The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1999-07-21; Planning Commission; Resolution 4590\ 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4590 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 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 CARRILL0 VILLAGE “E” CASE NO.: PUD 97-03(B) WHEREAS, Continental Ranch, Inc., “Owner” and “Developer”, ha ELEVATIONS AND FLOOR PLANS OF 95 SINGLE-FAMILY 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 Plam Development Permit Minor Amendment as shown on Exhibit(s) “A” - “L” dated 1999, on file in the Planning Department, RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE “E” - 1 03(B) as provided by Chapter 2 1.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitor Reporting Program document was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 21st day of July, 199! duly noticed public meeting as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public meeting, upon hearing and considering all tr and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by si considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered al: relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 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 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 Declaral 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 and subject to the f condition: Findinps: 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 Mo and Reporting Program, on file in the Planning Department, prior to APPROV 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 Dec and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared in acc 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 ( Village “E” Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. .. . ... ... ... ... I ... PC RES0 NO. 4590 -2- 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21st day of July, 199 following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners Compas, L’Heure Nielsen, Segall, Trigas, and Welshons NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 10 11 12 13 CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I ~ ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HVLZM~LER Planning Director 11 PC RES0 NO. 4590 -3- 0 e - City of Carlsbac MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project AddresdLocation: South of Palomar Airport Road between Melrose Drive and th City’s eastern boundary within the Rancho Carrillo Master Pla area. Project Description: Architectural review of 95 single family homes in Rancho Carrill Village E. 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 an1 the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, th initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1 revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before th proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid th effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environmer 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 thi, action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in thc Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from tht 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 Anne Hysong in the Planniq Department at (760) 438-1161, extension 4477. DATED: JUNE 15,1999 CASE NO: PUD 97-03(B) CASE NAME: RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE “E” MINOR PUD AMENDMENT PUBLISH DATE: JUNE 15,1999 MICHAEL J.mLZhdLLER Planning Director 2075 La Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 (760) 438-1 161 - FAX (760) 438-0894 e 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: PUD 97-03(( DATE105-26-9 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Rancho Carrillo Village “E” 2. APPLICANT: Hofinan Planniny Associates 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NLTMBER OF APPLICANT: 5900 Pasteur Court. Carlsbad CA 9200 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: February 25.1999 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 projec involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impac Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [7 Land Use and Planning H TransportatiodCirculation Public Services 0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems [7 Geological Problems Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics 0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources [x1 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 tl environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. W I find that although the proposed proj.ect could have a significant effect on th environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigatio measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATE1 NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and a ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but s least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlie document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigatio measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Negativ Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. C1 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on thc environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentiall! significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Master Environmenta Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) and the Ranch Carrillo Master Plan EIR 91-04 pursuant tc applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Maste Environmental Review (MEIR 93-01) and Ranch Canillo Master Plan EIR 91-04 including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. b/9/77 Planner Signature u Date /,lroh Date 2 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the Cil conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significal 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 ‘1 use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negatik Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. a 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 ‘bNo Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced informatio 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. a “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that th potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopte, general standards and policies. a “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporatio of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and th City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce tht effect to a less than significant level. a “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that ar effect is significant. a Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significan effect on the environment, but & potentially significant effects (a) have been analyze( adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicablc standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigatec Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upor the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to 01 supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prio~ environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additionaj environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). a When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily requirec to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement 01 Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. a A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. 3 Rev. 03/28/96 e e e If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing a EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, an those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In thi case, the appropriate “Potentially Sigmficant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. e An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and includin but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect ha not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, anc the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less tha significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact ha 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 no possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, o determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significm effect to below a level of significance, A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of th form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attentior should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determine( significant. 4 Rev. 03/28/96 0 a Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated 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 land uses? (#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) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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. 0 cl b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area 0 0 or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6 #2 Pg. 122-143) 0 0 122-143) 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? (#l: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, #2Pgs 102-111) 5.1-15, #2 PgS 102-1 11) .Pgs 102-1 11) 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2 Pgs 102-1 11) 102-1 11) 111) 5.1-15, #2 Pgs 102-111) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CI 0 0 No Impact El w [XI €3 [XI [XI w [XI €3 (XI [XI [XI [XI €XI €3 E IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: 5 Rev. 03/28/96 -. 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- 101) 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 - 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 - 5..2- i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs 11, #2 Pgs 95-101) 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/CIRCULATION. 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) 6 0 Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w 0 0 0 0 0 0 [XI 0 0 0 I7 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than No Significant Impac Impact 0 (XI 0 [XI 0 0 (XI 0 [XI [XI 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 0 0 w 0 IXI 0 [XI 0 0 [XI o w 0 0 ixI Rev. 03/28/96 *. e .I Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 0 (#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22, #2 PgS 164-188) 5.7.22, #2 PgS 164-188) 17 g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#1 :Pgs 5.7-1 - 0 Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impac Mitigation Incorporated Unless Impact 0 0 [XI a w 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) 0 0 0 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 proposal? (#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 0 0 0 inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13- 0 0 0 1 - 5.13-9) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and 0 0 the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) [XI w (XI [XI [XI [XI [XI €3 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 orradiation)? (#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 - 5.10.1-5, #2 Pgs 218) 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, ortrees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cl [XI 0 [XI €a 0 [XI 0 [XI X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: 7 Rev. 03/28/96 ” e .. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). .. Potentially Significant Impact a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9- b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9- 15, #2 Pgs 189-207) o 1 - 5.9-15, #2 Pgs 189-207) 0 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? (#I :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 208-221) Pgs 222-224) 5.12.3-7, #2 Pgs 219) 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 5.11-1 - 5.11-5, #2 PgS 145-163) 5.11-1 - 5.11-5, #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) 10, #2 Pg 82-93) Pg 82-93) 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impac Mitigation Incorporated Unless Impact 0 0 [XI 0 17 w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 KI 0 (XI 0 w 0 IXI 0 KI 0 [XI 0 Bl 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 [XI w 0 €XI 0 0 ixI 0 IXI 0 0 [x1 0 w 0 ,o [XI 0 0 [XI Rev. 03/28/96 .. 0 .. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs 0 potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10, #2 Pg 0 5.8-1 - 5.8-10, #2 Pg 82-93) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the 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 - 0 5.12.8-7, #2 Pgs 210) 5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7, #2 PgS 210) 0 b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the 0 habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California hstory or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? 0 (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, 0 either directly or indirectly? 9 0 Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant lmpacl Mitigation Incorporated Unless Impact ’ 0 [XI 0 0 IXI c7 O w 0 o [XI 0 0 [XI 0 0 IXI 0 0 El Rev. 03128196 .> - e 0 .* XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Referenced in the above checklist are the earlier environmental analysis that have beer conducted for the project site. Source #1 is the Master Environmental Impact Report for the City’s General Plan Update (GPA 94-01) and related Master Environmental Impact Repon (MEIR 93-01) which reviewed the potential impacts of buildout of the City’s General Plan including transportation and air quality impacts. Source #2 is the Environmental Impact Repon for the Rancho Canillo Master Plan (EIR 91-04) for MP 139(F) certified on July 27, 1993 analyzed all the potential impacts for the development and occupation of the over 1800 uni. residential master plan. 10 Rev. 03/28/96 I. .e e a DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONENVIRONMENTAL SETTING This project is for the architectural review of 95 single-family homes within a pregradec subdivision located in Village “E” of the Ranch Carrillo Master Plan. The area is located soutl of Palomar Airport Road and East of Melrose Drive (extension). 11 Rev. 03/28/96 .* , e 0 11. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS B. Environmental Impact Discussion Air quality The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the update’ 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle mile traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactiv organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are th major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since th San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considere cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in thl 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 variet: of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provision for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measure to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demanc Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mas. transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5: participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. . The applicable anc appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into thr design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project i: located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is market “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations’’ for air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. TransportatiodCirculation The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections 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, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop 12 Rev. 03/28/96 .* a 0 w alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestria linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies whe adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highwa onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. Th applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either bee: 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 th failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, thereforc the ‘‘Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project i; consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because thc recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, includec a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement 0 Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’; Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulatiol impacts is required. The City has received its annual Growth Management Traffic Monitoring Report. The Repofi has recorded an unanticipated intersection “level of service” (LOS) failure at Palomar Airpon Road (PAR) and El Camino Real (ECR) during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. This potentially creates a changed circumstance negating reliance on previous environmenta: documentation. Pursuant to 4 15 162 of the CEQA Guidelines a lead agency must prepare a “Subsequent” environmental documentation if substantial evidence (i.e., the recorded intersection failure) determines that a changed circumstance exists. However, case law has interpreted this section of the CEQA Guidelines to not require the preparation of a “Subsequent EIR’ if mitigation measures are adopted which reduce the identified impacts to a level of insignificance. A mitigation measure has been identified which, if implemented, will bring the peak hours LOS into the acceptable range. The mitigation measure involves construction of two dual right turn lanes-northbound to eastbound and westbound to northbound. Ths project has been conditioned to pay its fair share of the intersection “short-term improvements”, thereby guaranteeing mitigation to a level of insignificance. 13 Rev. 03/28/96 t . * v 111. EARLIER ANALYSES USED The following documents were used in the analysis of ths project and are on file in the City ( Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 9200! (760) 438- 1 16 1, extension 4447. 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Updat (MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carkbad Planning Department. 2. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan and General Pla Amendment (EIR 9 1 -04), dated February 8,1993, City of Carlsbad Planning Department. 3. 1998 Traffic Monitoring: Report for the City of Carlsbad, Valley Research and Plannini Associates. 14 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 0 0 b LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) The Developer shall pay their fair share for the “short-term improvements” to the El Camin Real/ Palomar Airport Road intersection prior to issuance of a building permit. The amount sha, be determined by the methodology ultimately selected by Council, including but not limited tc an increase in the city-wide traffic impact fee; an increased or new Zone 18 LFMP fee 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. 03128/96 < b " m. c. s, 9 m ? an 33 aa v, I.g En =d =w =z m m b cn b CT, .. w LL Z 0 42 EE On so zz W LLI u 0 a 5 J J 0 -I -I E 0 I z a gw a- ww rz 25 CI I-W 2 0= > wa 0 72 cr OW a EI a aa a E7 O\ s a .- c -c _v) 0% +mi- 000 g a,G kz 5 v)22 5 0E LZZ s 0s " L .- Y - 5Gri > g -p 2 a+ Q-Jj -w CO a= a,- = EN %mar 23EE = E.G :e rima 0s.- a, ZESa, 0 s,g oazo a, i5 $2 2 + Otd3 .G g E g DE 0 a, 2 &c 0cr 2-z a,s p-;z.n s 0 c an 0- m- 0 0 v)Q- e 0x0 a, 2- >a F- =lm a, m a- s+ am 0 m -= g v) €2 3mo€ L-G c.n 2 Q'E a, a.E av) €-=a tE €s .G a, mi- %€gg "mrn E!=- Q E-55 2 + m a, gg =uz 3 a.a, 0 v) €%==z 9 g.s a, .- E >u 2 a, c a, 3.5 a,* v) 3 mmn F.Pa, g E Q so v) ua, .- mv) m .- -s c .- .c-, 0 s'E c p = 0 0.z 0+'3 0 y- L m.e a, U.PC ,E.= 0 FOE€ v) 5 z 2 zz t 0 .- c. t Ea, &E >9 I e 22 g .$ c2 v z CI eo) K =a, 2 n5 .E =E a, a m\ c o) c .- .- c. 8 SE -E aY .E a= 9 a, La, 0 x0 zii E ZL rm oE 52 s Q): .- 3- 6 m rcL g .G c a =o v) 2I. g zz .P c[J E .=or .2' E- 0 .- a gag * 252 f Eo$ E 2 .- za,m +E0 €90 2Qe a .E ti c, a w 'E .5 - = cu 5 !?: -.. d'.. & 0