The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1999-04-07; Planning Commission; Resolution 4521’& I) 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4521 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO ALLOW THE RANCHO CARRILLO RECREATION CENTER ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF CARRILLO WAY AND MELROSE DRIVE IN LOCAL, FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 18. CASE NAME: RANCHO CARRILLO RECREATION CASE NO.: SDP 98-20 WHEREAS, Continental Ranch, Inc., “Developer”, has filed a application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Continental Ran “Owner”, described as CENTER Lots 105 and 106 of Carlsbad Tract No. 93-04, Rancho Carrillo Village Q Phase 1, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 13551 filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, March 31,1998. (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunct] said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of April, 199! 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 P Commission as follows: *- - 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 e 0 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission hereby APPROVES the Mitigated Negative Declaral Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program according to Exhibit “NI March 9, 1999, and “PII” dated February 18, 1999, attached hereto anc part hereof, based on the following findings: Findinm: 1. The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures 01 alternatives identified in the MEIR 93-01 and Rancho Carrillo Master Plan El which are appropriate to this project have been incorporated into this design. 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, anal) considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration dated March 9, 1999, the envir impacts therein identified for this project and said comments thereon, and the h Monitoring and Reporting Program, on file in the Planning Department, APPROVING the project. Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments the] Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence the project w significant effect on the environment and hereby APPROVES the Mitigated Declaration. 3. The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigation Negative Declaration re independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad. 4. The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Declar Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, has been prepared in accord2 requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guideline Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad. Conditions: 1. Approval is granted subject to the approval of SDP 98-20 and subject to all c contained in Resolution 4522. 2; The Developer shall implement and comply with all applicable mitigation required by the MEIR for the 1994 General Plan Update and the Mitigation M and Reporting Program certified with Final Program EIR 91-04 as contained in Commission Resolution No. 3503. 3. The Developer, or successors in interest, shall implement, or cause the implemer the Rancho Carrillo Recreation Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and 1 Program. ... ~ ~ -.. 1 **. PC RES0 NO. 4521 -2- -. - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0 0 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of April, 199! following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners Compas, Savary, ; S egall NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners L'Heureux, Nielsen, and Welshons ABSTAIN: COURTNEY E": HEWMAN, Chairperson -I' IN CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 4521 -3- -. 0 0 - City of Carlsbac MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project AddresdLocation: The northwest corner of Melrose Drive and Carrillo Way within t boundaries of the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan, Area OS- 1 1. Project Description: The project consists of the Rancho Carrillo Recreation Center on a pr graded lot identified by the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan as Lot OS-1 The Recreation Center includes the requisite parking and is designed accordance with the Master Plan Special Design Park District standar to avoid visual impacts. The recreation center would occupy one oft\: lots that comprise OS-11 and consists of a 1,558 square foot recreatil center, swimming pool, spa, picnic area, and restroom facility. T recreation center building will be utilized by the master developer as information center for a period not to exceed 18 months from projc approval. Information center hours of operation will be limited to no peak hours (1O:OO a.m. to 3:OO p.m.) on weekdays to avoid significa traffic impacts. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmen Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and init study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point whc clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence light of the whole record before the City that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on t environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject proje Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planni Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invitc Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of date of issuance. you have any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at (760) 438-11t extension 4477. DATED: MARCH 11,1999 CASE NO: SDP 98-20 CASE NAME: RANCHO CARRILLO RECREATION CENTER PUBLISH DATE: MARCH 11, 1999 ’r?Lcs.d 9. &!J-&wm MICHAEL J. HOLZ~LER Planning Director 5- I 2075 La Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-1 161 FAX (760) 438-08 e. 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: SDP 98-2 DATE: FEBRUARY 18.19: BACKGROUND 1, CASE NAME; RANCHO CARRILLO RECREATION CENTER 2. APPLICANT: CONTINENTAL RANCH, INC. 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: CONTINENTAL RANCH. INC 12330 EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 300. SAN DIEGO. CA 92130 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: NOVEMBER 23.1998 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of the Rancho Carrillo Recreatic Center on a prearaded lot identified by the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan as Lot OS-I The Recreation Center includes the requisite parking and is designed in accordanc with the Carrillo Ranch Park Overlay standards to avoid visual impacts. The recreatic: center would occupv one of two lots that comprise OS-I 1 and consists of a 1.5: sauare foot recreation center. swimmina pool. spa, picnic area, and restroo facility. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by th project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potential Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the followir pages. [7 Land Use and Planning [XI Transportation/Circulation Public Services 0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service System! 0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral w Aesthetics 0 Water 0 Cultural Resources m Air Quality 0 Recreation Resources 0 Hazards 0 Noise 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 03/28/96 .I. 0 0 8. DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on th environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. IXI 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 th mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to th project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environmer and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on tt- environment, but at least one potentially significant effect 1) has be€ adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable leg standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on tt- earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An is required, but it mu analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on tt- environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because : potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlic pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigate pursuant to that earlier, including revisions or mitigation measures that a1 imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Complianc has been prepared. (2w2-26 3+ /59 Planner Sign&re Date (2w2-26 Planner Sign&re 3+ /59 - Date Planning Director’s Signature Date 2 Rev. 03/28/96 e e -. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the Ci conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appear in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physic: biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project ar provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepal an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previous approved EIR or Negative Declaration. 0 A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers th are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parenthese following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if tt referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained whc there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific facto as well as general standards. 0 “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence th the potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not excec adopted general standards and policies. 0 “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where tt incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potential Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer mu agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, ar briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. 0 “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence th an effect is significant. 0 Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potential significant effect on the environment, but all potentially significant effects (# have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negatij Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided 1 mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, includir revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed projec and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental El are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environment document have been incorporated into this project, then no addition environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). 0 When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessari required to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequate in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will t mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been mac pursuant to that earlier EIR. 3 Rev. 03/28/96 .- 0 e .. 0 A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substanti evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect c the environment. 4 Rev. 03/28/96 .. 8 e C. If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoi preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts t less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by th developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentiall Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, an including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potential significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursual to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigatio measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement ( Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has not been mad pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce tt- impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is nc possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, c determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentiall significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at th end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particuk attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise b determined significant. 5 Rev. 03128196 " a Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? proposal:. (Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18, #2 Pgs. 122- 143) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (#I :Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18 #2 Pgs. 122- 143) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18 #2 Pgs. 122-143) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (#I :Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-1 8, #2 e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (#I :Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18 #2 PgS. 122-143) PgS. 122-1 43) 0 0 cl 0 0 II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6 #2 b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6 #2 Pgs. 122- 143) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6 #2 Pgs. 122-143) 0 0 Pgs. 122-1 43) 0 Ill. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2 Pgs 102- b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#I :Pgs 5.1 - e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2 111) #2 Pgs 102-1 11) (#I :PgS 5.1-1 - 5.1.15, #2 PgS 102-1 11) 1 - 5.1-15, #2 PgS 102-111) #2 Pgs 102-1 11) (#l:PgS 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2 PgS 102-111) Pgs 102-1 1 1) 0 0 0 0 0 cl 0 6 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporate d o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 Less Than No Significant lmpac Impact t 0 IXI 0 €x 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 [XI 0 w 0 Kl 0 IXI 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 El 0 IXI Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). h) Expansive soils? (#I :Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-1 5, #2 Pgs i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#I :Pgs 5.1 - 102-1 11) 1 -5.1-15, #2Pgs 102-111) IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (#I :Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1, c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (#I :Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1, #2 d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1, #2 Pgs 95- e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (#I :Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11, #2 Pgs 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? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11, #2 Pgs 95-101) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (#I :Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1, #2 Pgs 95-1 01) 5.2-1 - 5..2-11, #2 PgS 95-101) #2 PgS 95-1 01) PgS 95-1 01 ) 101) 95-101) (#I :PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11, #2 PgS 95-1 01) 5..2-11, #2 PgS 95-1 01) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (#I :Pgs b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3- d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3- 5.3-1 - 5.3-12, #2 PgS 112-121) 5.3-1 - 5.3-12, #2 Pgs 112-121) 12, #2 Pgs 112-121) 12, #2 Pgs 112-121) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? proposal result in: (#I :PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22, #2 PgS 164-1 88) 7 Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cl 0 [XI 0 0 0 [XI 0 Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impac Unless Impact t Mitigation Incorporate d o o w 0 0 w 0 0 w 0 0 [XI 0 o w 0 0 IXI 0 o w 0 o w 0 0 [XI 0 0 [XI 0 O w 0 0 0 0 o w 0 0 [XI 0 0 w 0 0 0 Rev. 03/28/96 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.9. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22, #2 Pgs 164- 188) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22, #2 Pgs g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7.22, #2 PgS 164-188) (#I :PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22, #2 PgS 164-188) (#I :PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22, #2 PgS 164-188) 164-1 88) 5.7-1 - 5.7.22, #2 PgS 164-188) 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? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4- b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4- d) Wetland habitat (e.9. marsh, riparian and vernal e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 24, #2 PgS 54-81) (#I :PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24, #2 PgS 54-81) 24, #2 PgS 54-8 1 ) pool)? (#I :PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24, #2 PgS 54-81) 5.4-1 - 5.4-24, #2 PgS 54-81) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VIII.ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 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? (#l:Pgs proposal? (#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) o 0 0 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 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)? (#I :Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5, #2 PgS 126) 8 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporate d o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than No Significant Impac Impact t o w o w o w o w w 0 w o w 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 [XI o w 0 KI 0 w o w Rev. 03/28/96 .. -. 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#I :Pgs c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? (#I :Pgs 5.1 0.1 -1 - 5.1 0.1 -5) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5, #2 Pgs 47) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1- 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5, #2 PgS 218) 5) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 5.9-1 5, #2 PgS 189-207) (#I :PgS 5.9-1 - 5.9-1 5, #2 PgS 189-207) 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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6, #2 b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4, #2 PgS 208-221 ) PgS 208-221) C) Schools? (#l:PgS 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5, #2 PgS 208- 221) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1 -1 - (1, PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7, #2 PgS 208-221) 5.12.8-7, #2 PgS 208-221) XII. a) b) c) d) e) f) 9) UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 Communications systems? (#I; Pgs 5.12.1-1 - Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7, #2 Pgs 208- Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3- Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8, #2 Pgs 208- Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3, Local or regional water supplies? (#I :Pgs 5.12.2-1 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9, #2 PgS 208-221) 5.12.8-7, #2 PgS 208-221) 221 ) 7, #2 PgS 208-221) 221 ) #2 PgS 222-224) - 5.1 2.3-7, #2 PgS 21 9) 9 0 Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporate d 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 El 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cl 0 0 0 Less Than No Significant Impac Impact t o El o w 0 El 0 Ixl 0 w 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 w [XI 0 [XI 0 IXI 0 w o w 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 IXI Rev. 03/28/96 ” e .. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). XIlI.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? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5, #2 (#I :PgS 5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5, #2 PgS 145-163) (#l:PgS 5.11-1 - 5.11-5, #2 PgS 145-163) PgS 145- 1 63) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10, d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10, #2 5.8-10, #2 PgS 93, 94) 5.8-10, #2 PgS 82-93) #2 PgS 82-93) (#I :PgS 5.8-1 - 5.8-10, #2 PgS 82-93) PgS 82-93) XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#I :Pgs b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#I :Pgs 5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7, #2 PgS 210) 5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7, #2 PgS 210) 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 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 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? 10 0 Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impac Impact Unless Impact t Mitigation Incorporate d o 0 0 IXI 0 o o w 0 0 El w 0 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 €3 0 0 0 w o 0 0 w 0 0 0 El 0 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 [XI 0 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 [XI Rev. 03/28/96 r* e 0 .- . XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Referenced in the above checklist are the earlier environmental analysis thi have been conducted for the project site. Source #I is the Mast( Environmental Impact Report for the City’s General Plan Update (GPA 94-01 and related Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR 93-01) which reviewe the potential impacts of buildout of the City’s General Plan, includin transportation and air quality impacts. Source #2 is the Environmental Impac Report for the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan (EIR 91-04) for MP 139(F) certifie on July 27, 1993, analyzed all the potential impacts for the development an occupation of the over 1800 unit residential master plan. With the mitigatio proposed, the proposed action has no additional impacts not previously analyze in the earlier environmental review. 11 Rev. 03/28/96 -. 0 0 4 m- DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The proposed project consists of the development of the Rancho Carrillo Master PIE Recreation Center on Community Facilities Lot OS-I 1 located at the corner of Carrill Way and Melrose Avenue. The infill site was previously graded as part of the mas grading for the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan project. No sensitive vegetation remain on the site, and all major infrastructure is completed. The site is bounded by Melros Drive to the east, Carrillo Ranch Community Park to the north and west, and Carrill Way to the south. The project‘s access road from Carrillo Way also provides access t park site. Due to the project‘s location immediately south of the Carrillo Ranc Community Park, the project is designed in accordance with the Special Design Pat District standards established by the Master Plan to protect the historic context an feeling of the park site. II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS B. Environmental Impact Discussion Air Quality The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in th updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumptiol and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission o carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspendec particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City a: well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainmen basin”, any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will haw cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, 2 variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurren. with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation o Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions tc promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regiona growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate Genera Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design o the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study’’ checklisl is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification 01 12 Rev. 03f28196 F‘ e 0 < u- Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statemer Of Overriding Considerations” for air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overridin Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s Fin: Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of a quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. Transportation/Circulation The project could potentially impact the Palomar Airport RoadlEl Camino Re: interesection which currently fails the Growth Management level of service requiremer according to a memo from the City’s Public Works Director to the Communit Development Director dated January 25, 2999. To avoid further impacts to thi intersection by traffic generated by the project due to the use of the recreation center a an interim information center, the applicant has agreed to limit the hours of operation t non-peak hours on weekdays. The hours of operation for the information center ar therefore restricted by condition to the non-peak hours of 1O:OO a.m. to 3:OO p.m. 01 weekdays. The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in thr updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segment: will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partis intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the Cit has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas anc major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation c roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City’: 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 measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent witt 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 o 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 applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact“. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. 13 Rev. 03/28/96 C. e 0 1 ". Aesthetics In accordance the Master Plan, the project is designed in conformance with tk development standards for site design, grading, landscaping, building height, setback and architecture established to protect the historic context and feeling the Carril Ranch park site. The single story Spanish style stucco and tile structure is small I scale with outdoor amenities that are compatible with the adjacent park site. Tt- structure is adequately setback from the property line overlooking the park site and tt- architectural style is consistent with the existing ranch structures. 111. EARLIER ANALYSES USED The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in th City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbac California, 92009, (760) 438-1 161, extension 4447. I. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Pla Update (MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Departmen, 2. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan an' General Plan Amendment (EIR 91-04), dated February 8, 1993, City of Carlsbal Planning Department. 14 Rev. 03/28/96 -. a 0 * 8- 15 Rev. 03/28/96 - -6 0 0 .. C LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) The use of the recreation center building as an information center for a period not 1 exceed 18 months from project approval shall be limited to the non-peak hours of 10:C a.m. to 3:OO p.m. on weekdays, ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) PROJECT NAME: RANCHO CARRILLO RECREATION CENTER FILE NUMBERS: SC APPROVAL DATE: APRIL 7, 1999 CONDITIONAL NEG. DEC.: X The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions ( Approval for this project in order to mitigate identified environmental impacts to a level c insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that thi mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City’s monitorin1 requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 31 80 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). II I I I I1 I I I I I I I I I 16 Rev. 03/28/96 L &A .- a 0 .* I 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. Date Signature 17 Rev. 03/28/96 CA __ _---.- - -1 __" . i >: ,~' .' , .I , . ,.'; . - .$ 8'. ,;y /,. March 3, 1999 Ann Hysong City of Carlsbad Carlsbad, CA 92009- 1576 RE: Rancho Carrillo-Community Recreation Center (SDP 98-20) [j 2075 Las Palmas Dr. !\ c;, \ <A \:.. .- I Dear Ms. Hysong; The purpose of this letter is to clarify the desired hours of operation of a temporary Recreation Center be utilized for that purpose. , Information Center, within the Community Recreation Center, should the Community 4 i ' We would only be requesting that the hours of operation on Monday through Friday be from 1O:OO a.m. to 3:OO p.m. and on Saturday and Sunday from 8:00 a.m. to 6:OO p.m. Please call should you have any further questions. - i ,' , ~ Very tnily yours, I Continental Ranch, Inc. \ p& / avid Lother Vice President, Development I, cc: Mike Howes , %. \ g:\shared\general\correspd\dalulysong.doc Carlsbad, Rancho Carrillo California ,@ Telephone: (760) 736-2. A Continental Homes Con http:\\www.truecaliforn