ground cover to be utilized on-site shall be planted as soon as possible
to reduce the amount of open space subject to wind erosion. Irrigation systems
needed to water these plants shall be installed as soon as possible to maintain the
ground cover.
5. Grading operations shall not be conducted when winds exceed 30 miles per hour.
6. Where possible, diesel-powered construction equipment shall be used rather than
gasoline-powered equipment to affect exhaust emission reductions and evaporative and
crankcase HC emission reductions.
7. Construction equipment using diesel drive internal combustion engines shall use a
~ diesel fuel with a maximum of 0.05% sulfur and a four degree retard.
8. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize exhaust
emissions.
9. Any construction vehicle access roads where dust is deposited should be cleaned after
each work day.
IO. Building construction shall comply with the energy use guidelines in Title 24 of
California Administrative Code.
1 1. Low emission building materials such as preprimed and sanded wood molding and trim
products and preprimed wallboard, should be considered for construction materials
wherever feasible.
12. The use of energy efficient street lighting and parking lot lighting (low pressure sodium
vapor lights) should be considered on-site to reduce emissions at the power plant
serving the site.
~~
December 1995 Page 4C
GREEN VALLEY MASTER R AN a
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEM FINDINGS OF FACT
L. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
Significant Effect
The Reduced Project Alternative contributes to the cumulative impact on Public Facilities and
Services.
Finding
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are
required in, or incorporated into, the Reduced Project Alternative which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in this Final Program EIR.
1. All the appropriate agency conditions for development shall be met by the Project
Applicant including payment of public facilities fees.
XI. FEASIBILITY OF POTENTIAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Because the Reduced Project Alternative will cause some unavoidable significant
environmental effects, as outlined above (see Section X), the City must consider the feasibility
of any environmentally superior alternative to the Reduced Project Alternative, as finally
approved. The City must evaluate whether one or more of these alternatives could avoid or
substantially lessen the unavoidable significant environmental effects. Citizens for Qualitv
Growth v. City of Mount Shasta (1 988) 198 Cal. App.3d 433 1243 Cat. Rptr. 7271; see also
Pub. Resources Code section 21 001. Because it is a judgment call whether an alternative is
environmentally superior these findings contrast and compare all of the alternatives analyzed
in the FPEIR.
In general, in preparing and adopting findings a lead agency need not necessarily address the
feasibility of both mitigation measures and environmentally superior alternatives when
contemplating the approval of a project with significant impacts. Where the significant
impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable (insignificant) level solely by the adoption of
mitigation measures, the agency, in drafting its findings, has no obligation to consider the
feasibility of environmentally superior alternatives, even if their impacts would be less severed
than those of the Project as mitigated. Laurel Heiqhts lmorovement Association v. Regent:
of the Universitv of California (1 988) 47 Cal.3d 376 [253 Cal Rptr. 4261; Laurel Hill:
Homeowners Association v. Citv Council (1 978) 83 Cal.App. 3d 5 1 5 [I 47 Cal. Rptr. 8421 E
also Kings County Farm Bureau v. Citv of Handford (1 990) 221 (Cal.App.3d 692 1270 Cat
Rptr. 6501. Accordingly, for this Reduced Project Alt'ernative, in adopting the finding:
~
December 1995 Page 4:
GREEN VALLEY MASTER 9 LAN e
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FA CT
~~~ ~~ -~ ~~ ~~ ~~
concerning project alternatives, the City Council considers only those environmental impacts,
that for the finally approved project, are significant.
Other than the cumulative impacts discussed below, there are no impacts that are not
mitigated to a level of less than significant.
Where, as in this Reduced Project Alternative, significant cumulative environmental effects
remain even after application of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final Program
EIR, the decisionmakers must evaluate the project alternatives identified in the Final Project
EIR. For this project the only significant cumulative impacts which are not mitigated are air
quality and traffic. However, these effects have been previously considered in the 1994
General Plan Update Final Master EIR 93-01. The certification of EIR 93-01 by City Council
Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for air quality
impacts and traffic impacts at the intersection of La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real for
projects that are consistent with the General Plan.
Under these circumstances the decisionmakers may still choose to evaluate the project
alternatives identified in the Final Program EIR and make findings on the feasibility of Project
alternatives. If there is a feasible alternative to the project, the decisionmakers must decide
whether it is environmentally superior to the project. Proposed project alternatives considered
must be ones which "could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the Project." However, the
Guidelines also require an EIR to examine alternatives "capable of eliminating" environmental
effects even if these alternatives "would impede to some degree the attainment of the project
objectives" [CEQA Guidelines section 151 26 subd.(d)l
CEQA provides the following definition of the term "feasible" as it applies to the findings
requirement: "Feasible' means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within
a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and
technological factors." Pub. Resources Code § 21061 .I The CEQA Guidelines provide a
broader definition of "feasibility" that also encompasses "legal" factors. CEQA Guidelines, §
15364 ("The lack of legal powers of an agency to use in imposing an alternative or mitigation
measure may be as great a limitation as any economic, environmental, social, or technologica
factor.").
Accordingly, "feasibility" is a term of art under CEQA and thus is afforded a different meanins
under CEQA than may be found in Webster's Dictionary or other traditional sources.
Moreover, Public Resources Code section 21 081 governs the "findings" requirement unde
CEQA with regard to the feasibility of alternatives. This provision was recently amended b
SB 91 9. It states in relevant part:
December 1995 Page 4
v
GREEN VALLEY MASTER a AN a
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
~~~~
'I. . . [Nlo public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental
impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the
environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless the public
agency makes one or more of the following findings:
(aI(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly
trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in
the environmental impact report."
The concept of "feasibility," therefore, as it applies to findings, involves a balancing of various
economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors. See Pub. Resources Code
§ 21061 .I ; CEQA Guidelines, § 15364; Pub. Resources Code, § 21 081 .; see also Citv of Del
Mar v. Citv of San Dieqo (1 992) 133 Cal.App.3rd 401 , 414-41 7.
In Citv of Del Mar v. Citv of San Dieao (1 992) 133 Cal.App.3d 401 , 41 5-41 7, the Court of
Appeal found that the City of San Diego had 'I. . . considered and reasonably rejected . , .
[certain] project alternatives . . . as infeasible in view of the social and economic realities in
the region." Id. at 41 7. The court determined that San Diego had attempted to accommodate
the feasibility factors based upon its growth management plan which included the proposed
development project. Accordingly, the court concluded:
"Assuming this accommodation is a reasonable one (citation omitted), San Diego is
entitled to rely on it in evaluating various project alternatives. The cost-benefit analysis
which led to the accommodation is of course subject to review, but it need not be
mechanically stated at each stage of the approval process. In this sense, 'feasibilitv'
under CEQA encomoasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirabilitv is based on a
reasonable balancinq of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technoloqical
factors. We accordingly conclude that San Diego dod not abuse its discretion under
CEQA in rejecting various project alternatives as infeasible."
- Id. (emphasis added).
These Findings determine that there are some environmental impacts from the Reduced Projec:
Alternative but they are mitigated to below a level of significance. The findings below
compare and contrast the alternatives. In rejecting all of the other alternatives, the
decisionmakers have examined the finally approved project objectives and weighed the abilitl
of the various alternatives to meet the objectives. The decisionmakers believe that thl
Reduced Project Alternatives best meets the finally approved project objectives with the leas
environmental impact. The objectives considered by the decisionmakers are:
December 1995 Page 4
GREEN VALLEY MASTER dl AN e
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
GENERAL OBJECTIVES
1.1 To create a distinctive sense of place and identity for each community and
neighborhood of the City through the development and arrangement of various land use
components.
1.2 To create a visual form for the community that is pleasing to the eye, rich in variety,
highly identifiable, reflecting cultural and environmental values of the residents.
1.3 To provide for the social and economic needs of the community in conjunction with
permitted land uses.
1.4 To develop programs which would correlate the ultimate density and projected
population with the service capabilities of the City.
1.5 To achieve a variety of safe, attractive housing in all economic ranges throughout the
City.
1.6 To preserve the neighborhood atmosphere and identity of existing residential areas.
1.7 To offer safe, attractive residential areas with a wide range of housing types, styles
and price levels in a variety of locations.
1.8 To ensure that new master planned communities and residential specific plans
contribute to a balanced community by providing, within the development, adequate
areas to meet some social/human service needs such as sites for worship, daycare,
youth and senior citizen activities, etc.
1.9 To limit the amount of new commercial land use designations to that which can
feasibly be supported by the current growth rate of the trade area and the City, and to
those which are consistent with the prime concept and image of the community as a
desirable residential, open space community.
1 .l 0 To ensure that all residential areas are adequately served by commercial areas in terms
of daily shopping needs which include convenience goods, food, and personal services.
1 .I 1 To establish and maintain commercial development standards to address landscaping,
parking, signs, and site and building design, to ensure that all existing and future
commercial developments are compatible with surrounding land uses.
December 1995 Page 44
t
GREEN VALLEY MASTER 9 LAN e
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEOA FINDINGS OF FACT
~~ ~ ~~~
PROJECT SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
2.1 Maintain the viability of the riparian woodland corridor of Encinitas Creek and the
topographic and habitat features of the upland bluff area.
2.2 Provide for the creation of new riparian woodland and habitat areas contiguous to the
existing riparian woodland.
2.3 Provide an open space network containing pedestrian and bicycle trails to buffer the
riparian woodland corridor from development and connect to the future citywide trail
system.
2.4 Utilize the linear form of the property to organize the elements of the project and create
the maximum feasible buffer and setback from the riparian woodland corridor.
2.5 Incorporate as an integral part of the site design and landscape plan appropriate debris
removal areas and desiltation/depollutant basins to protect Encinitas Creek and
Batiquitos Lagoon.
2.6 Create an on-site circulation system that provides clear, coherent access to the
development areas on-site and includes connections into the adjacent jurisdiction.
2.7 Provide sufficient direction for the design of the retail center so that it will respond well
to the natural landform and use landscaping to organize and define the main elements
of the center.
2.8 Provide a proportionate fair share of affordable housing opportunities.
2.9 Guide the visual transition from undeveloped to developed lands through the use of
building form, color, and materials.
The final program EIR for the Reduced Project Alternative examined a broad range of
reasonable on-site and off-site alternatives to the project to determine whether it could meet
the project's objectives while avoiding or substantially lessening one or more of the project's
significant, unavoidable impacts. The City has properly considered and reasonably rejected
the other project alternatives as "infeasible" pursuant to CEQA.
December 1995 Page 45
1 0 GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN 0
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT ~~
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
Description of Aiterna tive
CEQA requires the analysis of the No Project Alternative (Public Resources Code Section
151 26).
This alternative assumes that the site would not be developed with the Reduced Project
Alternative, and the site would remain in its existing condition. The existing uses of the site
for agricultural production would continue indefinitely as market conditions, and constraints
on agriculture (i.e. water costs) dictate.
Finding
Finding 3-Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. The project alternative would not
feasibly achieve the basic objectives of the project.
Facts in Support of Finding
This alternative would not meet the City of Carlsbad planning and design objectives
established for the City and objectives established specifically for the project as expressed in
the Master Plan and Final EIR. These objectives include:
General Objectives
1.1 To create a distinctive sense of place and identity for each community and
neighborhood of the City through the development and arrangement of various land use
components.
1.3 To provide for the social and economic needs of the community in conjunction with
permitted land uses.
1.4 To develop programs which would correlate the ultimate density and projected
population with the service capabilities of the City.
1.5 To achieve a variety of safe, attractive housing in all economic ranges throughout the
City.
December 1995 Page 46
0 GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN e
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEM FINDINGS OF FACT
1.7 To offer safe, attractive residential areas with a wide range of housing types, styles
and price levels in a variety of locations.
1.8 To ensure that new master planned communities and residential specific plans
contribute to a balanced community by providing, within the development, adequate
areas to meet some social/human service needs such as sites for worship, daycare,
youth and senior citizen activities, etc.
1.10 To ensure that all residential areas are adequately served by commercial areas in terms
of daily shopping needs which include convenience goods, food, and personal services.
Project Specific Objectives
2.2 Provide for the creation of new riparian woodland and habitat areas contiguous to the
existing riparian woodland.
2.3 Provide an open space network containing pedestrian and bicycle trails to buffer the
riparian woodland corridor from development and connect to the future citywide trail
system.
2.5 Incorporate as an integral part of the site design and landscape plan appropriate debris
removal areas and desiltation/depollutant basins to protect Encinitas Creek and
Batiquitos Lagoon.
2.6 Create an on-site circulation system that provides clear, coherent access to the
development areas on-site and includes connections into the adjacent jurisdiction.
2.8 Provide a proportionate fair share of affordable housing opportunities.
DEVELOPMENT UNDER ALL OF THE EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESlGNATlONS
Description of Alternative
The General Plan Land Use Alternative would propose a Master Plan based on the existins
General Plan land use designations of C/O/RMH/OS and use the same development area anc
road circulation system as the Reduced Project Alternative. This would allow for developmeni
with a combination of Commercial, Office and Residential Medium High Density, 8-1 5 dwellins
units per acre. This alternative would not require a General Plan Amendment. Land use:
would be as follows:
~~
December 1995 Page 4
I e GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN 0
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
~~~ ~~ ~ ~
a 400 multi-family dwelling units
e 335,000 sq. ft. of retail
a 350,000 sq. ft. office
In addition to the General Plan land uses, the same Master Plan proposed open space uses
would apply. As with the Reduced Project Alternative, each of the identified potentially
significant impacts associated with the project are expected to be reduced to less than
significant levels by mitigation measures described for the proposed project. The same
mitigation measures are expected to be applied similarly to the General Plan Land Use
Alternative. Both the originally proposed project and the General Plan Alternative would have
the same impacts to biology. No other potential impacts identified as insignificant for the
proposed project would be potentially significant under this alternative, due to the similarity
of use with the proposed project. Because this alternative only shifts some of the land uses
for individual lots, swapping commercial uses of office use, the impacts would remain the
same as those expected from the proposed project.
Finding
Finding 3-Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. This project alternative would not
feasibly achieve the basic objectives of the project.
Facts in Support of Finding
The review process for the project and the alternatives has included an extensive public
participation process and an analysis of specific conditions which effect the property which
included market studies and evaluation of the surrounding community. This process has
progressed beyond what the General Plan land use designations anticipated for the property.
This alternative, when compared with the Reduced Project Alternative, has a greater amount
of development and more impacts. The key factors can be compared and contrasted to the
Reduced Project Alternative in Exhibit 1.
This alternative would not meet the City of Carlsbad planning and design objectives
established for the City and objectives established specifically for the project as expressed in
the Master Plan and Final EIR. These objectives include:
1.3 To provide for the social and economic needs of the community in conjunction with
permitted land uses.
December I995 Page 4E
I 0 GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN 0
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
~~
1.5 To achieve a variety of safe, attractive housing in all economic ranges throughout the
City.
1.6 To preserve the neighborhood atmosphere and identity of existing residential areas.
1.9 To limit the amount of new commercial land use designations to that which can
feasibly be supported by the current growth rate of the trade area and the City, and to
those which are consistent with the prime concept and image of the City as a desirable
residential and open space community.
ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Description of Alternative
The "Environmentally Preferred Alternative" is a modified development program and site design
which would reduce or eliminate potential impacts of the project. This alternative was
identified for comparison to the originally proposed project. In the context of the range of
alternatives currently under consideration a more accurate description would be a biologically
preferred alternative. This is because the most significant change represented by the
alternative is a change to biological impacts. Other key factors between four alternatives can
be compared and contrasted in Exhibit 1.
The land use designation under this alternative would be consistent with the General Plan Land
Use Alternative (previously described) which utilizes all four potential land uses contained in
the combination district designation (C/O/RMH/OS). A modified site design would eliminate
the 0.6 acre impact to coastal sage shrub adjacent to the upland bluff. Total daily traffic
would be further reduced but total peak hour trips would be increased as compared to the
Proposed Project. The proposed creek crossing at Levante Street is eliminated by the
Environmentally Preferred Alternative to further reduce the impacts to biological resources.
Access to the site would be from future Leucadia Boulevard to the south in the City of
Encinitas and from El Camino Real to the east via an extension of future Calle Barcelona.
Finding
The alternative described as the "Environmentally Preferred Alternative" was identified and
analyzed as part of the planning review process in 1993-94 prior to the preparation and
analysis of the Reduced Project Alternative. The Reduced Project Alternative came about as
a result of additional planning review in 1995. A comprehensive comparison of the twc
alternatives (see Exhibit 1) finds that while the alternative originally described as the
December 1995 Page 45
L I a GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
"Environmentally Preferred Alternative" does reduce biological impacts the Reduced Project
Alternative overall produces the environmentally superior project.
Facts in Support of Finding
The key facts of comparison between the Proposed Project, "Environmentally Preferred
Alternative" and Reduced Project Alternative are shown in Exhibit 1 and discussed below.
1. The total development program of the "Environmentally Preferred Alternative" of
685,000 s.f. of commercial development and 400 multi-family dwelling units is more
intense than the total development program of the Reduced Project Alternative which
is comprised of 300,000 s.f. of commercial development and 400 single-family
dwelling units. The development area remains the same for both alternatives.
2. The daily trip generation and combined A.M./P.M. peak hour trip generation is greater
for the "Environmentally Preferred Alternative" than the Reduced Project Alternative.
3. The elimination of the project entrance at Levante Street does reduce the impacts to
biology, however, the Reduced Project Alternative contains mitigation measures that
reduce the biological impacts to below a level of significance.
4. The impact to 0.6 acres of coastal sage shrub adjacent to the upland bluffs is
eliminated from the Reduced Project Alternative as well as the "Environmentally
Preferred Alternative".
5. The second crossing provides benefits over one crossing as noted in the comparison
of the three alternatives below.
December 1995 Page 50
> * GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN 0
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
Exhibit 1
COMPARISON OF KEY FACTORS
General Plan
(1 995) (1 993-94) (1 993-1 994) (1 9921 Description
Project Preferred Land Use Proposed
Reduced Environmentally
Total 400 Multi-Family 400 Multi-Family 400 Multi-Family
300,000 S.F. 335,000 S.F. 335,000 S.F. Retail 600,000 S.F. Program
Family D.U. D.U. D.U. D.U. Development
400 Single-
Project Alternative Alternative Alternative
Retail
Office Neigh. Retail
350,000 S.F. 12,000 S.F.
Retail Retail 350,000 S.F. Office
Daily Trip
Generation
25,300 26,950 26,950 34,600
Peak Hour 91 0 A.M. 1571 A.M.
2500 Total 4500 Total 4500 Total 4090 Total Generation
2540 P.M. 2929 P.M. 2929 P.M. 31 80 P.M. Trip
960 A.M. 1571 A.M.
Crossings of 2 2 1' 2'
Encinitas
Creek
Impacts to 0.6 Acres 0.6 Acres 0 Acres 0 Acres
Upland Bluffs
Coastal Sage
Shrub Habitat
6. The facts noted and illustrated in Exhibit 1 also allow additional comparisons of the
environmental impacts of the alternatives.
a. The elimination of the point of access at Levante Street would cause the muiti-
family residents of a project designed in accordance with the "Environmentally
Preferred Alternative" to drive significant additional distances thereby creating
a further impact to air quality. This is a result of residential trips to or from
destinations north of the site having to travel an additional distance to the
south, out of the way, before being able to travel in the desired northerly
(1) In accordance with the standards established by the Otay Ranch Corridor Study
(Ogden 1992).
December 1995 Page 5 1
9 GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN 0
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
~~
direction. Based on an estimated 30 percent distribution of trips from the site
to the north and the master plan maximum of up to 400 multi-family dwelling
units, the additional travel could total approximately 160,000 miles per year.
The Reduced Project Alternative retains this access point and therefore
eliminates this need for this additional travel distance for the maximum of up to
400 single-family dwelling units.
b. The orientation of all residential access to the south to Calle Barcelona may not
achieve the public health, safety and welfare requirements of the City of
Carlsbad. This includes cul-de-sac standards and multiple points of egress for
the fire safety. If the specific technical standards were met, there would remain
a situation where a brush fire or other incident could block egress at that
narrow southern point and residents of the neighborhood would have no
alternative evacuation route to the north, west or east.
In this respect, the "Environmentally Preferred Alternative" may not be able to
meet the City of Carlsbad planning and design objectives as expressed in the
Public Safety Element. Disaster Preparedness as follows:
B.2 to establish and maintain safe and effective evacuation routes.
The Reduced Project Alternative retains the Levante Crossing as a second point
of access and would be able to meet the City of Carlsbad planning and design
objectives.
OFFSITE ALTERNATIVE
Description of Alternative
In consultation with the Carlsbad Planning Department, the Robertson Ranch property was
chosen for evaluation as an alternative site (off-site alternative) for the proposed Green Valley
Master Plan project.
The Robertson Ranch property is located on the east side of El Camino Real south of Tamarack
Avenue and north of the future Cannon Road in the northern portion of Carlsbad. This site is
currently being used for agricultural purposes, with native vegetation on some of .the steeper
slopes. A single residence and several agricultural buildings are currently located on this site.
Most of this site is designated as RML, Residential Medium-Low, 0-4 dwelling units per acre
by Carlsbad's General Plan. A small portion of the site adjacent to the intersection of El
~
December 1995 Page 52
i
GREEN VALLEY MASTER b LAN 0
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
Camino Real and Tamarack Avenue is designated as RM, Residential Medium, 4-8 dwelling
units per acre.
This property is currently zoned Limited Control, L-C. The Limited Control Zone in Carlsbad
is a holding zone which is placed on large properties to allow them to continue in agricultural
or open space use until a detailed master or specific plan can be completed. At the present
time there are no development plans in process with the City for this property.
Approximately 1 , 122 units were allocated to the Robertson Ranch by the Zone 14 Local
Facilities plan. More detailed planning studies could reduce the potential number of units
allowed based on a more accurate slope determination and more detailed environmental review
of this site.
Although approximately 300 acres of the Robertson Ranch is shown as an alternative site, the
alternative site design is located on approximately 75 acres of the property located adjacent
to the future intersection of El Camino Real and Cannon Road. This portion of the Robertson
Ranch was chosen for an alternative analysis because of its comparable size, location near the
intersection of El Camino Real and a future Arterial (Cannon Road), single ownership,
agricultural use and similar topography to the Green Valley Master Plan.
This alternative site is comparable in size to the actual amount of area that will be developed
by the Green Valley Master Plan. Although the Green Valley Master Plan covers 281.2 acres
194.8 of these acres will remain in open space while another 10.6 acres will be in public
street right-of-way. After subtracting this acreage only 75.8 acres of land remain for the
proposed development.
Finding
Finding 3-Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
This alternative would not meet the City of Carlsbad planning and design objectives
established by the City and objectives established specifically for the project as expressed in
the Master Plan and Final EIR. These objectives include:
December I995 Page 53
9 GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN e
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
General Objectives
1.1 To create a distinctive sense of place and identity for each community and
neighborhood of the City through the development and arrangement of various land use
components.
1.3 To provide for the social and economic needs of the community in conjunction with
permitted land uses.
1.4 To develop programs which would correlate the ultimate density and projected
population with the service capabilities of the City.
1.9 To limit the amount of new commercial land use designations to that which can
feasibly be supported by the current growth rate of the trade area and the City, and to
those which are consistent with the prime concept and image of the community as a
desirable residential, open space community.
1 ,lo To ensure that all residential areas are adequately served by commercial areas in terms
of daily shopping needs which include convenience goods, food, and personal services.
Project Specific Objectives
2.2 Provide for the creation of new riparian woodland and habitat areas contiguous to the
existing riparian woodland.
2.3 Provide an open space network containing pedestrian and bicycle trails to buffer the
riparian woodland corridor from development and connect to the future citywide trail
system.
2.5 Incorporate as an integral part of the site design and landscape plan appropriate debris
removal areas and desiltation/depollutant basins to protect Encinitas Creek and
Batiquitos Lagoon.
This alternative would place community commercial land use in an area where it has not been
planned and not place it in an area where it has been planned for and supported by the growth
L and trade area.
-
December 1995 Page 54
V e GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN e
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
SUMMARY
The examination of the alternatives has determined on balance that the Reduced Project
Alternative represents the approach which best meets the objectives estabiished for the City
and the project. There are no impacts that can not be mitigated to below a level of
significance and the Reduced Project Alternative, compared to the alternatives, will produce
the environmentally superior project.
December 1995 Page 55
EXHIBIT "E ' GWEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN * December 13,199! ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
LAND USE
Potential Impacts
With the reduction of the retail area to accommodate less than 300,000 square feet, each of the land
uses will be in conformance with the General Plan land use descriptions. However,
1. Development, as proposed, of Planning Area 5 as a commercial site would conflict with primary and secondary priorities of the Open Space Conservation Resource Management Plan and result in a significant land use effect.
Mitigation Measures
1. Designate Planning Area 5 as open space or unplanned area within the Master Plan.
2. A physical and visual buffer should be provided between the commercial PA2 and the residential PA3. The requirement for buffering shall be included in the Master Plan.
3. As a procedural follow-up recommended in the OSCRMP, all areas designated as open space in the Master Plan will be designated as such on the General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map. This action, although not mitigation, strengthens the preservation of lands designated as open space.
Checkpoints
1. Approval of the Master Plan
Responsible Parties
1. Planning Department
Sanctions
1. No approval of the Master Plan without designating Planning Area 5 as Open Space or Unplanned Area.
VISUAL QUALITYLANDFORM ALTERATION
Potential Impacts
1. The change from a semi-natural (agricultural) to a built environment.
2. The creation of two road breaks in an otherwise contiguous riparian corridor.
3. Landform alteration and the creation of manufactured slopes and retaining walls.
4. Intensification of structural development at the southwest corner of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue.
The proposed Master Plan development standards, subject to approval by the City of Carlsbad, will serve as comprehensive guidelines for the project as a whole. These standards include the following:
1. Architectural design standards for scale, massing, rooflines, building color and material guidelines, landscaping, and location on-site shall be used to create a visual blend with the
bluff topography, e m D ing vegetation, and colors of the nativ 9 avironment.
2. Landscaping and revegetation shall be used to recreate as closely as possible the continuous visual effect of the riparian corridor.
3. Light overspill shall be minimized through the use of lighting shields, minimum intensity lighting, and minimization of lighted signage.
4. Where possible, project contrast shall be minimized and regulated along any bluff silhouette line or adjacent to native vegetation and Encinitas Creek through landscaping/revegetation and lower pads.
These development standards will provide sufficient control to negate the potential visual quality and
land form alteration impacts of individual development projects approved and implemented consistent with the Master Plan. In conjunction with the Master Plan, the mitigation measures listed below, will mitigate any remaining visual quality impacts to a level of insignificance.
Mitigation Measures
1. If Planning Area 5 is approved for commercial development, it shall be developed subject to all applicable requirements of the El Camino Real Corridor Standards including the approval of a Special Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit.
Checkpoints
1. Approval of the Master Plan and subsequent discretionary approvals.
Responsible Parties
1. Decision making body
2. Planning Department
Sanctions
1. No approval of commercial or residential development within the El Camino Real Corridor without a Special Use Permit consistent with Section 21.95.080 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
2. No approval of the Master Plan without the establishment of development standards consistent with the above criteria.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Potential Impacts
1. Approximately 1.0 acres (4.2 percent) of Diegan coastal sage scrub will be directly impacted by the Project. Other potentially occurring sensitive sage scrub species would also be affected. These direct impacts are mitigated by the Master Plan which would create 8.01 acres of new coastal sage scrub.
2. Approximately 4.6 acres (14 percent) of southern riparian woodland will be directly impacted
by the Reduced Project Alternative. All of these impacts would occur along Encinitas Creek from the proposed crossings for access to the site and the widening of El Camino Real. These impacts are considered potentially significant because of the sensitivity of this community and species observed in it, such as the least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, yellow warbler, and yellow-breasted chat. The proposed Master Plan mitigates these impacts to below a level of significance by incorporating 11.75 acres of riparian restoration and 3.5 acres of riparian enhancement into the plan, although the preferred mitigation option is avoidance of impacts.
3. Traffic generated n @ e represents the most significant indire 9 impact of this project. The project will increase the amount of area impacted by noise by approximately 2.5 percent in the southern part of the riparian woodland, 3.8 percent in the northern part of the woodland, and not at all in the central portion (Endo Engineering 1993). The area of riparian woodland impacted by project generated noise is estimated to total less than 0.75 acre. This
impact is mitigated to a level of insignificance by the 15.25 acres of riparian enhancement
proposed by the Master Plan. Because the most preferred mitigation is avoidance, the No Project Alternative would eliminate the impacts and no riparian restoration or enhancements would be required.
The following potentially significant biological impacts of the Project are not mitigated by the
proposed restoration and enhancement plans presented in the Master Plan. However, they can be mitigated by the measures discussed below under Mitigation Measutes.
1. Approximately 1.0 acre (13 percent) of southern coastal salt marsh will be directly impacted
by the proposed access to the site at Levante Street. This impact is considered a potentially significant cumulative impact because of the sensitivity of this plant community.
2. The project as proposed will reduce wildlife movement through Encinitas Creek with the placement of the two proposed bridge crossings. This creek is identified as a wildlife corridor in the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP). The potential impact to wildlife movement along Encinitas Creek would be considered significant.
Although the open space plan presented in the Master Plan incorporates extensive restoration of riparian and upland habitats, potentially significant impacts may still occur from implementation of the project.
Mitigation Measures
1. The effectiveness of the proposed buffer areas between the proposed development and natural areas shall be increased through the use of barrier plantings such as cacti. The planting of the buffer areas shall be subject to the review and approval of the resource agencies.
2. Two acres of southern coastal salt marsh habitat shall be restored on-site. The on-site location of the restoration shall require approval of the California Department of Fish and Game and shall be incorporated into the Master Plan Open Space and Biological Habitat
Enhancement Plan.
3. Detailed restoration plans based on the required mitigation ratios and the Open Space and Habitat Protection and Enhancement Plan outlined in the Master Plan shall be prepared, reviewed, and approved by the appropriate resource agencies prior to grading permit.
4. Regarding impacts to wildlife movement along Encinitas Creek; Because the most preferable mitigation is avoidance, the first approach is to eliminate both the Calle Barcelona and Levante Street crossings of the creek to reduce impacts to riparian areashwildlife movement along Encinitas Creek. Elimination of the crossings will also reduce impacts to southern coastal salt marsh. However, elimination of both crossings is not feasible based on project circulation and access requirements.
Since eliminating both crossings renders the project infeasible, the elimination of one crossing is the preferred mitigation. One crossing has the potential to create fewer impacts than two and the greatest biological benefit would be attained from eliminating Levante
Street. This would create the largest possible block of riparian habitat and also eliminate
direct impacts from the Levante Street crossing which includes disturbance to 0.4 acres of southern coastal salt marsh.
However, impacts to wildlife movement can also be mitigated through the design of one or two crossings. Using either the Otay Ranch Corridor Study (Ogden 1992) as a model or other specifications acceptable to the California Department of Fish and Game, adequate
otmortunitv for nort d -south wildlife movement can be created d t erebv also mitigating impacts
t6 bildlife movement along the Encinitas Creek to a level of less <han signigcant: *
6. Traffic noise and other noise impacts to the riparian corridor are considered to be mitigated
by the proposed restoration plans presented in the Master Plan. Additional mitigation could further reduce noise impacts in the form of noise attenuation structures adjacent to the riparian corridor and/or elimination of one of the creek crossings.
Checkpoints
1. Grading Permit
2. Mitigation report by consulting biologist submitted to the City Planning Department prior to any grading for construction affecting the site.
Responsible Parties
1. Planning Department
2. Engineering Department
3. California Department of Fish and Game
4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
5. Consulting Biologist
Sanctions
1. No approval of grading permits without acceptable mitigation reviewed and approved by the California Department of Fish and Game for creek crossing.
2. No approval of grading permits without satisfactory landscaping and revegetation plans.
3. No issuance of building or occupancy permits without properly accomplished mitigation.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potential Impacts
Implementation of the Project would result in a potentially significant impact (i.e., total removal) of the cultural resources at archaeological site GV-4.
Mitigation Measures
Potential impacts to the archaeological resources onsite shall be mitigated to a level of insignificance
by excavation and analysis of a representative sample. This shall include one of the following:
1. A minimum area of 26 square meters of GV-4 shall be excavated by hand prior to grading. Only Stratum I1 shall be systematically excavated since Stratum I contains no significant
cultural material. Special emphasis shall be placed upon analyzing the faunal remains since the test results suggest animal bone is among the most scientifically useful and interesting components of the deposit.
2. A minimum of 52 square meters of GV-4 shall be excavated by controlled mechanical means similar to those described in Van Horn, Murray, & White 1986; and Van Horn 1988. The
other conditions set forth in item (1) above would remain the same. The reason for the larger sample as compared to item (1) above is due to the high cost of conventional archaeological excavation conducted by hand. Alternately, controlled mechanized excavation offers the potential for acquisition of a significantly larger sample for substantially less cost.
0 0
Regardless of which of the two methods is chosen, the archaeologist directing the mitigative work
shall have the authority to halt excavations if, in his or her judgment, there is nothing to be gained by continuing.
Checkpoints
Report by consulting archeologist submitted to City Planning Department upon completion of work
D and prior to grading for construction affecting the site.
Responsible Parties
1. Planning Department
2. Engineering Department
3. Consulting Archeologist
Sanctions
No building permits or grading permits to be issued until mitigation report by consulting archeologist is submitted and approved by the City Planning Department.
-~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Potential Impacts
Although the walkover survey and inspection did not result in the discovery of any fossils onsite, the subject area may contain paleontological resources from Eocene and Pleistocene sedimentary units, and Holocene sediments which could be significantly impacted by the Proposed Project. Careful development of this area may increase our knowledge and collections of the fossil assemblages and environment of deposition of the rock units in this area.
Mitigation Measures
The following measures will mitigate to a level of insignificance the potential impacts of the project
on any significant paleontologic resources that may be present on the site:
1. A paleontological resource monitoring plan shall be developed by a Certified Paleontologist prior to the initiation of grading operations. This plan should include a grading observation schedule to be maintained when grading in bedrock units to further evaluate the fossil resources of the site.
2. Salvage operations shall be initiated and coordinated with the developer if significant concentrations of fossils are encountered.
Checkpoints
1. Prior to issuance of grading permit.
2. Report by consulting paleontologist upon completion of grading.
Responsible Parties
1. Planning Department
2. Engineering Department
3. Consulting Paleontologist
Sanctions 0 0
1. No approval of grading permit without mitigation plan.
2. No building permits to be issued until mitigation report by consulting paleontologist is submitted to City Planning Department.
~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~
GEOLOGY/SOILS
Potential Impacts
The potentially significant geologylsoils impacts associated with the project are as follows:
1. The alluvium and slopewasWmlluvium that underlies much of the proposed development
area may be susceptible to liquefaction and/or seismically induced settlement during significant seismic events.
2. Future development of the site may create conditions where the on-site materials would be susceptible to slope instabilities. The alluvium and the slopewash/colluvium underlying the area proposed for development is compressible and considered unsuitable, in their present state, for the direct support of structural loads. As much as 10 inches of settlement may occur where fills of 20 feet in depth are to be placed.
3. Shallow groundwater may impact the stability and working conditions in trench excavations, drilled pier excavations, or may occur as nuisance water in cut slope excavations.
4. Expansive soils may be encountered in excavations along the eastern site boundary where the Delmar Formation underlies the site.
5. The earth materials onsite are generally susceptible to erosion from running water. Surface runoff has created incised gullies in the loose materials underlying the areas proposed for development.
Mitigation Measures .
The following measures will mitigate to a level of insignificance the potential geologic impacts of the project:
1. A comprehensive geotechnical evaluation, including subsurface exploration and laboratory analysis, shall be performed to address the potential geotechnical impacts and to provide geotechnical criteria for the design of the proposed improvements. The evaluation(s) shall include appropriate subsurface explorations, laboratory analysis and engineering analysis to evaluate liquefaction potential, compressible soils, expansive soils, slope stability, dewatering parameters, soil corrosivity and other appropriate geotechnical concerns. From this data, recommendations for earthwork, slope stability, surface and subsurface drainage, building foundations, retaining walls, pavement structural sections, and other design considerations shall be formulated.
2. The project grading and foundation plans shall incorporate recommendations provided in the comprehensive geotechnical evaluation, and be reviewed and approved by the project geotechnical consultant. Additional mitigation measures will also be given at the time of the grading plan review if necessary.
3. The project grading and foundation plans shall incorporate recommendations provided in the comprehensive geotechnical evaluation, and be reviewed and approved by the project geotechnical consultant. All cut and fill slopes shall be observed and inspected by the project engineering geologist. Geologic inspection of the cut and fill slopes shall be performed at the time of grading in order to confirm conditions of stability. Additional and/or revised mitigation measures may be necessary based upon the geology of the exposed deposits and should be anticipated.
Checkpoints e 0
1. Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Responsible Parties
1. Engineering Department
Sunc twns
1. No grading permit until mitigation measures are completed.
HYDROLOGYmATER QUALITY
Potential Impacts
1. The project will increase the 10 year peak runoff on-site less than the 24% anticipated for the project due to a reduction in impermeable area associated with the commercial land area and the lower density residential development. (No change would result in the peak runoff leaving the site if the storm drain system is built as proposed; see Mitigation Measures.)
2. The project will result in the covering of less than approximately 30% of the site with impermeable structures (buildings and paving). Therefore fewer airborne pollutants will collect and become concentrated during the long dry season. The first rain washes these pollutants onto the pavement, which transports them offsite. Food operations in markets and restaurants can result in further pollutants leaking from trash enclosures. This site is located
directly adjacent to the biologically-sensitive Encinitas Creek and Batiquitos Lagoon. Without proper mitigation, the project has the potential to significantly impact these resources.
3. Potentially hazardous agricultural chemicals may be present within soils onsite. These materials can come into contact with the receiving waters, and have an adverse impact on the beneficial uses of those waters.
Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the Storm Drainage and Desiltation/Depollutant Plan as proposed in the Master Plan, in addition to the following measures, will mitigate the potentially significant hydrology/ water quality impacts of the project to below a level of significance.
1. Upon submittal of the final engineering documents, a comprehensive evaluation of the proposed storm drain facilities shall be prepared. The project facilities plans shall
incorporate recommendations provided in the comprehensive evaluation, and be reviewed and approved by the project hydrological consultant. Additional mitigation measures will also be given at the time of the grading plan review if necessary.
2. The depollutant basins shall be designed in accordance with the appropriate standards detailed in the California Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook (March 1993)
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
3. The maintenance program of the sedimentation and depollutant basins shall be prepared and approved at the final design stage.
4. Proper protection to the creek shall be provided by the use of silt fences and other approved
methods during grading between the desiltation basins and the creek.
5. Drainage facilities must be provided concurrent with development of the area.
6. A Phase I environmental analysis shall be prepared for the site to evaluate the existence of hazardous/toxic materials onsite, and to make recommendations for any remediation
procedures. 0 0
7. No grading shall be performed during the rainy season as determined by the Coastal
Commission.
8. Detention Basin "C" (located on the east side of El Camino Real per Chang Study) shall be constructed prior to or concurrent with development of the project; or other means utilized
El Camino Real. to provide required freeboard at the crossings of Encinitas Creek for the project access and
Checkpoints
1. Prior to final map recordation
2. Prior to grading and/or building permit
Responsible Parties
1. Planning Department
2. Engineering Department
Sanctions
1. No recordation of final map or issuance of building and/or grading permits without Financing Plan guarantee for construction of required drainage facilities.
2. No approval of grading permit without necessary conditions and proper drainage and depollutant system shown.
CIRCULATION
Potential Impacts
Existing Conditions
1. Improvements are required at the La Costa Avenue Ramps (Northbound and Southbound) at the 1-5 interchange. Improvements at this interchange are scheduled to begin in late 1995 and be completed by Year 1996-1997.
2. Improvements are required at the intersection of El Camino Real with Olivenhain Roadkucadia Boulevard. Improvements at this intersection are currently in work.
1998 Impacts
1. La Costa Avenue between 1-5 and El Camino Real will require four lanes. However, it can
be noted that the critical intersections at each end of this section arehill be improved to the required geometrics, which should be considered in the overall evaluation of this issue.
2. The El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue intersection will an added westbound right turn lane.
This improvement may not be required for future conditions.
3. The El Camino Real/Olivenhain Road-Leucadia Boulevard intersection will require a northbound through lane.
2000 Impacts
For the Year 2000 conditions, "With" and "Without" the Leucadia Boulevard connection, from I5 to El Camino Real, were analyzed. Calle Barcelona between El Camino Real and Rancho Santa Fe was not assumed to be constructed. The proposed Green Valley project was assumed to be
completed and Encinitas Ranch is expected to still be at Phase 1. e 0
1. “Without Leucadia Boulevard”, an interim impact at El Camino ReaYLa Costa Avenue still
remains. The project related impact can be mitigated by the added westbound right turn, but
the intersection operations remain at LOS E. In other words, there is still an impact due to background traffic, but the project related impacts are mitigated. With the Leucadia Boulevard connection from the 1-5 to El Camino Real assumed in place, the El Camino
Real/La Costa Avenue intersection is no longer over capacity and the westbound right turn
, lane is no longer required.
2. Either “With” or “Without” Leucadia Boulevard, from I5 to El Camino Real, the El Camino Reawucadia-Olivenhain intersection requires improvement under the three potential
alternatives. However, if Alternative 3 (“With” Leucadia) is provided, which includes no site access at Leucadia Boulevard, then LOS E remains even with the mitigation at El Camino Reawucadia-Olivenhain.
3. The northbound side of El Camino Real from Leucadia-Olivenhain to Calle Barcelona needs
to be widened from two to three lanes (under the “with” Leucadia Boulevard connection from
I5 to El Camino Real) and only for Alternative 3.
201 0 Impacts
For Buildout conditions, the ”With“ Leucadia Boulevard connection, from I5 to El Camino Real, is assumed to be provided and Calle Barcelona, from El Camino Real to Rancho Santa Fe Road, is expected to be constructed as well. The Green Valley and Encinitas Ranch projects are assumed to be fully built out.
1. For reduced development Alternatives 1 and 2 no added intersection mitigation is required. The project access connection configurations serve as mitigation measures in conjunction with the planned road system. If Alternative 3 is provided then mitigation measures are required at the El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue intersection.
La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real Intelsectwn
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. However, the intersection of La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, the intersection is
projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include but are not limited to 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 recent certification of the General Plan Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No.
94-246, included a ‘Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts created by projects which are consistent with the General Plan and cumulatively contribute to the failure of intersections at buildout, including the La Costa Avenue/El Camino Real intersection. The Reduced Project Alternative is consistent with the General Plan and is therefore includedwithin the Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted by the City Council for the General Plan. The Proposed
Project, however, is not consistent with the General Plan because of the inclusion of the Regional
Commercial land use designation. Approval of the Proposed Project would therefore require the issuance of a separate Statement of Overriding Consideration.
To lessen or minimize the impacts specific to the Proposed Project mitigation measures as set forth in Chapter 4.0 and as supplemented or modified by the Reduced Project Alternative as set forth in
e Chapter 5.0 have been recommended. a
Mitigation
Those mitigation measures identified in the General Plan Final Master EIR to reduce cumulative circulation impacts shall be incorporated into the Master Plan. Incorporation of those mitigation measures and subsequent implementation of the measures on an individual development basis will contribute to the greatest extent possible to the reduction of cumulative circulation impacts.
1998 Mitigation
1. La Costa Avenue between I5 and El Camino Real - Add two (2) additional through lanes.
2. El Camino ReaVLa Costa Avenue - Add a westbound right.
3. El Camino Reavolivenhain Road-Leucadia Boulevard - Add a northbound through with a transition lane north of the intersection.
2000 Mitigation
1. El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue - Add a westbound right. (If Leucadia Boulevard is connected from I5 to El Camino Real, then this mitigation measure is not required.)
2. El Camino Reavolivenhain Road-Leucadia Boulevard - Add a northbound through with a transition lane north of the intersection. However, under the "with" Leucadia Boulevard connection, from I5 to El Camino Real, for Alternative 3, the intersection still operates at an unacceptable level of service. Even though project impacts will be mitigated with the addition of this traffic lane, the intersection cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance for Alternative 3.
3. El Camino Real between Olivenhain Road-Leucadia Boulevard and Calle Barcelona - Add a northbound travel lane, only for Alternative 3, under the "with" Leucadia Boulevard connection, from I5 to El Camino Real.
4. Leucadia Boulevard - Connection from I5 to El Camino Real. This connection eliminates the requirement for mitigation measures at the El Camino ReaVLa Costa Avenue
intersection.
2010 Mitigation
1. Given the reduced development proposal and the planned future roadway system no added mitigation measures are required for future conditions under Alternatives 1 and 2.
Therefore, providing these reduced alternative access plans will mitigate all impacts at year 2010. However if Alternative 3 is provided, the added westbound right at the El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue intersection is still required.
Checkpoints
1. Construction of improvements
2. Approval of tentative map
3. Recordation of final map
4. Building occupancy
Responsible Parties
1. Planning Department
2. Engineering Department
e Sanctions e
1. No issuance of building permits if Growth Management standards for traffic levels of service
are not met.
2. No approval of tentative map without applicable conditions.
NOISE
Potential Impacts
1. Construction activities on-site will result in short-term increases in noise levels adjacent to site access routes and the on-site areas under construction.
2. Project-related traffic noise increases will represent a long-term incremental acoustic impact in the vicinity and will be audible (greater than 3.0 dBA) along one link (Calle Barcelona, east of El Camino Real), potentially audible (between 1.0 and 3.0 dBA) on six links, and inaudible (less than 1.0 dBA) on the twelve remaining roadway links analyzed in 1995.
3. Under year 2000 conditions, project-related traffic noise will be potentially audible (between 1.0 and 3.0 dBA) on up to 5 links, and inaudible (less than 1.0 dBA) on the remaining roadway links analyzed in 1995.
4. Project-related traffic noise increases will represent a long-term incremental acoustic impact in the vicinity and will be potentially audible (between 1.0 and 3.0 dBA) on six links, and inaudible (less than 1.0 dBA) on the fifteen remaining roadway links under year 2010 conditions.
5. Project impacts will be significant on only one link under one scenario (Calle Barcelona east of El Camino Real under 1995 conditions).
6. On-site noise impacts may result from ultimate traffic volumes on El Camino Real, depending upon the sound propagation rate and site design measures incorporated in the project.
Mitigation Masures
The following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the project to reduce noise impacts below significant and insure compliance with applicable noise standards:
1. During construction activities on-site, the following short-term acoustic mitigation measures should be implemented:
a Construction activities on-site should take place only during the days and hours
specified by the City of Carlsbad to reduce noise impacts during more sensitive time periods.
0 All construction equipment, fiied or mobile, should be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers.
0 Stationary equipment should be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers.
0 Stockpiling and vehicle staging areas should be located as far as practical from
sensitive noise receptors.
0 Every effort should be made to create the greatest distance between noise sources
and sensitive receptors during construction activities.
2. A noise analysis based upon on-site noise monitoring should be performed adjacent to the
proposed residentia f areas, prior to construction of the residentlal 0 uses in order to determine
specific site design measures to be incorporated into the project. Site design measures to reduce noise at the residential building pads on-site over the long-term should include:
0 Building setbacks and pad elevations can be used in conjunction with acoustic berm or berm and barrier combinations to reduce intrusive noise levels at those building
sites located within areas with excessive noise exposures adjacent to master planned roadways on-site prior to the issuance of building permits.
o Multi-story buildings located within ultimate unattenuated noise impact areas may require architectural treatments such as double glazing on the upper floor windows, which should be addressed at more detailed levels of planning.
e Any courtyards, plazas and open space areas designed for pedestrian uses should be shielded from intrusive noise levels by intervening structures wherever possible.
0 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the final lot layout, pad elevations, building design, acoustic berm or berm and barrier combinations should be evaluated by an acoustic consultant to insure that proper noise mitigation has been provided.
0 Commercial truck access, parking area design, air conditioning and refrigeration
units, and refuse bin locations should be carefully designed and evaluated at more detailed levels of planning to minimize the potential for acoustic impacts to adjacent residential development.
Checkpoints
1. Discretionary approval of residential units.
2. Inspection of constructed improvements.
Responsible Parties
1. Planning Department
2. Engineering Department
Sanctwns
1. No approval of discretionary development permits until noise report submitted anc
appropriate mitigation implemented.
2. No issuance of subsequent permits.
AIR QUALITY
Potential Impacts
1. The development of the project site will generate exhaust emissions from construction equipment and the automobiles of the construction crew, as well as fugitive dust during soil
movement.
2. The project would generate carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, NOx, particulates, and SOx daily upon build-out in the year 2000 due to the use of natural gas, electricity and vehicular activity.
Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the
General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
The implementation of subs a, uent projects that are consistent with an d ,ncluded in the General Plan will result in 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.
To lessen OK minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, avariety of
mitigation measures are recommended in the 1994 General Plan Update Final Master EIR. These
include but are not limited to: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development, such as improvements to La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real; 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, such as the inclusion of bus stops and bicycle and pedestrian trail systems within the project design; 4) promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The Project or the Reduced Project Alternative will be conditioned to comply with the recommended mitigation measures as described in the General Plan and in Section 4.11 (AIR QUALITY) of this EIR.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located
within a “non-attainment basin”. Certification of the 1994 General Plan Update Final Master EIR
93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations”
for air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan Update Final Master EIR. However, because the Project includes the request for a General Plan Amendment, development of the Project cannot be considered consistent with the General Plan and would therefore require an individual Statement Of Overriding Consideration. Conversely, the Reduced Project Alternative is consistent with the General Plan and would be considered a later development project covered by the General Plan Update Final Master EIR and would not require an individual Statement of Overriding Consideration.
Mitigation Measures
Those mitigation measures identified in the General Plan Final Master EIR to reduce cumulative air quality impacts shall be incorporated into the Master Plan. Incorporation of those mitigation measures and subsequent implementation of the measures on an individual development basis will contribute to the greatest extent possible to the reduction of cumulative air quality impacts.
Although the cumulative long-term impacts can not be fully mitigated, potentially significan’ short-term (construction-related) air quality impacts can be mitigated to below a level of significanct by implementing the following measures:
1. Construction operations requiring road closures or other types of traffic impediment:
affecting roadways adjacent to the site shall be scheduled for off-peak traffic hours.
2. To reduce the amount of fugitive dust generated during construction activities on-site, it i:
possible after clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation activities to:
0 seed and water until ground cover is established;
0 time activities to avoid windy periods;
0 conduct street sweeping on local public thoroughfares where silt and sand from thc
0 water construction sites and equipment in the morning and evening;
project site has been deposited by the wind.
3. Adequate watering techniques shall be employed to partially mitigate the impact o
construction-generated dust particulates. Portions of the project site that are under-goin] earth moving operations will be watered such that a crust will be formed on the grounc surface (and then be watered again at the end of the day).
4. Any vegetative ground cover to be utilized on-site shall be planted as soon as possible tc reduce the amount of open space subject to wind erosion. Irrigation systems needed to wate these plants shall be installed as soon as possible to maintain the ground cover.
5. Grading operations a b all not be conducted when winds excee c 30 miles per hour.
6. Where possible, diesel-powered construction equipment shall be used rather than gasoline-powered equipment to affect exhaust emission reductions and evaporative and crankcase HC emission reductions,
7. Construction equipment using diesel drive internal combustion engines shall use a diesel fuel
with a maximum of 0.05% sulfur and a four degree retard.
8. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize exhaust emissions.
9. Any construction vehicle access roads where dust is deposited should be cleaned after each work day.
10. Building construction shall comply with the energy use guidelines in Title 24 of California Administrative Code.
The mitigation outlined below and in the traffic section will partially reduce traffiorelated ail
emissions and secondary source emissions. However, due to the cumulative incremental nature oj these impacts, mitigation to a level of insignificance cannot be fully achieved.
11. Low emission building materials such as preprimed and sanded wood molding and trirr products and preprimed wallboard, should be considered for construction materials wherevel feasible.
12. The use of energy efficient street lighting and parking lot lighting (low pressure sodium vapol lights) should be considered on-site to reduce emissions at the power plant serving the site
Checkpoints
1. Grading Permit.
Responsible Parties
1. Planning Department.
2. Engineering Department.
Sanctwns
1. No approval of grading permits without applicable conditions.
~~~
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
The following is applicable for both the Project and the Reduced Project Alternative:
Potential Impacts
Overall impacts to public facilities and services have been found not to be significant provided thl all the appropriate agency conditions for development are met, including payment of public facilitie fees.
Mitigation Measures
All the appropriate agency conditions for development shall be met by the project applican including payment of public facilities fees.
CheckpointslSanctwns 1. None are required
@ 6
ERRATA SHEET
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
DECEMBER 13, 1995
Executive Summary
Page 1-3
Mitigation Measures
The Reduced Project Alternative
1. Designate Planning Area 5 as open space or unplanned area within the
Master Plan.
Land Use
Page 4.1-26
Mitigation Measures
1. ... designated as open space and incorporated into Planning Area 1 X
designated as unplanned area.
Alternatives
Page 5-16
Plan.
1. Designate Planning Area 5 as open space or unplanned area within the Master
Public Facilities and Srevices
Page 4.12-6 ll 5, second sentence strike and replace - The proiect is withiin the Olivenhain
Municipal - Water District service area and both potable and reclaimed water will
be provided bv the district to the proiect.
Page 4.12-6 ll 6, first line strike and replace
OMWD has indicated currently there is sufficient &stkg storage capacity in the
district system to Q serve its needs as
determined bv the OMWD Board of Directors.