HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-12-01; Planning Commission; Resolution 4667II
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 0
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4667
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED WITHIN THE
SANTA FE ROAD, BETWEEN ITS INTERSECTION WITH
OLIVENHAIN ROAD AND THE SOUTHERN CITY
BOUNDARY N LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE
11.
CASE NAME: COLINA ROBLE
CASE NO.: GPA 98-08
EXISTING AND FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF RANCHO
9
10
11
WHEREAS, Colina Roble, L.L.C., “Developer”, has filed a verified applicat
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
12
13
Existing and future public right-of-way for Rancho Santa Fe
Road, from its intersection with Olivenhain Road to the
southern City boundary
14
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with s; 15
(“the Property”); and
l6 11 project; and
17 11 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of November, 191
18
19
20
on the 17th day of November, 1999, and on the 1st day of December, 1999, hold a duly notic
public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
21 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimc
22
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all fact( 23
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, 2
24
25
26
27
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planni
Commission as follows:
28 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
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
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planr
Commission hereby RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the Negative Declara
according to Exhibit "ND" dated July 26, 1999, and "PII" dated June 1, 1s
attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findinm:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered Negative Declaration (GPA 98-08)
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any commc
thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
b. the Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirement:
the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the Cit)
Carlsbad; and
d. based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidel
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Plann
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of December, 1999, by
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners Compas, L'Heureux,
Segall, Trigas, and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Nielsen
ABSTAIN:
- COURTNEY E. HEINEMAN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
\WW"
l MICHAEL J. ~~LZMI'LLER 11 PC RES0 NO. 4667 -2-
e 0
- City of Carlsbad
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddredLocation: Rancho Santa Fe Road, fiom Olivenhain Road to the southern City
boundary, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California
Project Description: Reclassification of the General Plan roadway designation for
Rancho Santa Fe Road, between Olivenhain Road and the southern
City boundary, fiom a major arterial to a secondary arterial, thus
reducing the right-of-way width and required street improvements.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of date
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Michael Grim in the Planning Department at
(760) 438-1 161, extension 4499.
DATED: JULY 26,1999
CASE NO: GPA 98-08
CASE NAME: COLINA ROBLE
PUBLISH DATE: JULY 26,1999
Planning Director
2075 La Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-1 161 FAX (760) 438-0894
0 e
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: GPA 98-08
DATE: June 1. 1999
BACKGROUND
I. CASE NAME: Colina Roble
2. APPLICANT: Colina Roble. LLC
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 3573 Sunrise Dr. Suite 221. Tuscon A2
857 18 (520) 299-2 179
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: September 10.1998
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reclassification of the General Plan roadway designation for
Rancho Santa Fe Road, between Olivenhain Road and the southern City boundary, fiom a
major arterial to a secondary arterial, thus reducing the right-of-way width and required
street improvements.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Land Use and Planning TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing 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
Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
A e e
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a sigmficant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
[XI I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An Negative
Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an e&lier pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore,
a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
W&&/ Planner Signature Date +@9
Date I I I
2 Rev. 03128196
e. .i
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
0 A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
0 “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
0 “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
0 “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
0 Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
0 When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
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 of
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
0 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
-
0 0
If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated”
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significat
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): #1, pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18, #2)
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)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (#l, pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18, #2)
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,
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)
#2)
0 0 O w
0 0 [XI
0 0 [XI
0 0 0 IXI
0 0 0 [x1
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) 0 0 w
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an 0 0 0 El
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (#l, pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6, #2)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l, pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6, #2) 0 0 0 [XI
4 Rev. 03/28/96
7- 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
0
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
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)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l, pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, 0 0 o w
#2) 0 0 UBI
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#1, pgs 5.1 - 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? (#l,
g) Subsidence of the land? (#l, pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15,
h) Expansive soils? (#l, pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l, pgs 5.1-
(#l, pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2)
- 5.1-15, #2)
#2>
pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2)
#2)
1 - 5.1-15, #2)
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? (#l, pg. 5.2-1 - 5.2-11,
#2) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l, pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1, #2)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? (#l, pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1, #2)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements? (#l, pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1, #2)
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 - 5.2-1 1, #2)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#1, pgs 5.2-1 -
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies? (#l, pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11, #2)
5.2-1 - 5.2-11, #2)
(#l, pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1, #2)
5.2-1 1, #2)
u
u
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 El
0 €3
0 IXI
0 [XI
0 IXI o [XI 0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
o w
w
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [x]
0 [XI
0 [XI
5 Rev. 03/28/96
.. 0 0 + Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
existing or projected air quality violation?
cause any change in climate? (#I, pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-
12, #2)
12, #2)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l, pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-
Potentially
Significant
Impact
[XI
IXI
0
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#l, pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7-
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
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)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l, pgs
22, #2)
uses? (#l, pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7-22, #2)
(#l, pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7-22, #2)
(#I, pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7-22, #2)
5.7-1 - 5.7-22, #2)
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,
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#I, pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-
24, #2)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l, pgs
#2)
(#l, PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24, #2)
pool)? (#l, pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24, #2)
5.4-1 - 5.4-24, #2)
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
El 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
No
Impact
0
H
0 0
0
17
0
0
17
IXI
o w
[XI
El
El
[XI
El
0 0 El
0 0 El
0 0 w
0 0 [XI
0 0 El
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l, pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5, #2) o 0 0 [XI
6 Rev. 03/28/96
e r, Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l, pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5, 0
#2) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of fbture value to
the region and the residents of the State? (#l, pgs
0
5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5, #2)
0
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless Impact
0 0 w
0 0 w
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
b) Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#l, pgs
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazards? (#l, pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-3, #2)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#l, pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-3, #2)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l, pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-3, #2)
5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-3, #2)
5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-3, #2)
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 w
0 0 [XI
0 0 IXI
0 0 [XI
0 0 w
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? (#1, pgs
5.9-15, #2) 0 0 0 [XI
5.9-1 - 5.9-15, #2) 0 0 0 [XI
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? (#1, pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6, #2) o 0 0 C) Schools? (#l, PgS 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6, #2)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services? (#l, pgs 5.12.5-1 -
(#l, pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6, #2) 0
5.12.5-6, #2) .o
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 -
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
#2) 0
5.12.1-5, #2) 0
facilities? (#l, pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5, #2) 0
7
o 0 w 0 0 [XI 0 IXI 0 0 w
0 0 Iz
0 0 w
0 0 w
0 O IXI
Rev. 03/28/96
.,
3 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#I, pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5,
e) Storm water drainage? (#l, pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-
f) Solid waste disposal? (#l, pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5,
g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l, pgs 5.12.1-1
#2)
5, #2)
8.2)
- 5.12.1-5, #2)
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless Impact
0 0 €XI
0 0 Ixi
ON
0 0 IXI
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l,
b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect?
5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5, #2) 0 0 IXI
(#l, 5.11-1 - 5.11-5,#2) 0 0 0 €XI
c) Create light or glare? (#l, 5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5, #2)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l, pgs 5.8-1 -
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#I, 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
5.8-10, #2)
5.8-10, #2)
#2)
(#l, PgS 5.8-1 - 5.8-10, #2)
potential impact area? (#l, pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10, #2)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 Ixi
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
IXI
El
IXI
Ixi
IXI
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l, pgs 0 0 0 Ixi
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7, #2)
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7, #2) 0 0 0 Ixi 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 0 0 0
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?
El
8 Rev. 03/28/96
I. 0 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
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
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?
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
D
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless Impact
0 0 H
0 0 w
XVIL EARLIER ANUYSES.
Development of subject portion of Rancho Santa Fe Road, namely between Olivenhain Road and
the southern City boundary, has been reviewed on two previous occasions. The first occasion
was in the Master Environmental Impact Report for the 1994 General Plan Update (MEIR 93-
01). This document reviewed the potential impacts of buildout of the City’s General Plan,
including transportation and air quality impacts. The second previous environmental review on
the subject property occurred with the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Colina Roble
development (CT 98-02). This document reviewed the potential environmental impacts
associated with the development and occupation of a 28 unit single family development on 35
acres, including the improvement of Rancho Santa Fe Road.
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The proposal involves a General Plan Amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan
pertaining to a portion of Rancho Santa Fe Road. The proposal would reclassify that portion of
Rancho Santa Fe Road between Olivenhain Road and the southern City boundary fi-om a major
arterial to a secondary arterial designation. The subject portion of Rancho Santa Fe Road is
designated as a major arterial for several reasons. It was intended to receive traffic from a
County highway (Highway 680) which would have connected the community of Rancho
Bemardo with Rancho Santa Fe Road. The subject portion of Rancho Santa Fe was also
anticipated to provide north-south circulation between Olivenhain Road in the north and
Encinitas Boulevard in the south, as an alternative to El Camino Real.
The County of San Diego recently eliminated Highway 680 from the County’s Circulation
Element. This action also served to reduce the need to accommodate high traffic volumes on the
subject portion of Rancho Santa Fe Road and other roadway segments in the area. In addition to
the County’s actions, the City of Encinitas recently downgraded the classification of Rancho
Santa Fe Road, between their northern City limits and Encinitas Boulevard, to a local street.
This action reduced the roadway’s effectiveness in providing a north-south circulation
connection alternative to El Camino Real. By reducing the classification of the subject portion
of Rancho Santa Fe Road, the roadway would then taper down from its prime arterial
classification north of Olivenhain Road, to a local classification south of the southern City
boundary. This roadway transition scenario is more preferable than a major arterial changing to
a local street at one intersection.
9 Rev. 03/28/96
.r 0 0
With regard to traffic demands, recent traffic generation and distribution models of the area
indicate that the expected traffic volumes on Rancho Santa Fe Road at buildout of the City are
lower than previously predicted. This traffic reduction is a result of the actual residential
development in the area being less dense than anticipated in the City’s General Plan. With the
deletion of Highway 680, the reduction in traffic capacity in Encinitas, and the reduced
anticipated traffic demand, the downsizing of the subject portion of Rancho Santa Fe Road does
not adversely impact circulation in the area and creates no significant environmental impacts.
Since the proposed reclassification of the Rancho Santa Fe Road would serve to reduce the right-
of-way and the width of improvements, the construction impacts would be lessened. No
development is proposed with this roadway reclassification. All roadway improvements will be
constructed in conjunction with the associated tentative map (CT 98-02), which has been
previously reviewed for potential environmental impacts.
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
The requested change to the Circulation Element roadway classification will not have a direct
impact on the physical environment. All of the potential physical impacts due to the construction
of the roadway have been previously reviewed through the proposed residential subdivision (CT
98-02). According to projected traffic volumes, the proposed reclassification will not create
demand or need for additional roadway construction or cause traffic congestion.
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles
traveled, These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the
San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the
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 variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of 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” 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 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
10 Rev. 03/28/96
.,
I e a
Planning Department.
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT:
The roadway is currently in place and expansion of the roadway to its ultimate alignment and
width will occur concurrent with construction of the Colina Roble residential development. No
construction is associated with this roadway redesignation. The reclassification of the roadway
decreases the width of the improved right-of-way, thereby lessening the area of potential impacts.
No impacts to biological resources will occur due to the proposed General Plan Amendment to
the Circulation Element.
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT:
The proposed roadway reclassification will have no negative impact on the traffic circulation in
the area. According to a traffic study prepared by WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. and dated
March 12, 1999, the anticipated traffic volumes along the subject portion of Rancho Santa Fe at
buildout of the City do not exceed the levels of service performance standards of the City’s
Growth Management Program. No impacted intersections exist near the project area.
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 Em. These include 1)
measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with 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 of 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.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
I e e a
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
12 Rev. 03/28/96