HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-01-21; Planning Commission; Resolution 42240 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 1
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4224
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
ADDENDUM, AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM FOR A 153 LOT SUBDIVISION ON
45 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF EL CAMINO
REAL AND SOUTH OF FUTURE CANNON ROAD IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 8.
CASE NAME: KELLY RANCH VILLAGE “E”
CASE NO.: CT 96-07RUD 97-04/HDP 96- 13/CDP 96- 13
WHEREAS, Kelly Land Company, Inc, “Developer”, has filed a
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Kelly Land Compa
“Owner”, described as
Portions of lots I and F of Rancho Agua Hedionda, in the County
of San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof No.
823, filed in the office of the County Recorder of said San Diego
County, November 16,1896.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 21st day of Janual
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 t
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by I
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered a
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Mitigated
Declaration according to Exhibit “ND” dated June 17, 1997, addendr
January 21, 1998 and “PII” dated June 11, 1997 and Mitigation MI
0 e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and Reporting Program, attached hereto and made a part hereof, basc
following findings:
Findings:
1, The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed and cc
Mitigated Negative Declaration for Kelly Ranch Village “E”, the environmenta
therein identified for this project and said comments thereon, and the h
Monitoring and Reporting Program, on file in the Planning Department,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project. Based on the EIA Pa
comments thereon, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial
the project will have a significant effect on the environment and
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
2. The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Decla
Kelly Ranch Village “E” and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Prog
been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environments
Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of thl
Carlsbad.
3. The Planning Commission finds that this project qualifies as a su
development to the City’s MEIR WEIR 93-01) under Section 21083.3 of C
analysis of cumulative air quality and traffic impacts and that all feasible n
measures or project alternatives identified in the MEIR 93-01 wl
appropriate to this Subsequent Project have been incorporated into this Su
Project.
4. The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration 1
Ranch Village “E” reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commiss
City of Carlsbad.
5. The project has the potential to cause significant environmental impacts 1
impacts can be mitigated to a level of less than significant thra
implementation of the measures identified herein.
Conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, impacts to coastal sage scrub hab
be mitigated either through the City’s HMP 4d process, or through a
Section 7 consultation with the USFWS.
2. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for improvements to Cannon Ro
permit shall be obtained from the USACE and a Streambed Alteration A
pursuant to 1601 shall be obtained from the CDFG for impacts associated
construction of Cannon Road.
PC RES0 NO. 4224 -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
3. Prior to initiation of clearing, grubbing, or grading, the project site shall k
flagged, staked and fenced to the satisfaction of the City Engineer with
barrier such as a drift fence. The purpose of the barrier is to protect the
habitat during construction. This includes protection of coastal sage scrul
as well as the riparian habitats associated with the Agua Hedionda Creek.
4. Initiation of construction should occur outside of the least Bell’s vireo bree
nesting season (May 15 through July 15). If this is not possible, a qualified
shall survey the areas that occur in or near the southern willow scrub habi
to construction. If the least Bell’s vireo is not observed within the habi
construction can be initiated.
5. Storm water runoff shall be directed into an oil separator and/or desiltatic
This will ensure protection of off-site resources in the Agua Hedionda Creel.
lagoon downstream.
6. Indirect impacts to nesting birds shall be avoided by initiating constructia
summer, fall, or winter. If this is not possible, then a nesting bird survey
completed prior to brushing, clearing, or grading.
7. Detailed geotechnical and soils studies shall be prepared and approved by
Engineer prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
8. Slope stability investigations shall be conducted prior to the issuance of a
permit. Any unfavorable conditions will be removed or stabilized by buttrc
reorientation of slope direction.
9. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a runoff control plan shall be pre
the satisfaction of the City Engineer which demonstrates that there wi
significant increase in peak runoff rate from the development site over the
discharge expected from the existing undeveloped site as from a &hour,
frequency storm.
10. Development approvals shall include detailed provisions for emplacemen
and maintenance of approved drainage and erosion facilities. Permaner
and erosion control devices shall be installed prior to or concurrent wil
grading activities.
11. Prior to occupancy, noise barriers shall be provided along Cannon Road
Camino Real frontages as described in TABLE S-1 of “Exterior Noise Ana
Kelly Ranch Area E” prepared by Mestre Greve Associates; Report # 96-1‘
November 19,1996 to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
...
. ..
I 1 PC RES0 NO. 4224 -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
0 e
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21st day of January, 199
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners Compas, Heineman,
Monroy, Nielsen, Savary, and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
W MICHAEL J. HOLZM%LER
Planning Director
I
PC RES0 NO. 4224 -4-
-
0
City of
e
Carlsbac
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddresdLocation: South of Cannon Road and west of El Camino Real in LOG
Facilities Management Zone 8.
Project Description: A 142 lot single family subdivision on 28 acres.
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 anl
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 o
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 2
days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Christer Westman in th
Planning Department at (760) 438-1 161, extension 4448.
DATED: JUNE 17,1997
CASE NO: CT 96-071CDP 96-1 3/HDP 96- 13/PUD 97-04
CASE NAME: KELLY RANCH VILLAGE "E"
PUBLISH DATE: .JUNE 17,1997
@ Planning Director
2075 Las Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-11 61 - FAX (61 9) 438-089
0 0
ADDENDUM TO A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR KELLY UNCI
VILLAGE “E” CT 96-07PUD 97-04MDP 96-13KDP 96-13
Project AddressLocation: South of Cannon Road and west of El Camino Real in Local
Facilities Management Zone 8.
The project description shall be amended to read as follows:
A 153 lot subdivision on 45 acres.
- ..
0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 11
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CT 96-07/CDP 97-07MDP 96-13PUD 97-04/CDP 96-
DATE: April 22,19
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Kelly Ranch Village “E”
2. APPLICANT: Kelly Land Company, Inc.
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: Suite 206 2011 Palomar Airport Ro
Carlsbad California 92009
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: April 21, 1997
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 142 lot single family subdivision on 28 acres located south of Cann
Road and west of El Camino Real in Local Facilities Management Zone 8.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involvi
at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact Unlc
Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Land Use and Planning H TransportatiordCirculation 0 Public Services
Population and Housing [XI Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics
c] Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
M Air Quality Noise Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03128196
0 0
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environme
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environmet
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures describl
on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION w
be prepared.
c] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ;
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earli
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigatic
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An Negatil
Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environmer
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effec
(a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (
have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigatic
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Pri
Compliance has been prepared.
171 ?+
Date
2 Rev. 03128196
0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct ;
Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on f
environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form ol
checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might L
impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis fi
deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to re
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 ea(
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced informatic
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A ‘‘h
Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it
based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
0 “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potenti;
impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted gener,
standards and policies.
0 “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation (
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Les
Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City mu!
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a le5
than significant level.
0 “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effec
is significant.
0 Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect 01
the environment, but @ potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately il
an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b
have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negativ
Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the propose1
project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR ar
present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document hav
been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is require
(Prior Compliance).
0 When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required tc
prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIF
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement o
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
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. 03128196
0 0
0 If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an E:
if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and tho
mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, t
appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be check
and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including b
not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not be
discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the develop
does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2)
“Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has not been ma
pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to le
than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is not possible to determine tl
level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of
mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level
significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of tl
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should 1
given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
0 e
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to
soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land
uses?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
#( s):
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? 0
0 0
0
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or
extension of major infrastructure)?
0
0 c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? n
b) Seismic ground shaking? U 0 c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? n
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
e) Landslides or mudflows?
U o n
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions
g) Subsidence of the land? n
U
from excavation, grading, or fill? 0
h) Expansive soils?
i) Unique geologic or physical features?
U 0 0
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate
and amount of surface runoff?
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?
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements?
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0 0
0
Less Than No
Significant Impac Impact
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI 0 [XI
0 [XI
0 0 El
0 0 [XI
0 0 [XI
0 0 CI
0
0 0 0
0 [XI 0 El 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 El 0 [XI
0 [XI 0 [XI 0 [XI
0 0 [XI
0 [x]
0 0 [XI
0 0 [x]
0 0 [XI
5 Rev. 03/28/96
e
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant Impact
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of 0
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
0 0
otherwise available for public water supplies? 0
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
d) Create objectionable odors?
existing or projected air quality violation? IXI
0
0
any change in climate? 0
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. 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 forest,
coastal habitat, etc.)?
' d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful 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?
6
IXI 0
0 0 0 0
0
cl
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
e
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0 0 0
0
0 0
0
CI
0 0
0
IXI
0 o
0 0
0 0
0
LessThan No
Significant Impac Impact
0 IXI
0 [XI 0 [XI 0 El
0
0 [XI 0 IXI
0 [XI
El 0 cl IXI
0 [XI 0 [XI 0 IXI 0 [XI
0
0 0
0 [XI 0 Kl
CI [XI 0 [XI
El [XI 0 IXI
0 [XI
Rev. 03/28/96
0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant Impact
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 o
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 facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
e) Storm water drainage?
Q Solid waste disposal?
g) Local or regional water supplies?
0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 17 0
0
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?
0 0
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
b) Disturb archaeological resources? 0 CI
7
e
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
El o
0 0
0 0 0 0
o 0 0 0
0
0 0
0 0
LessThan No
Significant Impac Impact
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 [XI
0 €a 0 [XI
0 [XI
[XI 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 [XI
0 [XI 0 [XI
[XI
[XI 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 IXI
0 [XI 0 [XI 0 IXI
0 [E3 0 [XI
Rev. 03/28/96
0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
0
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impac - Impact ijnless Impact
Mitigation Incorporated
c) Affect historical resources?
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
0 0 0 IXI
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? 0 o 0 IXI
potential impact area? 0 o 0 [XI
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks
or other recreational facilities? o 0 0 IXI
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 0 €a
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a 0 0 0
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? (“Cumulatively 0 0 0
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, 0 0 0
either directly or indirectly?
[XI
IXI
[XI
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEC
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negati
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the followil
on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available 1
review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist wc
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigati
Incorporated,“ describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refin
from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-speci
conditions for the project.
8 Rev. 03/28/96
0 a
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
AIR OUALITY:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 19’
General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles travele
These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gas
oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributc
to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin i:
“non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significal
therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will ha
cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety
mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions f
roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures
reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demal
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass tran
services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation
regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General PI;
air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or a
included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is locatl
within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potential
Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation
an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Counc
Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations’’ for air quality impact
This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by tl
General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental revie
of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department.
CIRCULATION:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 19!
General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate
accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impactc
by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These general
include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even wi
the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail tl
City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerol
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include 1) measures 1
ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develc
alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestris
linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies whc
adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway on
City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicab
and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into tl
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
9 Rev. 03/28/96
0 e
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure
intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the “Init
Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with t
General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification
Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement
Overriding Considerations’’ for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Consideration
applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR, including this proje
therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required.
LAND USE AND PLANNING:
The project is the development of a 142 single family lot subdivision. Development will include tl
construction of a portion of Cannon Road. The General Plan, Zoning, Local Coastal Program and
Master Plan identify this site as a residential area for single family development. Cannon Road h
been included on the General Plan Land Use Map and in the General Plan text as a Major Arteri;
Development of the site will not be inconsistent with existing land use designations.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES:
The majority of the site has been disturbed and major portions of the road have been graded. Son
isolated vegetation exists interior to the site and a limited amount of significant plant communi
exists within the Cannon Road right-of-way.
The interior vegetation is largely mixed chaparral. The pockets of chaparral are separated by gradt
areas resulting in isolation from vegetated hillsides to the west and southwest. These interil
pockets are therefore not considered to have any significant biological value.
The plant communities found within the Cannon Road right-of-way have been identified in previol
studies as having significant biological value. Disturbance of these communities will requi
mitigation if impacts are to be considered less than significant. Impacts to plant communities with
the Cannon Road right-of-way were identified in a report prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc. in JanuaI
1996. Direct impacts were identified as 0.16 acres of southern willow scrub; 0.14 acres of ope
water; 0.13 acres of disturbed riparian scrub; 1.41 acres of coastal sage scrub; 0.5 1 acres of disturbe
coastal sage scrub; 0.14 acres of baccharis scrub; and 9.66 acres of disturbed area.
Specific mitigation measures for this disturbance have been identified and are included within ti
Mitigation Measures section of this Environmental Impacts Assessment.
POPULATION AND HOUSING:
The City’s Growth Management Plan and the General Plan make projections on housing ar
population. The development of this area will only implement those plans which have deterrninc
the maximum capacity for housing and population within the surrounding area. The develop me^
itself will not be a contributor to increases in housing or population above what has already bee
accounted for within the General Plan.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0 GEOLOGIC:
There are no active faults identified within the limits of the City. Soils preparation for t
development will be per standard procedure which will reduce the potential for impacts to the ro
once completed.
WATER:
The residential development of the site will not impact existing bodies of.water other than t
bridging at the eastern edge of the project area for Cannon Road at El Camino Real. Standa
measures to implement the National Pollution Discharge Standards will capture harmful runoff fro
the development prior to its discharge into Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Disturbance of open water,
the bridge crossing, will require the issuance of an Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit.
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES:
No impacts have been identified.
HAZARDS:
No impacts have been identified.
NOISE:
Noise associated with the project will be created by vehicles traveling Cannon Road. A noise stuc
was prepared for the project. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project whic
will reduce traffic related noise impacts on future residents to a level of less than significant.
Construction noise impacts can be reduced to levels of insignificance by scheduling work outside
the breeding season.
PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS:
The project is within the Zone 8 Local Facilities Management Plan. All services demanded by tl
development of the project will be provided prior to or concurrently with development. h
significant impact has been identified.
AESTHETICS:
Development of the site has been proposed consistent with the regulations of the City’s Hillsic
Development Ordinance. The project occurs in an area that has been disturbed. Views of the si
are from the east. Because of the height of the hills east of the site, there will be no ridge lil
disturbance. The road is designated to pass Agua Hedionda Lagoon on the south side. The road c:
be designed to take advantage of the available views to the greatest extent possible.
CULTURAL RESOURCES:
Resources were identified onsite for the Kelly Ranch when an EIR was prepared in 1983. Tho:
resources were recovered through a data recovery program. No further known resources are onsit
There will not be any significant impact to cultural resources.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
a 0
RECREATION:
Individual recreation lots are proposed within the subdivision. The development of the site will r
preclude community recreational resources. No impact has been identified.
ALTERNATIVES:
Project alternatives are required when there is evidence that the project will have a significi
adverse impact of the environment and an alternative would lessen or mitigate those advel
impacts. Public Resources Code section 21002 forbids the approval of projects with significc
adverse impacts when feasible alternatives or mitigation measures can substantially lessen su
impacts. A “significant effect” is defined as one which has a substantial adverse impact. Mitigati
measures required as conditions of project approval will reduce the identified potentially significa
impacts to insignificant levels; therefore, no discussion of alternatives is necessary.
SOURCE DOCUMENTS:
(NOTE: All source documents are on file in the Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palm
Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009, Phone: (6 19) 43 8- 1 16 1 .)
1. “Final Master EIR for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update,” prepared by the City
Carlsbad Planning Department and certified September 6, 1994.
2. “Kelly Ranch Master Plan,” MP 174, approved September 18, 1994.
3. “1 995 Growth Management Plan Traffic Monitoring Program,” prepared by JHK a
Associates.
4. “City of Carlsbad Draft Habitat Management Plan,” dated July 1995.
5. “Biotechnical Report for Cannon Road Reach 11,” prepared by Tetra Tech dated Janua
1996.
6. City of Carlsbad General Plan
7. “Kelly Ranch EIR,” dated 1983.
8. Local Facilities Management Plan: Zone 8.
12 Rev. 03/28/94
e 0
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
Direct Impacts from Cannon Road
1. Impacts to coastal sage scrub habitat shall be mitigated either through the City’s HMP L
process, or through a separate Section 7 consultation with the USFWS. Mitigation rn
include revegetation of a particular suitable area or the purchase of habitat in a mitigati
bank within the City of Carlsbad.
2. Impacts to regenerating disturbed coastal sage scrub may be considered significant and u
be mitigated by the same method and at the same rate as coastal sage scrub habitat.
3. The intersection of Cannon Road and El Camino Real necessitates a bridge across Ag
Hedionda Creek. This will impact southern willow riparian scrub, open water, and disturb1
riparian scrub. Southern willow scrub is a no net loss habitat and mitigation will be requir
at a ratio of at least 2:l. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a 404 permit will
required from the USACE and a Streambed Alteration Agreement pursuant to 1601 will
required from the CDFG.
Indirect Impacts from Cannon Road
4. The right-of-way for Canon Road should be clearly flagged, staked and fenced prior
initiation of clearing, grubbing, or grading. The right-of-way should be fenced with a visL
barrier such as a drift fence. The purpose of the barrier is to protect the adjacent habi
during construction. This includes protection of coastal sage scrub habitat as well as t
riparian habitats associated with the Agua Hedionda Creek. The right-of-way does not ne
to be flagged or fenced on the south side except where it is adjacent to native habitat. TI
placement of the fencing should be based on survey stakes at the site and not on tl
biological resource maps.
5. Initiation of construction should occur outside of the least Bell’s vireo breeding and nestir
season (May 15 through July 15). If this is not possible, a qualified biologist should surv~
the areas that occur in or near the southern willow scrub habitat, prior to construction. If tl
least Bell’s vireo is not observed within the habitat, then construction can be initiated.
6. Storm water runoff should be directed into an oil separator and/or desiltation basin. This w
ensure protection of off-site resources in the Agua Hedionda Creek and the lagoc
downstream.
7. Indirect impacts to nesting birds can be avoided by initiating construction in late summl
fall, or winter. If this is not possible, then a nesting bird survey may need to be conduct
prior to brushing, clearing, or grading.
GeolodSoils
8. Detailed geotechnical and soils studies will be prepared and engineering solutions approvt
by the City prior to development. Erosion control measures will be required during proje
construction.
9. Further slope stability investigations will be conducted. Any unfavorable conditions will 1
removed or stabilized by buttressing or reorientation of slope direction.
13 Rev. 03/28/96
0 e
Hvdrology
10. A runoff control plan will be prepared which demonstrates that there will be no significa
increase in peak runoff rate from the development site over the greatest discharge expect1
from the existing undeveloped site as from a 6-hour, 1 0-year frequency storm.
., .
11. Development approvals shall include detailed provisions for emplacement, repair a]
maintenance of approved drainage and erosion facilities. Permanent runoff and erosic
control devices shall be installed prior to or concurrent with onsite grading activities.
Noise
12. Noise barriers shall be provided along Cannon Road and El Camino Real frontages
described in TABLE S-1 of “Exterior Noise Analysis for Kelly Ranch Area E” prepared 1
Mestre Greve Associates; Report # 96- 173 Dated November 19, 1996.
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AN
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. r-
6/4q /? 9
Date
14 Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL B ITlGATlON MONITORING CHEC m IST: Page I of 4
d
r- Q)
4
n 3 5
r;3
h
d
F
Q P
cr) F
Q) n n Y
0 r-
I- O tJ
irj -.I
ma
zw =cj
zz
~a U1-l
LLZ 9
13 t
Z 0 0
$8
.. @
a
m - - 5 s 0 c 2
i?
lib iu' za
5s O'E
r - -
QQ ZJ t-<
EL La
2x2
.e - € mro
.e v) Q) €S v)
0 E2 -5 0 & .s z -ze$
03n.
.- rn 2 sv)v)
,a $ EG
20
mE 2 .9 (1) 5 .e E
'- K 5
Q'L v)
LEE ,o 5 '5
gag 2&rs, gz .E
q 2 .g rnz E : " -W
'E .- u >r -(.J (u .=
t KC) 0 .rr, a, 0 mg
a.2 v) 5 rns
ES' -a=& $E
0 OS e 0 d
oajE
3s
v).O,mcq SZri
2!m =$.Lg;
:% sz
E 92 s
g.)s 00
- mu
'X t 000
om3
.- Q) -a
gq g
g z.5
.- fz os CQ
o-uw
tu QS
0 Eo .=moa)
.= v) Q)m tal
E5m0 -mag .g Qv)
- cLo
.SErnW 2Cum
0 2 €2 m.5 s B .- t t.o 3 3 viis - 0 2 .Po oiE.=co
#= cu.v,= FTSiij
.-
$.E m z
E?:;
S K (Uw
;g E;;;
7:
C a,
c
- k Q .- E
C a, a, .Q
v) m c
$! 3 v) m a, E
8 0
m m
.- -
.- I .- E
8 a, 2
c 0
m c a,
.- L
..d
- $
- E"
D a, E
3 L
I ail .- > -1 rn' - E: ;;31
5 ;;; g .E 81
5 51
g .F , c :l
- a,.; 5 II ~
x R: Wk.
ENVIRONMENTAL (Rn ITiGATlON MONITORING CHECK z IST: Page 2 of 4
r
s v)
E z
I
t 0 .- Y p 3, .- s=G &E >$
E -
r:
cc 0, $;
0
mc -w
sa, p6.S; 'X 0 .- zg -0)
c. 5s a, a0 -7
@.
rnK.G% Ka)La) 'E E 8t
.- p5? 55.G 2 F$$%
2: Wf $&ti h am,_m o"&Q
1 um .
.- ral
E nmm m C0.G c
"
0) c .= a, CI
on 0 a, c >
I
Y 0 .- a,
Q a
a, .- 0 Y
2 s+ .a 9 'F
073% $ riij a,
a,"C 0 "0 a atij, 3
L 0m-o a,?+- 5 3 ; 'E -2 .= 5
or v) 0 m LXa, 0L.s F:g:E?U
([I ou 60 cy- >a zz.= % a a a.2 a
2sz 57.25 c
2s U a
m$3 0" %$ oy L $ ma,*z O%S3", L OE SO'
apgps mo 8gm B u=s X 'u - m g.5 Q+ L' .E 3 -
a ~mLl.J~gv).s + a,+5'? a.O a, .
3! m%-+s am 0.e zq yz ::% 3 .= zm v) - a, .- I
S djy-0 x"$ r &!E ;z%g .- 0 .$$ (Lgx v) .- .- -0mm
c, a,", m.g a % 5 .s or 3
- g+"- Z.G.2.i .Pm+5,.cn - - s y- a, ogsz a Q) -G a,= 2.g a,
0s CU as?.G!! 22 $eo5 "0" ea s v) :5 tijjnL cn.L
oa-Gv)s QU a corn3 >E 0 e.G m
-2= a a- m.sZ S.y-2 29% !=o g .co cO y- s*= mu - -=oav)*g > 2% E = 0s ([Iaa L2= 2 s l2.Z 3 3 "Z v) u) gz- a, 0 e5 -E+ ma00 *z a, &Q.E5= .sm-t.s a, g g 373 0-
0 .-- : 8 .u, 3 3 Lac- a z+ zJ$s1.' t €s% *=2 m zv)m &Fzga,a,
e-- a 0 ax +ll A% ' ez z 3 a+L
E-
m &a 0s 8 v)
QCS .-
= ox
L
+ 2 2 6.s t L1:
-a g 0.t mo ptijc25:: L
f! 3 aa,cQ+a v) =. - s 2
.L 3
m u
a m a+? c.sc a,z 'x aa5&@KC .- U
K=.E! 03 0 2 '0 .-
.-
Ks?% SST am %23~ Ernz
.- Lt 0 a Q,O~.EF ma 595n v)55 (33 ([I mm 2Z$O
d - t
a,
W
- E
.- E"
W c
W R
lA
c m
? 3 u)
W m
€7 .g 7 ti
.a 1 rn?
c7 E' c I
3' 2:
s1 II '*
.- -.- - 5c €E
a: E .I! 8'
rnz
- w;
E P
ai ._ ..- 1
m 3 -
€ ;;a
5 y .z
.c.
I I s .; an f II
x9
-a
Ill+
ENVIRONMENTAL a ITlGATlON MONITORING CHEC- a ,JST: Page 3 of 4
U a,
S al
I
- $
.- E"
c al
P (u
m m c 2 3 u) m E
0 c
m 0) L.
.- c
.-
E c
(u f
S 0
m c al
.- I
I
- f. 2 -_ u: a, c .-
> ij
<
( t
I < ,;
;
C
S
*
5 a & -
S C
U s
>
-c S a: .- g< - c mc
3.-
ii3E E:
.E p: '0 .E a:
-z
1 ;: m
" .l_i
m a .E - al2
wl-l
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHE LIST: Page 4 of 4 b @
.. In
C U’ m
.-
I, 1;
.- -1 m[ -
wt xi