Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-11-19; Planning Commission; Resolution 4202Q 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4202 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AN ADDENDUM THERETO, AND THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM THEREON, FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT IN THE RANCHO CARLSBAD MOBILEHOME PARK LOCATED AT EL CAMINO REAL AND RANCHO CARLSBAD DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 15 CASE NAME: RANCHO CARLSBAD MOBILEHOME PARK CASE NO.: SUP 96-1 0 WHEREAS, Carlsbad Resident Association, Inc., “Developer”, has verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Carlsbad I Association, Inc., Carlsberg Rancho, LTD, Brookdale Terrace Building Compal Oak Shadows Building Company, “Owner”, described as A portion of Lot “B” and Lot “E” of Rancho Aqua Hedionda, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, per map thereof No. 823, filed in the office of the County Recorder, November 16,1896 (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 19th day of Novembt hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all te and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by st considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the E i Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. I *** 0 0 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission hereby APPROVES the Mitigated Negative Declaratior Addendum dated October 23, 1997, and the Mitigation Monitol Reporting Program thereon dated November 19, 1997, both accc Exhibit "ND" dated August 11, 1997, and "PII" dated June 18, 1997, hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findings: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, anal) considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration, an Addendum thereto, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program thereon, the environmental therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to appro project. Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, the Planning Con finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effe environment and thereby APPROVES the Mitigated Negative Declaral Addendum thereto, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 2. The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Declar Addendum thereto, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated August 11, 1997, has been prepared in accordance with requirement California Environmental Quality, Act, the State Guidelines and the Envirc Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad. 3. The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declarat Addendum thereto, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Cs 4. The Record of Proceedings for this project consists of the following: a. The report, CEQA Findings, EIA Part 11, dated January 22, 1997, Mitigation and Monitoring Program; b. All reports, applications, memoranda, maps, letters and other p documents prepared by the project applicant and the City of Carlsl are before the decisionmakers as determined by the City Clerk; c. All documents submitted by member of the public and public age connection with the Mitigated Negative Declaration on the project; d. Minutes of public hearing; and e. Matters of common knowledge to the City of Carlsbad which they cc including but not limited to, the Carlsbad General Plan, Carlsbad Ordinance, and Local Facilities Management plan, which may be B PC RES0 NO. 4202 -2- 0 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 City Hall located at 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive and the Con Development Office located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive in the custod City Clerk and Planning Director. 5. The initial study shows that as mitigated there is no substantial evidence that th may have significant impact on the environment as follows: a. The project will not adversely affect the carrying capacity of the flood b. The proposed project is designed to be protected from flood damagf no increase in flood-related hazards will be created. c. The project will not decrease the ability of the floodway to handle a I flood event. d. The extent of the flooding hazards involved with this project ha sufficiently identified to meet the requirements of FEMA and th Flood Plain Management Ordinance. e. A berm or dike will be constructed between the developed golf cou Rancho Carlsbad Drive to temporarily retain any potential floodwate dike will not be located in an environmentally sensitive area. f. All new construction and substantial improvements are required to with specific mitigation measures to prevent and/or reduce flood dam Conditions: 1. All conditions of Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4202, 4032 ah (approved with RMHP 96-01 and MS 96-08 respectively on December 18, 15 hereby incorporated by reference. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ~ PC RES0 NO. 4202 -3- 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 19th day of November 199 following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Nielsen, Commissioners Compas, Heineman, Monroy, Noble, Savary, and Welshons NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 1?2i!5L5 ROBERT NIELSEN, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ATTEST: -. MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLM Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 4202 -4- - e City 0 of Carlsbac MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION .. Project AddressLocation: 5200 El Camino Real, City of Carlsbad, County of San Dieg State of California. Project Description: A request for a floodplain special use permit for the Ranch Carlsbad Mobilehome Park which is an existing develope mobilehome park located within the Agua Hedionda Cree Floodplain. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described projec pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act an the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, Mitigated Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact 0. the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file i the Planning Department. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in th Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from th public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within twent (20) days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Teresa Woods in th Planning Department at (760) 438-1 161, extension 4447. DATED: AUGUST 1 1 , 1997 CASE NO: SUP 96-10 CASE NAME: RANCHO CARLSBAD MOBILEHOME PARK PUBLISH DATE: AUGUST 1 1 , 1997 . MICHAEL J. HMZMILXER Planning Director 2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-11 61 - FAX (61 9) 438-0891 ~~~ ~ ~ . .I ’.I +, d e e ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 11 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: SUP 96- I DATE: JUNE 18. 195 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: RANCHO CARLSBAD MOBILEHOME PARK 2. APPLICANT: RANCHO CARLSBAD RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, INC. 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5200 EL CAMINO REA1 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: DECEMBER 3,1996 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A REQUEST FOR A FLOODPLAIN SPECIAL USE PERMIT FO THE RANCHO CARLSBAD MOBILEHOME PARK WHICH IS AN EXISTIN( DEVELOPED MOBILEHOME PARK LOCATED WITHIN THE AGUA HEDIONDA CREE1 FLOODPLAIN. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this projec involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impac Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 0 Land Use and Planning 0 TransportationICirculation Public Services 0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems 0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics IXI Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources Air Quality 0 Noise [7 Recreation 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 03/28/96 ., 0 DETERMINATION. e (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on tl environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [XI I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on tl environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigatic measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATE1 NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [7 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and a ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but i least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlit document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigatio measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Mitigate Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to b addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on th environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentiall: significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Negative Declaratio: pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to thr earlier Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are impose! upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. "s. L "47 cZm,p & - B4 47 Planner Signature Date @$/ 5/c13 Planning Dirztor's &nature Date ' 2 Rev. 03/28/96 ., 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the Cit conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significar effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the followin pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and huma factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information I use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), NegatiL Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. 0 A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that a] adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following eac question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced informatio sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. 1 “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, c it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. 0 “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that th potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopte general standards and policies. 0 “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporatio of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and th City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce th effect to a less than significant level. 0 “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that a1 effect is significant. 0 Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significar effect on the environment, but fi potentially significant effects (a) have been analyze1 adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicabl standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigate1 Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upo: the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to o supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prio environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additions environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). 0 When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily requirec to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIE pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement o Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. e 0 A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence tha the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. 3 Rev. 03/28/96 -. e 0 0 If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing a EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, an those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In th case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporatec may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. 0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and includir but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect hr. not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, an the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less tha significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations’’ for the significant impact hE not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduc the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is nc possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, ( determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significsu effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of tk form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attentio should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determine’ significant. 4 Rev. 03/28/96 * 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significan Impact Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? land uses? 0 0 0 cl 0 0 [XI 0 0 El 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 Ixi 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or population projections? 0 0 [XI indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area 0 0 0 w or extension of major infrastructure)? housing? 0 0 0 [XI c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable 111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking? c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e) Landslides or mudflows? f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil o 0 0 0 0 conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? 0 g) Subsidence of the land? o h) Expansive soils? i) Unique geologic or physical features? 0 0 IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runofr! b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? 0 o 0 5 0 17 El I7 0 El 0 0 w 0 0 IXI 0 0 [XI 0 0 [x1 0 0 [XI 0 0 IXI 0 17 [XI 0 0 IXI w 0 0 17 0 [XI 0 0 El Rev. 03/28/96 e Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than No Significan Impact t Impact 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 IXI 17 IXI V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? existing or projected air quality violation? VI. TRANSPORTATIONICIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [XI 0 w 0 0 [XI 0 0 [XI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [XI 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 0 [XI 0 0 [XI w [XI 0 0 [XI o 0 w 6 Rev. 03128196 e e Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wastehl and inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? proposal? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? e) Other governmental services? XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? b) Communications systems? c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage? f) Solid waste disposal? g) Local or regional water supplies? facilities? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Less Than No Significan Impact t Impact 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 El 0 [XI o w 0 [XI 0 IXI 0 [XI 0 w 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 w 0 IXI w 0 w 0 w 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 lzl 0 IXI Rev. 03/28/96 e Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources? c) Affect historical resources? d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the would affect unique ethnic cultural values? potential impact area? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? parks or other recreational facilities?) o 0 XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the 0 habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? 0 (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 0 8 a Potentially Less Than No Significant Significan Impact Mitigation Incorporated Unless t Impact 0 0 [XI 0 0 [XI 17 17 [XI 0 o w 0 0 [XI 0 om 0 0 [XI 0 c7 [XI 0 0 IXI 0 0 w 0 0 [XI 0 0 [XI 0 17 El Rev. 03/28/96 e e XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQ, process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negativ declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify tk following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are availabl for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checkli: were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuar to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed b mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigatio Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated c refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address sit€ specific conditions for the project. 9 Rev. 03/28/96 e e DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The applicant has requested approval of a Floodplain Special Use Permit as required pursuant to th approval of the Rancho Carlsbad Mobilehome Park, Residential Mobilehome Park Permit (RMH 96-01), which was approved for the conversion of the mobilehome park from a rental park, to condominium ownership park. The City's Floodplain Management Regulations (Chapter 21 .I 10 ( the Carlsbad Municipal Code) have been established to promote the public health, safety and gener; welfare, and to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in areas subject t potential flooding. Rancho Carlsbad Mobilehome Park is located along the banks of the Agu Hedionda Creek in the northeast quadrant of the City of Carlsbad. The mobilehome park is existin and fully developed with mobilehome coaches, recreational amenities, recreational vehicle storagt landscaping and maintenance and laundry facilities. No new mobilehome park development i proposed as part of this project. Conditions have been added to the project, which will reduc flooding impacts to the mobilehome park. One of the conditions requires the construction of a berr or dike to keep flood water on the adjacent golf course property (which the park owners lease) an out of the mobilehome park. The dike is to be located between the developed golf course an Rancho Carlsbad Drive. This portion of the site is fully developed with landscaping and pavemen No sensitive resources are located within the area recommended for dike construction. The projec site is located on the east side of El Camino Real at Rancho Carlsbad Drive in Local Facilitie Management Zone 15. I. LAND USE AND PLANNING Rancho Carlsbad Mobilehome Park is an existing development. The site is designated fo Residential Medium (RM) and Residential Low Medium (RLM) uses in the Carlsbad General Plar and the existing use is consistent with this designation. The site is zoned Residential Mobilehom Park (RMHP) consistent with the existing mobilehome park use. The proposed floodplai management standards applied to this project will not conflict with applicable environmental plan or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project, as no alterations are propose within the Agua Hedionda Creek or within any areas of the park which are not already developec The existing use of the property is compatible with the existing residential development to the west golf course to the south and with the planned uses on undeveloped property to the north and east. A: the mobilehome park is fully developed, and no new mobilehome development is proposed as part o this project, the project will not disrupt any agricultural operations nor disrupt or divide the physica arrangement of an established community. 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING The mobilehome park is existing. The 504 units within the park were accounted for in the adoptec Zone 15, Local Facilities Management Plan. Therefore, the existing project will not exceed officia regional or local population projections, nor induce substantial growth directly or indirectly in to th' area. The mobilehome park is existing and no new development is proposed as part of thi: application, and as such, will not displace existing housing. 111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS The lots of the mobilehome park were previously graded and developed. Due to the project sit! location, the project is not subject to seiche, tsunami, volcano hazards, landslides, mud slides o unique geologic or physical features. The project site is not located in an area where active faults arc 10 Rev. 03/28/96 6 0 present. The Rose Canyon fault is the closest active fault to this site, which would subject th existing park to ground shaking. All units are required to be anchored to their sites and constructe pursuant to state building code requirements, which minimizes impacts to units from groun shaking. IV. WATER A portion of Agua Hedionda Creek runs through the existing Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Par1 The existing channel of Agua Hedionda Creek has been found inadequate to handle the 100 ye: flood. Certain overbank areas along the channel are within the floodplain and therefore subject 1 inundation. A Hydraulic Study by Dr. Howard Chang identified limits of the 100 year flood whic include those units on exhibit “A”, attached. The amount of flood over the existing bank has bee calculated to range from 0 to 3’ depending on the position of the land along the creek. The Special Use Permit processed by Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park has identified those area of flooding and has recommended certain conditions to maintain a reasonably safe conditio throughout the park. As conditioned, and with the recommendations of Manitou Engineering, an Dr. Howard Chang, flood hazards will be reduced to a level of less than significant. The followin are conditions which address flooding within the Rancho Carlsbad Mobilehome Park. Thes conditions have been incorporated within the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhib “X”). 1. Prior to any additional development within the Mobilehome Park, or within 1 year followin the approval of SUP 96-10, the earthen berm or dike recommended by Dr. Howard Chang i the May 1996 HEC I1 study shall be constructed. 2. All recommendations and certificates of floor elevations, flood proofing, and encroachment identified by Manitou Engineering shall be incorporated into this permit as required b: Carlsbad Municipal Code, specifically 21.1 lO.l40(d) 4. 3. The interpretation identified by Dr. Howard Chang shall serve as an accurate boundary of thc flood plain for Agua Hedionda Creek as it passes through Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Homl Park. The lots and buildings identified on exhibit “A” are considered to be located within thl floodplain as identified by Dr. Howard Chang. The lots and buildings are specificall; conditioned by this special use permit. 4. The conditions and requirements of the State of California, the Uniform Building Code anc the Federal Emergency’ Management Agency are hereby incorporated into this permit. 5. Any proposed alteration, modification or change to the existing grade shall be certified by Registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to the City of Carlsbad for approval prior tc construction. 6. Prior to any additional development within the Mobilehome Park, or within 1 year followin) the approval of SUP 96-i0, the applicant shall receive approval of a Flood Evacuation Plal that addresses the concerns of safety throughout the mobilehome park. The Plan shall bc received by Police, Fire and Engineering Departments and shall be approved by the Cit! Engineer. 11 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 V. AIR QUALITY The project is the development of a floodplain management plan consistent with the City’ Floodplain Management Regulations (Chapter 21.1 10 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) for a existing mobilehome park. No traffic will be generated by this project. Further, this project will nc expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, create objectionable odors, nor alter air movement, moistur or temperature. VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION The project is the development of a floodplain management plan consistent with the City’ Floodplain Management Regulations (Chapter 21.1 10 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) for a existing mobilehome park. No roadways will be impacted nor traffic generated by this project. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The project site is fully developed with coaches, roadways, recreational facilities, RV storag facilities, maintenance facilities and accessory facilities. A dike is recommended to be constructel along the north side of the golf course, adjacent to Rancho Carlsbad Drive to prevent flooding of th roadway. This dike will not be located within any areas of sensitive resources including near c within the Agua Hedionda Creek. This project, will therefore, not impact endangered, threatened o rare species or their habitat, disturb wetland habitat nor impact wildlife dispersal or migratiol corridors. VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES The proposed project involves the creation of a floodplain management program for an existini mobilehome park of which a portion of the park is located within the 100 year floodplain. Thl project will have no impact on energy or mineral resources nor conflict with any adopted energ conservation plan. IX. HAZARDS The proposed project involves the creation of a floodplain management program for an existing mobilehome park, of which a portion of the park, is located within the 100 year floodplain. Excepl for potential flood hazards, as discussed above in Section IV, Water, the project is not subject to an) hazards including risk of explosion or release of hazardous materials, creation of a health hazard no1 increased fire risks. A condition of this project includes the preparation of an emergency evacuatior plan. This will ensure that the project will not interfere with any City emergency response plans 01 emergency evacuation plans. X. NOISE The proposed project involves the creation of a floodplain management program for an existing mobilehome park, of which a portion of the park, is located within the 100 year floodplain. The only noise associated with this project is temporary construction noise for development of the dike, which is regulated under the City’s Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.48 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code). 12 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 XI. PUBLIC SERVICES As the project only involves the creation of a floodplain management plan for an existin mobilehome park, no impacts to public services, including fire protection, police protection, school maintenance of public facilities or governmental services are anticipated. XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS As the project only involves the creation of a floodplain management plan for an existin mobilehome park, no impacts to utilities and service systems are anticipated. XIII. AESTHETICS The proposed project involves the development of a floodplain management program which include the construction of a dike. The dike looks like a berm and will be located along the edge of the go course adjacent to Rancho Carlsbad Drive. The dike will not significantly impact the visui appearance of the mobilehome park. The project will not create light or glare, nor negatively impac a scenic highway or vista. XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES The Rancho Carlsbad Mobilehome Park is an existing development. Improvements include paving landscaping, graded pads and concrete slabs for placement of mobilehomes, accessory facilities, RF storage facilities, and recreation facilities. The only improvement proposed as part of this project i the construction of a berm (or dike) along the south side of Rancho Carlsbad Drive, to keep potentia flooding within the golf course boundaries, and off of the roadway. The area to be disturbed i. developed with pavement and landscaping. There are no known paleontological, archeological, o historical resources located within the mobilehome park. XV. RECREATION The existing mobilehome park includes recreational amenities including a club house, tennis courts and pool and spa. The existing mobilehome park is a senior development which will not increase thc demand for regional or local recreational facilities, nor affect existing recreational opportunities. XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE As discussed above, no significant adverse environmental impacts are anticipated with the Ranchc Carlsbad Mobilehome Park SUP, including environmental impacts such as the degradation of thc environment, reduction of wildlife habitat or species, reduction of range, or elimination of importan examples of California History or prehistory. Further, the project does not pose impacts that arc individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, nor will the project have environmental effect! which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Alternatives: Project alternatives are required when there is evidence that the project will have a significani adverse impact on the environment and an alternative would lessen or mitigate those adverse impacts. Public Resources Code section 21002 forbids the approval of projects with significanl adverse impacts when feasible alternatives or mitigation measures can substantially lessen suck impacts. A “significant effect” is defined as one which has a substantial adverse impact. Mitigatior 13 Rev. 03/28/96 .I e 0 measures required as conditions of project approval will reduce the identified potentially significal impacts to insignificant levels; therefore, no discussion of alternatives is necessary. 111. SOURCE DOCUMENTS: (Note: all source documents are on file in the Plannin Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009; Phone: (61! 438-1 161) 1. Chang, Howard H., Floodinn Issues Related to Aaua Hedionda Creek for Rancho Carlsba Mobile Home Park, May 1996. LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) 1. Prior to any additional development within the mobilehome park, or within 1 year followin the approval of SUP 96-10, the earthen berm or dike recommended by Dr. Howard Chang i the May 1996 HEC I1 study shall be constructed. 2. All recommendations and certificates of floor elevations, flood proofing, and encroachment identified by Manitou Engineering shall be incorporated into this permit as required b Carlsbad Municipal Code, specifically 2 1.1 10.140(d) 4. 3. The interpretation identified by Dr. Howard Chang shall serve as an accurate boundary of th flood plain for Agua Hedionda Creek as it passes through Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Hom Park. The lots and buildings identified on exhibit “A” are considered to be located within th floodplain as identified by Dr. Howard Chang. The lots and buildings are specificall. conditioned by this special use permit. 4. The conditions and requirements of the State of California, the Uniform Building Code anc the Federal Emergency Management Agency are hereby incorporated into this permit. 5. Any proposed alteration, modification or change to the existing grade shall be certified by ; Registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to the City of Carlsbad for approval prior tc construction. 6. Prior to any additional development within the Mobilehome Park, or within 1 year following the approval of SUP 96-10, the applicant shall receive approval of a Flood Evacuation Plar that addresses the concerns of safety throughout the mobilehome park. The Plan shall bc received by Police, Fire and Engineering Departments and shall be approved by the Cit! Engineer. ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) See Attached Exhibit “x” 14 Rev. 03/28/96 .. e 0 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES ANI CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. 7 ,- 27 -7 r) Date 15 Rev. 03/28/96 - I. APPLICANT CONCURRENC Fd? TH MITIGATION MEASURES 0 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. 37773 , 1 " - . .. , .. 15 Rev. 03/28/96 e 0 ADDENDUM TO MITIGATED DECLARATION RANCHO CARLSBAD MOBILEHOME PARK SUP 96-1 0 October 23, 1997 This addendum is meant to clarify the difference between the mitigation condition outlined in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (August 11, 1997) and the mitigatel Negative Declaration Resolution for the proposed Rancho Carlsbad Mobilehome Par Special Use Permit. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was published for the above application on August 11 1997. Mitigation measures were included within this document to minimize potenti; flooding impacts which could occur to the mobilehome park during a 100-year flooc The applicants and owners of the park agreed to the proposed conditions; however, thi action occurred early during the planning process. The measures were general i nature so that the project could comply with the City’s floodplain regulations while sti allowing the opportunity for final design details and improvements to e worked out. Thi design evolution has resulted in a modified set of mitigation measures that can b found in Planning Commission Resolution NO. 4203. The mitigation measures found i the Mitigated Negative Declaration have now been updated and superseded by thos found in the resolution. The applicants also agree to the conditions outline in th resolution. All environmental impacts continue to be mitigated. ./? Prepared by: ( ’ &&P,&, &4CLCG-4&,, Adrienne Landers, Senior Planner .(, t, 4 e Exhibit “A TO: Associate Planner - Terri Woods JUNE 19,1997 FROM: Associate Engineer - Clyde Wickham Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park, SUP 96 - 10 We have reviewed the lots located in the flood plain as identified by Dr. Chang and wit reference to exhibit “GG” Lots located within the flood plain: lot: 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 106 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 1 60 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 1 68 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 20 1 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 21 0 21 1 21 2 21 3 214 21 5 21 6 21 7 21 8 21 9 220 22 1 222 223 226 227 228 229 230 23 1 232 233 234 238 239 240 24 1 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 25 1 252 253 254 255 256 27 1 272 273 274 288 289 306 307 308 353 496 497 502 **BUILDING ADMIN. CLUBHOUSE RECREATION CLYDE WICKHAM Associate Engineer - Land Use Review c: Principal Civil Engineer, Land Use Development -L b A Exi ENVIRONMENTAL TIGATION MONITORING CHEC I T Page 1 r I 0 (D Q, a 3 cn irj nf W m 2 3 z W LL 1 5 n Q z 0 c a Q 0 v Q Q u) Q 0 0 c 0 S - .- I - L 2 w 3 a z I- o W nf 8 a c 0 .- + 2 m 0 - : a, > m z a, m S 0 U c 0 .- + - .- + .- o .. cj cj W Q W Z 2 0 n - I- z 0 o iLi 5 5 0 nf a a a $33 .e- E €2 m m'l) 3 .o a b .r - $L)a, 8 €5 .- c '3 LOO ." .g a, c .- E LEE p r '5 -00- ?:E 2;im a g .s m2 € pm o m5 - mE ESU- uE$ 2€ m 0 u- b02 0,E !!!E€ 3.z 2 ~ m.Qmq !?!m =j.rgz mU- 30 mrn .- -ma, uo -00 3Q w .r i g .)-. Q'E 3 as + Qu- .G Q+ L. -x c 000 'E u -> n a, .e .- e st $2 m 0 .- om5 .- a, -u gx 5 .r 0 a, a, ~ .- SQ a,"Oa mo - e2 Q.G E $2 s .=moa, 0 €3 gc om = m a)= - mno EGUO 22Qmm $.C (' a, -r 2 €323 gam$ .? g glx a, 2 E.2 m-5 5 2 - I! % .EO 25 E;;; r a,.'"= E-OSE .- =a, cc30 .r $za 3 m- .= co cur vembe I I I i ( ( , I Li I , I , I I I 6, .- > m 3: u) 0- .. 3 ~ +' - € .E F ~ g g[ rc 9 : v .- I .o CI j;. ([I 5 = a .%[ 2 II .~ - a,: WI-.