HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-06-16; Planning Commission; Resolution 45630 a
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. 4563
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE
DELAYED ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF THE BUILDING
ELEVATIONS AND FLOOR PLANS OF 95 SINGLE-FAMILY
HOMES ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF
PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, EAST OF MELROSE DRIVE,
AND NORTH OF POINSETTIA LANE IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 18.
CASE NAME: RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE “IS’
CASE NO. : PUD 97-03CC)
WHEREAS, Continental Ranch, Inc., “Owner” and “Developer”, ha
verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding described as:
A portion of sections 18 and 19, Township 12 south, range 3
west, San Bernardino base and meridian, according to the
official plat thereof, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Plan
Development Permit Amendment as shown on Exhibit(s) “A” - “Z” dated June 16, 199
in the Planning Department, RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE “K” - PUD 97-1
provided by Chapter 21.4Y21.47 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitol
Reporting Program document was prepared in conjunction with said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 16th day of June, 199
duly noticed public meeting as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public meeting, upon hearing and considering all tc
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by s
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
~
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered a
relating to the Mitigated 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 1
Commission hereby APPROVES the Mitigated Negative Declara
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program according to Exhil
dated June 16, 1999, and “PII” dated April 28,1999, attached hereto an
part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findinys:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analy
considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts
identified for this project and said comments thereon, and the Mitigation Ma
and Reporting Program, on file in the Planning Department, 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 hereby APPROVES the Mitigated Negative Declarat
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
2. The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative De
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared in act
with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guide1
the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad.
3. The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declarat
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program reflects the independent judi
the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad.
Conditions:
1. The Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of the Rancho ’ i Village “K” Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
...
...
PC RES0 NO. 4563 -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 16th day of June, 199!
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners L’Heureux, Nielsc
Segall, and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioners Compas and Trigas
ABSTAIN:
COURTNEY E. HEINEMAN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
<
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 4563 -3-
0 0
__ City of Carlsbac
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: On the south side of Palomar Airport Road, east of Melrose Dn\
and north of future Poinsettia Lane. Village “K” is within t
Rancho Carrillo Master Plan.
Project Description: The delayed architectural review of 95 single-family homes f;
compliance with the architectural guidelines established for Villa)
“K” within the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan. Property has i
approved tentative map and planned unit development permit.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described proje
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act ar
the Environmental Protection Or&nance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, tl
initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (
revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before tl
proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid tl
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environme
would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Cit
that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore,
Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for thj
action is on file in 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 Van Lynch in the Plannin
Department at (760) 43 8- 1 16 1 , extension 4447.
DATED: April 28,1999
CASE NO: PUD 97-03 (C)
CASE NAME: RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE “K”
PUBLISH DATE: APRIL 28,1999
Planning Director
2075 La Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-1 161 FAX (760) 438-08s
0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: PUD 97-03(
DATE: 04-20-
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Rancho Canillo Village “K’
2. APPLICANT: Hofman Planninp: Associates
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5900 Pasteur Court. Carlsbad CA 9201
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: March 4,1999
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Architectural review of 95 single family homes.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this projel
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Imp2
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Land Use and Planning (XI TransportatiodCirculation Public Services
0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics
0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
(XI Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on t:
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
H I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on t
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigatil
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATE
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
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. A Negatiy
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 tI
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potential
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Master Environment
Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) and the Ranch Canillo Master Plan EIR 91-04 pursuant
applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Mast
Environmental Review (MEIR 93-01) and Ranch Camllo Master Plan EIR 91-0
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed projec
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
dL&$$iL- Y-22-47
Plannerfignature Date
4/22/4cj
Date
2 Rev. 03128196
0 0
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 a significa
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the followir
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and hum;
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negati
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
e 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 informatic
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved.
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to,
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
e “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that tl
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adoptc
general standards and policies.
e “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporatic
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and tl
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce tl
effect to a less than significant level.
e “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that 1
effect is significant.
e Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significa
effect on the environment, but &l potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzt
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicab
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigatc
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed up(
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to l
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the pri
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no addition
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
e When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily requirt
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier El
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement I
Overriding Considerations’’ has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
e A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence th
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
e If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing i
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, a~
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In th
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporate(
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and includix
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect h;
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, 511
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less tlx
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact hi
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 n
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, (
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significa
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of tl
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attentic
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determint
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18, #2 Pg. 122-143)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18 #2 Pg. 122-143)
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
landuses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18, #2 Pg. 122-143)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18 #2 Pg.
(#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18 #2 Pg. 122-143)
122-143)
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6 #2 Pg.
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 -
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
122-143)
5.5-6 #2 Pg. 122-143)
housing? (#l:PgS 5.5-1 - 5.5-6 #2 Pg. 122-143)
111. 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 102-111)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2 Pgs
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#1 :Pgs 5.1-1 -
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
g) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2 Pgs
h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2 Pgs 102-
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#1 :Pgs 5.1-1 -
102-1 11)
5.1-1 - 5.1.15, #2 Pgs 102-111)
5.1-15, #2 Pgs 102-111)
Pgs 102-1 11)
5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2 PgS 102-111)
102-1 11)
111)
5.1-15, #2 Pgs 102-111)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant impac Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
0 0 0 [XI
0 om
U w
0 0 0 IXI
0 0 o w
0 cl [XI
0 0 0 €a
0 0 0 [XI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 w 0 0 [XI
0 IXI
0 0 [XI
0 0 El
0 0 [XI
0 0 El
0 0 [XI
0 0 IXI
5 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff! (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11, #2 Pgs 95-
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11, #2 Pgs
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11, #2 Pgs 95-101)
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 - 52-11, #2 Pgs 95-101)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
11, #2 Pgs 95-101)
101)
95-101)
body? (#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11, #2 Pgs 95-101)
(#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11, #2 Pgs 95-101)
11, #2 Pgs 95-101)
5.2-1 - 5..2-11, #2 Pgs 95-101)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12, #2 Pgs
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12, #2
1 - 5.3-12, #2 Pgs 112-121)
- 5.3-12, #2 Pgs 112-121)
112-121)
Pgs 112-121)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CLION. Would the
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22, #2 Pgs
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?
proposal result in:
5.7-1 - 5.7.22, #2 Pgs 164-188, #3)
164-188)
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22, #2 Pgs 164-188)
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22, #2 Pgs 164-188)
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22, #2 Pgs 164-188)
Potentially Potentially
Significant Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0 0
0 0
0 cl
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
[XI 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
[XI 0
0 0
0
0 0
0 0
6
Less Than No
Significant Impac Impact
0 Ixl
0 w
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 Ixl
0 Kl
0 Kl
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 0
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 0
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 €a
0 [XI
Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 0
5.7.22, #2 Pgs 164-188) 0
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22, #2 Pgs 164-188)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -
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 - 5.4-24, #2 Pgs 54-
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 - 5.4-24, #2
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1
81)
(#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24, #2 Pgs 54-81)
Pgs 54-8 1)
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24, #2 Pgs 54-81)
- 5.4-24, #2 Pgs 54-81)
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
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 & 5.13-
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 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5
proposal?
(#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 0 o
0
0
1 - 5.13-9)
& 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)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5, #2
Pgs 126)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
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)
5.10.1-5, #2 Pgs 218)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
Less Than No
Significant Impac Impact
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 IXI
o w
0 [XI
0 IXI
0 [XI
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 El
o w
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 IXI
0 w
7 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially
Significant Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9-
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#1 :Pgs 5.9-
15, #2 Pgs 189-207) 0
0 1 - 5.9-15, #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 Pgs
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4, #2 Pgs
208-221)
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? (1,
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7, #2 PgS 208-221)
5.12.8-7, #2 Pgs 208-221)
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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
b) Communications systems? (#l; Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7,
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7, #2 Pgs 208-221)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7, #2
e) Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8, #2 Pgs 208-221)
f) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3, #2
g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.13-1 - 5.13-9, #2 PgS 208-221)
#2 Pgs 208-221)
PgS 208-22 1)
Pgs 222-224)
5.12.3-7, #2 PgS 219)
0
0
0 0
0
0
o 0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5, #2 Pgs
5.1 1-1 - 5.11-5, #2 PgS 145-163) 0 0
0
0 0
5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5, #2 Pgs 145-163)
145- 163)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10, #2
10, #2 Pg 93,94) 0 o
0 0
0
10, #2 Pg 82-93)
Pg 82-93)
8
Less Than No
Significant Impa Impact
0 [x
0 lx
0 ffi
0 a
0 Ix 0 Ix
0 E
Ix
0 (x
0 [x
0 Ix
Ix 0 [x
[x
0 Ix
0 Ix
0 [x
0 E o [x
0 E
Rev. 03128196
0 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than Nc Significant Significant Significant Imp2
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses withm the
potential impact area? (#l;Pgs 5,8-1 - 58-10, #2 Pg
0 0 0 lx
0 0 E
5.8-1 - 5.8-10, #2 Pg 82-93)
82-93)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 -
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#I :Pgs
0 0 0 lz
0 0 0 E
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 0 0 0 Ix
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 elminate 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 0 Ix
(“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 0 0 Ix
9 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Referenced in the above checklist are the earlier environmental analysis that have be
conducted for the project site. Source #1 is the Master Environmental Impact Report for t
City’s General Plan Update (GPA 94-01) and related Master Environmental Impact Rep(
(MER 93-01) which reviewed the potential impacts of buildout of the City’s General P1;
including transportation and air quality impacts. Source #2 is the Environmental Impact Rep(
for the Rancho Camllo Master Plan (ER 91-04) for MP 139(F) certified on July 27, 195
analyzed all the potential impacts for the development and occupation of the over 1800 UI
residential master plan.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCFUPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
This project is for the architectural review of 94 single-family homes within a pregrad
subdivision located in Village "K" of the Ranch Carrillo Master Plan. The area is located
27.8 acres south of Palomar Airport Road and East of Melrose Drive (extension).
11 Rev. 03128196
0 e
11. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
B. Environmental Impact Discussion
Air Quality
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updal
1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle mi
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are ’
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since
San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considel
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in 1
updated General Plan will have 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 varil
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisic
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measu
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Dema
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including m;
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable a
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into 1
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is mark
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, 1
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by C
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for
quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequc
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore,
fbrther environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at 1
Planning Department.
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, react‘
TransportatiordCirculation
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updal
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequ;
to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severc
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. Thc
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsb
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersectic
are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerc
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measu:
to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to devel
12 Rev. 03/28/96
0 e
alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestri
linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies wh
adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highw
onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. ‘I
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either be
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 1
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefa
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because 1
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, incluc
a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement
Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General P1a1
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulati
impacts is required.
The City has received its annual Growth Management Traffic Monitoring Report. The Rep
has recorded an unanticipated intersection “level of service” (LOS) failure at Palomar Airp
Road (PAR) and El Camino Real (ECR) during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. T
potentially creates a changed circumstance negating reliance on previous environmen
documentation. .Pursuant to $15162 of the CEQA Guidelines a lead agency must prepart
“Subsequent” environmental documentation if substantial evidence (Le., the recorc
intersection failure) determines that a changed circumstance exists. However, case law 1
interpreted this section of the CEQA Guidelines to not require the preparation of a “Subsequc
EIR” if mitigation measures are adopted which reduce the identified impacts to a level
insignificance.
A mitigation measure has been identified which, if implemented, will bring the peak hours LC
into the acceptable range. The mitigation measure involves construction of two dual right t~
lanes-northbound to eastbound and westbound to northbound. This project has been conditior
to pay its fair share of the intersection “short-term improvements”, thereby guaranteej
mitigation to a level of insignificance.
13 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
111. EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 920(
(760) 43 8- 1 16 1 , extension 4447.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Upd
(MER 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
2. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan and General P
Amendment (EIR 91 -04), dated February 8, 1993, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
3. 1998 Traffic Monitorinc Report for the City of Carlsbad, Valley Research and Plannj
Associates.
14 Rev. 03/28/96
0 a
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
The Developer shall pay their fair share for the “short-term improvements” to the El Cami
Real/ Palomar Airport Road intersection prior to issuance of a building permit. The amount sh
be determined by the methodology ultimately selected by Council, including but not limited
an increase in the city-wide traffic impact fee; an increased or new Zone 18 LFMP f
the creation of a fee or assessment district; or incorporation into a Mello-Roos taxing district.
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
See Attached
15 Rev. 03/28/96
0 e
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES A?
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
n & /94 & *.
Date v Signature u
16 Rev. 03/28/96
0
h 0
*a Y ?g
% 65:
gcj =; 3
r- ay
CLf
rx ..
zcj ILIW =iz kn
2 t 5
ILI 2
Y
W $
$
Fi
J
0 J
tY
0
0 I 0
a
5
lib w
za 4n
+a E6 $E
ZJ
go- o-a
$Z& rncn .g; 6 €2 $
;gg 0
.r i ;
.-
0 04 '0 0 a) .- + L K+'
+ g €5 .- C '5 20 mz .E .? a, s?= E LEE ,o c '5 -om $X!!
k42 .e
agg
cng E E".,
.G -0 -x m a, -=
0 m11: 0 .E a,
@SI 5 (Is=
"I 0-G cJ2+
vEf!j 3 EU b OJ2 g4 5 oE c $2 .- t n @a€ & .o .- 3-
m.F(Isq Cri
E &?-
%'ts 3z 3 .- .= co
@-WN € F.2 s t-2 QS o Eo .=moa, a om .- a9 .= u) a,= ra,
€500 -ma0 BQWu) s.E nJ a, @-c 2 Esg3
gam$ *z E grx
@ g €2
3 @;T;& _o -g 90
-ZEz 2 g.z=
a*= a
OL
a+. L
LCY c 000
.-
K rO
.- a, -0
SS30
a.5 K a .- K K.9 x
0 .- .= co
I-x55
-
v)
m 5
E K
I
c 0 .- $.E 4
Ea
>a,
c
&€
E. "
S
cs 0,
$g
v) -
pg
.- PE
!= sg
E5
'E E .- ,Or E
cg a
-- != .-
- \
+- &T$ii
mLa, 2
a
22aa + 2 om won b
Fm UFkc; .E 5 .s z 2
= qno *g= %I * -I .g
a,Q sa 'j m m .- s .- 5> &+"--? uc; *" b a, O-r gsm sz bqgS"7~uY gora,o €e m.5 2502 a, g 2 n5.g acog*z 2= *uh*sa,F
g -iiPsqa, 3 z *q=o,,og **a,L* c E a,'" ma, g ~ aE
+I >gc a5 (n0Oa)' a, a !=-oh2 .F +I xs, 0-r cz h" s * a, mz
f= " si- m m-2
* 5g mogi- 5 E.r 3n-z.r E$&! h2 k cU s - 0 m+ a- ... 2 0 a, L 0 2.g a, o= zp g=p,s
.- SF =;E s .e
:L CII -Nm~
b-
.- 0
,"h % g g + ;;
a--tik 0255 8
r !-.k a, a, E gEgi- QGo 'TJ6 +$a =EZ.EE.G
0
I
I
i ilji
z.! CI
a' 2:
r
.- CI I; Sf
-
x: Wk